As court leaders, it is not uncommon for many of us to have had dealings with the media relating to court operations, from questions as innocuous as the date and time of a hearing to more complicated inquiries as to why a judge made a particular ruling or did not take action and questions about court staff or judicial misconduct. Although some may not have had to deal with the media in this fashion, it is sure to happen at some point. This article seeks to provide advice and support for those court leaders who do not have a dedicated public information officer working in their court to address media relations and public communication. So, what do you do if you do not have a PIO?
First, as the current president of the Conference of Court Public Information Officers (CCPIO), you’ll understand if my first and best answer to the question is to hire a PIO.
Having a dedicated staff member whose focus is media relations and public communication is a best practice, which many government agencies, including the courts, have embraced over time. By hiring a PIO, your court will reap benefits beyond just media relations. For example, such a position can be integral to directing crisis management and helping to facilitate communication during natural disasters and other emergency situations affecting court operations. The time to hire a PIO is now, not when you are already in a crisis. However, we will address this later as I suspect that you may be reading this in a moment of crisis or challenge where you need immediate help or advice.
My second-best answer is to assign someone already on your staff—particularly someone who is dependable and who also has the bandwidth to handle the additional responsibilities. Having a single point of contact, and creating a policy and process to ensure everyone in your court knows to whom to direct media-related inquiries, helps create consistency and displays discipline.
Then have them sign up with CCPIO by visiting CCPIO.org. CCPIO offers endless resources for both new and seasoned PIOs, including prompt access to the organization’s listserv and Slack channel where users can pose questions to the entire membership. It is an excellent way to engage on a national scale with other court users and PIOs, many of whom have likely addressed the circumstances prompting your court’s inquiry. You will get practical advice from court professionals that have been in similar situations and who understand the unique cultural challenges and restraints that come with responding on behalf of a court.
Interacting with the Media
Beyond that, and assuming time is of the essence, here are a few general observations and tips when facing calls from the media or members of the public who are seeking information.
First, DO NOT PANIC! Take time to reflect. Be careful not to overreact or underreact. Receiving a call from a reporter can cause panic, but it is important to meticulously think through your approach until you are comfortable and certain of your strategy and ultimate response. If you do not have regular contact with the media, it is natural to have some trepidation and common to speculate as to why they are asking, what information they already have, and what salient facts they may be leaving out. It is important that you consult all those necessary in formulating a response.
In many cases reporters are simply looking for basic information—for example, innocent questions relating to the time and location of a court hearing, the date a case may be scheduled for trial, or normal courthouse hours of operation. They could be fact-checking a story that was reported by another media outlet, like “Was John Doe sentenced to prison today?”
In these cases, make sure you know everything about the resources available. If you can direct a query to information on your website or to another entity that controls the information, do so. Make sure you have readily available contact information for other agency partners who might be able to provide relevant information, or context, to any ultimate response. Verify all of the relevant case information that is the subject of the inquiry, including party names, case number, presiding judge, and jurisdiction.
Limit your answer to only the specific question that is being asked. For example, in response to a question pertaining to whether a defendant was sentenced, you might respond: “Mr. Smith was sentenced to XX years by Judge Richard Roe in Superior Court.” If they seek additional insight, detail, or color—like what may have been said or who was there—then refer them to either the official court transcript (providing information on how to obtain or pay for one) or the attorneys involved in the case. You want to provide information that is unquestionably factual—the sentencing guidelines for the offense, for instance—but avoid language or descriptions beyond a recitation of facts. Avoid any interpretation of the judge’s action, speculation about what may happen next, or responses to hypothetical questions.
If questions are more complex (or if you have concerns about the true nature of the inquiry) ask for them in writing via email. This will help you quickly and easily share the question with people on your staff, ensure thorough research, and avoid misunderstanding or miscommunication between you or the reporter.
Always ask about the reporter’s deadline, if there is one, and be forthright and honest about your ability to respond within that time. A reporter’s urgency is good to know and can shape the depth and tenor of the response. This also may help you determine if the question is just a “fishing expedition” where they really don’t know what they are looking for and don’t have a firm deadline versus a story that is largely complete.
Set clear terms for the conversation. It is always best to consider everything you say as being “on the record” and as fair game to be quoted. If you are uncomfortable, ask to call the reporter back after you have collected your thoughts and confirmed the response with all pertinent personnel in your court. You should ask and expect the courtesy of having quoted material read back to you to make sure it is accurate and represents what you wish to say.
There are two schools of thought when one is speaking with reporters, and one is to never speak “off the record.” This has the advantage of simplicity and avoids any misunderstanding about what is, or was, “off the record.” In addition, there are some reporters who will not speak to you unless it is “on the record.”
If you do wish to speak “off the record,” be aware that reporters, by default, are always “on” and will treat all communication as “on the record” and for attribution. It is important to get any agreement to speak “off the record” before starting the conversation. If you try to say “but that was all off the record” later, or at the end of the conversation, many reporters may feel they were tricked. Further, since they did not agree at the outset, they may feel they are entitled to use whatever was discussed as having been “on the record,” particularly if they clearly identified themselves at the start of the conversation as a reporter.
As part of this “off the record” conversation, make sure you both agree what “off the record” means. In general, this usually means it is not to be used in a story. Another term of art for this kind of discussion could include “on background,” which usually means that the information can be used but is only attributed to a “court spokesperson” or “court official.” Television reporters are usually very eager for this type of interaction as they are unlikely to quote you by name and just want to describe the process or situation accurately.
