Dan Primack of Fortune.com writes about the semantics of “no comment” from a company CEO who may or may not be involved in negotiating a merger or acquisition.
Primack writes, “I don’t begrudge anyone their opinion (including about me), but I do feel that there may be a fundamental misunderstanding about what ‘no comment’ usually means to reporters.
“My argument was largely that Marco, assuming he didn’t want to confirm the report, should have simply said ‘no comment’ (assuming he picked up the phone in the first place). That way he neither violates NDA nor lies. But some of you argued that a CEO’s ‘no comment’ is de facto confirmation. A non-denial, as it were.
“For those who feel this way, please know that you are mistaken. ‘No comment’ is exactly that, no comment. Neither confirmation nor denial. In fact, it’s only real use to a reporter is that it lets us know our inquiry was received. Any reporter who bases stories on his or her hunch as to the deeper meaning of ‘no comment’ will soon be out of a job for printing all sorts of inaccurate stuff.
“A few readers also emailed to sympathize with Marco, with one asking ‘what else could he do to kill the story?’
“The answer here is ‘probably nothing.’ Once a reporter calls a CEO about something like this, it means the leak has already occurred. And the reporter likely trusts the original source(s). Perhaps you can bribe the reporter with a ‘better’ story if they hold the scoop, but that’s only if you actually have something of superior value.”
Read more here.
