Waiting For The 'Request For Comment'

[Pat 'iTZKooPA' Mulhern]

Many articles have the obligatory 'request for comment has gone unanswered as of press time', or something along those lines. Generally when it's a juicy story. Of course, we know the person in question likely waited 10 seconds before actually posting the article, and that's my question. How long do you guys wait?

I recently had a juicy comment from GameRanger that would have been good to run on its own, although it happened to come off as a bit one-sided and trollish. I waited a few hours to hear back from Gearbox. After not receiving word for some time, I just called the company and got an immediate comment, which happened to take a lot of bit out of the post, thus lowering my traffic.

I believe that many other sites would have run the article, received a ton of hits, and then done an update, likely receiving even more. What's the proper waiting time?

[Chris Cesarano]

Honestly, the "proper" waiting time is exactly what you had done. However, that's responsible reporting, and even the mainstream media doesn't wait for a proper response. It's all about being the first and getting the hits.

I think if you want to get the hits but don't want to be irresponsible, keep an objective attitude in your writing. Be sure to say "this is just one side of the story, but there could be blah and blah reasons on the other side as we wait for comment". Not saying this out of experience, but there've been plenty of fake news announcements that have hit all the major sites just because no one bothers to fact check.

Be as responsible of a reporter as you can be.

[Nathan Meunier]

Back when I was doing newspaper reporting and working on churning out 7-9 stories that required numerous interviews for each piece, I ran into this a lot. Typically, I'd make multiple attempts to reach people and give them the opportunity to respond. In some cases I'd hold the story for a week and double up my efforts if the interview was crucial. In other cases I'd make multiple attempts, wait a bit, and try a few more times. If they don't get back to you at that point, then you can fairly say you've done due diligence in trying to reach them and put "multiple attempts to reach so and so were unsuccessfuly be press time" or "so and so did not respond to multiple requests for comment by deadline." Etc. While some honestly are unable to respond by deadline, there are plenty that just silently tell you to F*** off and not bother to respond.

If they get back to you and it's too late, then there's always room for follow-ups.

[Ben Kuchera]

It's rare that a PR person or a contact isn't incredibly aware of their e-mail. Don't just ask for comment, say you're on a five-hour deadline and you'd love a comment. If they don't answer in five hours, it's fair game to say you contacted them and have yet to hear back. This is their job, and most PR people don't sleep. I was scheduling E3 appointments last year and pinged someone at, literally, four in the morning. I thought I would get a jump by having my e-mail being in their in-box in the morning, and was amazed when in five minutes I got a response via their iPhone.

If you have a solid contact and don't hear back in a reasonable amount of time (which I consider to be measured in hours in most cases) it means they're not answering the e-mail, and that's a legitimate no comment. It's a measure of your relationship with the contact and your dealings with them in the past. But if you have a solid lead on who to comment realize it's their job to respond to the press. If they don't do so in a timely manner it's on their head, not yours.