As part of these kinds of exchanges, trust but verify. If you get agreement before speaking, and if the reporter is from a legitimate news organization you know and generally trust, they will abide by the terms. If you do not recognize the organization, do a quick internet search or ask that they send you a link to their publication or past stories. In any event, proceed with caution if you don’t know the reporter or recognize their organization.
Speaking on background, if appropriate, will cut down on any “gotcha” moments while providing you a chance to discuss what the reporter is looking for, why they are looking for it, and the level of urgency. In many cases you may find they are simply looking for answers about certain court processes. They may be more than happy to have a “background” conversation where you explain the process without direct quotes or attribution. Speaking “on background” will also give you an opportunity to offer simple explanations and clear up any obvious misconceptions.
If you are uncomfortable speaking to a reporter about process, even off the record, you should make sure to have the phone number for a contact at a nearby law school, or perhaps the number of a retired judge you trust to provide to the reporter for an “on the record” explanation. This, of course, assumes the question relates to general processes and the law, and not a court-specific policy where only a court official should respond.
This may all seem overwhelming, and your initial instinct might be to ignore the question in the hopes it will go away. Failing to respond can be fraught with similar consequences as if you were to respond poorly or with incorrect information. Ignoring or, in the reporter’s eyes, stonewalling an inquiry can turn a potentially positive and benign interaction into a negative one, both for the specific inquiry at issue and in the future.
If the reporter calls to get basic information and never hears back, he or she is likely to take the position that the courts are inaccessible and unresponsive. It will almost certainly prompt a line in the story or report of “the court did not respond to calls.” This could damage the reputation of your court in the short term for that story and taint your relationship with not only the reporter and their media outlet but also the public at large. Although the National Center for State Courts recently found a slight uptick in the public’s trust for the courts following a period of decline, NCSC recommends that greater outreach and transparency will foster increased public trust in the courts.
Failure to respond to inquiries may make a reporter, and the public who reads or hears their accounts, more likely to accept baseless attacks on the court, including misinformation and disinformation.
In addition to the substance of your response, it is important to follow a process that builds trust and recognizes the demands on reporters. When possible, acknowledge a media inquiry with a holding statement as simple as “let me check and get back to you” or “we are aware of the situation and are looking into it.” This lets the reporter know their question is being acted on. If a significant amount of time is required to respond, perhaps due to research needed or the involvement of other agencies, it is good practice to provide an update with an explanation or estimate on how long a response may take to allay the reporter’s fears that they are being ignored.
Similarly, a response of “no comment” should be used sparingly, if at all. Whenever possible, it is best practice to provide at least some kind of explanation if a full response is not possible. For example, instead of “no comment,” consider “the court is not able to respond as that would require a legal opinion” or “court rules/ethical or judicial canons prevent us from providing any comment” or “we do not comment on personnel matters due to privacy concerns.”
And a word about being helpful—some take the position that dealing with the media is adversarial. This mentality can create a combative situation where one does not necessarily exist. Even the most aggressive media organizations are typically looking for information that is likely public record. Having a default aggressive posture on all questions may needlessly perpetuate an acrimonious relationship that could interfere with the most basic of interactions to correct misunderstandings or misperceptions.
If you can establish a relationship with your local media, through a PIO or designated staffer, as a trusted resource, you and your court can correct issues, particularly misinformation, disinformation, or simple misunderstandings, before they are published or aired. If a reporter knows who to contact at the court to get a short, simple answer to their inquiry in a timely manner on deadline, you will be among the first stops and a trusted fact checker. This will be your best defense.
Establishing a rapport with media outside of a deadline or contentious issue is best and they will be more likely to take your responses at face value when that deadline crisis or controversial issue arrives.
Another online resource besides CCPIO is the NACM 2020 Media Guide for Today’s Courts, created with the assistance of CCPIO. While it is now a few years old, it still contains a great deal of useful guidance, including more advice and tips on dealing with the media, tips when sitting for an interview, how to write an effective press release, website accessibility, creation of a media plan, and the advantages and pitfalls associated with social media.
Final Thoughts
To circle back to where we began, there is no substitute for a PIO or designated staffer to handle media relations and communication. Although there are many resources to consult, each state, community, and court has its own challenges, community standards, and media environment and having a designated individual well-versed in these nuances is ideal. Further, it is difficult to anticipate in any guide or essay all the potential issues that may come up, and no guide can help you, particularly in a moment of crisis, establish solid relationships based on trust with key media figures and the community when you need it most.
Years ago, courts could rely on veteran reporters in well-staffed media organizations to get it right and, if an issue of controversy arose, accurately report the court’s side of the story. Those reporters knew the court system, knew the law, and in many cases knew the judges or perhaps even the court administrators. Those days are, unfortunately, disappearing and, in many instances, have disappeared entirely. Media organizations, particularly legacy media (which to my mind is synonymous with quality media) are in decline. They are doing more with less, and in many cases are staffed with rookie reporters who have never stepped foot in a courthouse. You may think this is not your concern, but it will be. These inexperienced reporters are more likely to accept what sources with agendas whisper to them in a conspiratorial phone call or accept what they read in an online forum or from a self-styled expert who may or may not be part of a disinformation campaign.
Having a full-time PIO means you will have a trusted person on staff who knows the media terrain, including which media organizations are legitimate.
Most importantly, your PIO will understand the mission of the court and how that mission impacts your community. To that end, your PIO will know the best way to publicize the work the court does every day to ensure justice. Because in the often-quoted words of Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England, “[J]ustice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Sean O’Sullivan is president of the Conference of Court Public Information Officers (CCPIO) and chief of community relations for the Delaware courts
