Bell Pottinger’s David Wilson writes in defence of “no comment”

Say nothing! It might go against the grain for someone in the limelight, but sometimes the best policy is keep quiet says David Wilson, chairman of Bell Pottinger Public Relations – 2011’s super injunction stories prove the point.

When we look back on 2011, no doubt one of the big stories of the year will be the row over super injunctions.

It seems hardly a day goes by without another spate of guessing games over the identity of someone hiding behind a court-imposed reporting restriction. Which premiership footballer or Hollywood actor is the culprit this time?

Twitter has emerged as a tour de force, a force indeed for unrestricted communication. It is seemingly able to floor the rich and famous by ignoring hugely expensive court actions to out people left, right and centre.

We have yet to see where all this will lead. A decision on whether Twitter and its fellow social media brethren will be curbed is still to be taken. As a former “hack” who had to understand and balance the limitations of the law with the justification for free speech and reporting, why should social media be different to traditional media channels? If you libel another, or breach a legal reporting restriction, then surely it’s a breach plain and simple. I’m not defending what might be a bad law, but law in itself. Piers Morgan will surely know that better than anyone.

But what seems certain is this: celebrities do need to rethink how they respond in light of the growing power and impact of social media. In other words, they need to get better at their own, personal crisis management … if they can’t keep their pants on!

How do they do that? Well, for once, although I thought I’d never say it, a “no comment” option might actually be THE best option!

When rumour and speculation begins to surface, sometimes not responding can be the best strategy. By commenting, celebrities often seem to give extra legs to a story that might otherwise simply die a death.

I am sure Jemima Khan was horrified at the suggestion that she had obtained a super injunction preventing publication of ‘intimate’ pictures of her and Jeremy Clarkson. But did sending 12 Tweets about it in a day, each showing her increasing irritation and distress, make it less of a story? To the contrary, this actually fuelled media scrutiny.

What if she’d ignored it? Would pictures of her been all over the newspapers the next day? If they didn’t exist (and I’ve no reason to believe the story true at all) then none would be published – they couldn’t be.

Contrast that with Clarkson’s dry one-line response: “It’s odd. I’m sure I’d remember if any photos of us existed.” Doesn’t that one line putdown work better? Often the best way to deal with rumour and allegation is to send it up, not engage with it.

Celebrities left reeling after their super injunctions have failed, and even before they’ve gone down the legal route, do now need to ask themselves: Should I ‘fess up, apologise and be contrite? Should I come out all guns blazing and defend myself? Or should I just completely ignore it and hope the 24/7 news and gossip cycle moves on to someone new?

All of these may have their merits. As indeed, may outing yourself before anyone else gets the chance (witness Andrew Marr). So although “no comment” is often said not to be an option, in certain circumstances we now have to make a stand in its defence.

To corrupt that famous BT strapline: sometimes it’s good NOT to talk!