For the uninitiated – or for those who might be under the illusion it’s quid pro quo, or for those who think it’s a service provided free-of-charge for them as needs it – media relations is a game.

And like most games, it has rules.

One of them says before a journalist can run a story, they must either have it confirmed by the subject of the story or corroborated by an independent source (or, better still, two).

This is important when a journalist discovers something about your business, brand or organisation that they feel is newsworthy and that they want to write about.

This happens for lots of reasons. For example, because you’ve submitted a planning application or filed some paperwork with the Companies Registration Office or applied for a patent, or a registered trademark, or some other form of publicly available document.

Obviously, it’s inconvenient. There are going to be things you don’t want talked about because, well, you consider them to be commercially sensitive, or even confidential. But you cannot blame the journalist; they’ve done their job, they’ve dug around, and they’ve found a story – or at least the bones of one.

They’ll call you, and at that point you have a choice. You can decide that you will talk about whatever it is – who knows, there might actually be some benefit in it – and you can confirm their story. This means, according to the rules, they can run it.

Or you can choose not to engage – by declining to confirm, deny or comment on the information presented. At this point, if the journalist is going to build a legitimate story then they need corroboration from an independent source

Twice recently we have had calls from journalists chasing stories relating to our clients. In both cases – having declined to comment – we’re told that they already have a source to corroborate their information, that the story will run anyway, and that this is our chance to have some input.

The sources were confidential – as should be the case. Protecting the identity of sources is a fundamental cornerstone of journalistic integrity, one that is essential for holding power to account. However, this comes at the cost of transparency. It allows journalists to hang ‘secret sources’ like bait on a fishing line, hoping you’ll be lured in for a nibble and, in doing so, become the real source that confirms the story.

Yes, media relations is a game with rules, but rules are made to be bent and broken. You need people with big-game experience on your team – ideally someone who has played both sides of the game, who knows the workings of the media as well as your business priorities.

In the case of both of these stories, when it came to publication, there was no source and no real story.

It might be that the sources changed their mind about corroboration. However, experience suggests the secret source – much like the secret ingredient in the film Kung-Fu Panda – was “secret” for another reason.

Things to consider when dealing with secret sources:

• Sources aren’t always people; they can also be documents.
• Journalists often need you to be a source – and they will dress this up as a request for confirmation or comment on information relating to your business.
• Ultimately they’re looking for you to fall into the trap of confirming what is currently unconfirmed.
• Reporters also want your insight to ensure their stories are accurate. Their stories are weaker without it – both in language and detail.
• Correcting inaccuracies presented to you might be tempting but it provides a form of confirmation for the journalist. Is the risk of engaging worth the reward?
• Declining to confirm, deny or comment on information presented by a journalist leaves the reporter reliant on alternative sources.
• A story without a quote even from an unnamed source is almost always single sourced and far less convincing.
• Stories often fall away when a “no comment” leaves a reporter reliant solely on their secret source.