PR control

I had a recent exchange with a technology company that originally declined to comment until I mentioned that I had criticisms.

"Andrew, I've just spoken to a colleague of mine and I'm afraid that this is an area that the GSMA can't comment on. Sorry we can't be of more help."

The PR guy then changed his tune and said that maybe his company could comment if I sent the questions in advance.

"Andrew, could you send over the specific questions and criticisms you have on this, if not too much trouble?"

My answer:

"Sure, I'll be glad to provide questions if we agree to an interview."

His response:

"I'm afraid if we can't see any questions up front then we'll have to decline. Sorry for the inconvenience, but we always as for questions up front a) to see if we can actually answer them and b) sometimes a response via email is easier and quicker as a lot of our spokespeople travel, etc.

One reason why we can't comment is because of confidentiality and our hands are tied unfortunately - it's not that we don't want to help you!"

There's not much logic in saying that you need the question in advance to determine if you can actually answer it because if the expert does not know the answer, then the obvious answer would be, "I don't know." In that spirit, an expert may also decline an answer if it would breach confidentiality. In regards to taking questions in advance because experts are traveling, well, GSMA is a technology organization specializing in mobile telephony. Unless these experts are physically on an airplane, it's not clear how they would be unavailable to speak.

I told him that I would simply write that GSMA declined to comment. He actually told me, after twice declining to comment, that it would be factually inaccurate to write that GSMA declined to comment:

"I'd also like to point out that you would actually be factually inaccurate to say that we would not comment, without actually asking us the question - however which way we answer it."

My answer:

"The truth is I'm just a journalist trying to make sense of the general context of these agreements and as such I am not proposing any specific questions, but am looking for an expert to explain the reasons for these agreements. If you cannot provide someone to speak for a few minutes without specific questions in advance, then I will
continue to accurately write the story, albeit without the contextual viewpoint of GSMA, which was not available until I mentioned potential criticisms.

Here is the statement I'm using that would make the declining to
comment accurate:

"Andrew, I've just spoken to a colleague of mine and I'm afraid that this is an area that the GSMA can't comment on. Sorry we can't be of more help."

Thanks for responding to these emails."

Maybe I'm wasting my time but I grow tired of PR people who don't want to do their jobs and try to control journalists. I contacted this organization several times for weeks and they never even bothered to answer that they would not comment. What began as an innocuous inquiry became a frustrating battle. While I may have missed the chance to get a comment, I don't really care because the organization ignored my repeated requests then declined to comment. How incredulous is this guy that he would question my ethics by saying I would be factually inaccurate!