What is the number one nightmare for public relations practitioners?

It is the moment when their clients (the newsmaker) mention "no comment" to the media.

Because stonewalling the media implies that the newsmaker has something to hide.

What if the media interviews a newsmaker who says too much, especially on issues that are embarassing to the organisation?

Will the media continue to present both sides of the story?

Before we proceed, a little background story:

SMRT Ltd (Feedback), the undisputed mega troll of Singapore, decided to help newly-formed Singaporeans First Party (SFP) set up its own Facebook page. Except it did not represent SFP.

Smelling a potential awkward incident for SFP's founder Tan Jee Say, the Straits Times gleefully reported the story, claiming how party "is not amused" about the fake page.

But the joke's on Straits Times too.

The Straits Times claimed that "the fake page's moderator did not respond to messages from The Straits Times" (see highlights in red).

Source: The Straits Times

But it appears that the moderator responded to The Straits Times [We assume that SMRT Ltd (Feedback)'s page can be trusted this once]

The Straits Times just did not publish the moderator's response.

Source: SMRT Ltd (Feedback)

Dear Straits Times, I think you owe the moderator an apology for not covering both sides of the story or at least update your article with a quote from the moderator.

But we don't know whether you want to quote them on the 'troll', 'shitty' or 'intestines' part.

Related articles

Indonesian media outlets compete to see who can get trolled worse by S’pore satirical website

The Anton Casey brouhaha shows trolls everywhere are the same

Check out how The Straits Times captioned their front page photo wrongly

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.