By David Oladimeji
In the world of public relations, there is a curious paradox: stakeholders often stay silent when positive stories about them make the headlines, yet scramble to issue statements, call press conferences, or flood the airwaves when negative publicity surfaces.
It is a pattern that communication experts have long observed. Good news is often celebrated quietly, if at all, while bad news is treated like an emergency demanding instant damage control. The question is, why?
One explanation lies in the psychology of perception. Human beings are hardwired to treat threats with greater urgency than praise. For an organization or leader, a negative report feels like a fire spreading through dry grass — it must be extinguished before it causes lasting damage.
Positive news, however, is viewed as safe and non-threatening. It does not endanger reputation, and so it slips into the background, unacknowledged and underutilized.
Take for instance when a corporate body donates to a community or launches an impactful project. The story may receive some coverage, but often, the organization itself fails to amplify it. Compare this to when a scandal breaks — suddenly, the same organization is issuing statements, paying for media slots, and engaging influencers to “correct the narrative.”
The underlying problem is that many stakeholders treat publicity only as a defensive tool rather than an offensive strategy. They use the media to fight fires but neglect to use it to build trust when things are going well.
Another factor is the culture of crisis communication. Many organizations invest heavily in crisis response plans but very little in strategies for amplifying positive coverage. The result is an overdeveloped reflex to react and an underdeveloped ability to celebrate.
Ironically, by ignoring positive publicity, stakeholders rob themselves of one of the strongest shields against negative press. A consistent record of good stories builds goodwill, and that goodwill softens the blow when bad news eventually comes.
Consider the difference between two public figures. One regularly acknowledges positive coverage, thanks journalists, and shares good stories with the public. The other stays silent until there is a scandal. When both face a crisis, the first will find the public more forgiving, while the second will be met with cynicism.
Media practitioners often complain that their positive reports are treated as invisible. Stories that highlight progress, reforms, or social impact receive little engagement from the very stakeholders who should be the most grateful. Yet the same stakeholders are quick to accuse the media of bias when a critical report surfaces.
This imbalance not only strains media relations but also signals a lack of appreciation for communication as a long-term investment. Publicity should not be about crisis alone; it should be about building a consistent narrative of credibility, performance, and trust.
Stakeholders also underestimate how much communities and audiences value being reminded of progress. Positive reports, when amplified, can inspire confidence, attract investment, and even shape public opinion more effectively than defensive rebuttals.
The neglect of positive coverage also reflects a deeper mindset: the belief that “good deeds speak for themselves.” But in today’s noisy media landscape, silence is dangerous. If stakeholders do not tell their own stories, others will — and not always favorably.
Communication experts recommend a balance: respond to negative publicity when necessary, but never ignore good press. A simple gesture like publicly appreciating a positive article can build bridges with the media and extend the reach of the message.
Ultimately, stakeholders must learn that reputation is not only protected in times of crisis but also nurtured in times of calm. By embracing positive publicity as eagerly as they counter negative press, they can shape stronger narratives, earn deeper public trust, and build resilience against the storms that inevitably come.
