And why does it sometimes make headlines precisely when you would rather it didn’t?
A scandal involving a senior executive. Suspicions of espionage. An investigation that extends beyond someone’s private life and raises questions about an organization’s governance. These are the ingredients that can turn a company into an international news story, even when it would prefer headlines about its investments, innovations or results.
The news a company generates is not always the news it wants published.
The reason is simple: the media have their own agenda, which rarely aligns with a company’s priorities. Organizations want to communicate achievements, investments, launches and strategic plans. Journalism follows different criteria: public interest, relevance, impact, novelty and context.
Yet there is an interesting finding about this relationship. According to the State of Journalism 2026, a survey by Muck Rack, a US technology company specializing in public relations and media intelligence, 86% of journalists surveyed say at least some of their stories originate from pitches by PR professionals. At the same time, 88% discard pitches that do not match their beat.
The figures reveal something important: journalists welcome contributions from companies, but those contributions may differ from the announcements companies want to make.
This gap between agendas is precisely where the strategic value of good media relations lies, along with the organic editorial coverage it helps earn.
An effective media relations team understands its client’s business in depth, knows how journalism works and follows the events shaping society. That combination makes it possible to identify opportunities, establish relevant connections and develop story ideas that interest journalists.
The value of organic editorial content lies in its independence. Unlike advertising or sponsored content, publication depends on the outlet’s editorial judgment rather than space purchased by a company. That independence can lend information greater credibility and help build an organization’s reputation and authority.
The objective is to build brand authority: the power to shape and change opinions. To do so, a company needs to work on its discoverability across all communication systems, from news outlets and social media to search engines and artificial intelligence systems. At Smart, we organize this work around two dimensions: Authority in Conversations, which involves a relevant presence and legitimacy in discussions that matter to the organization, and Algorithmic Authority, which involves being found, understood, cited and recommended by systems. Building that authority requires working across at least three complementary areas: organic editorial content, sponsored editorial content such as branded content projects, and content on owned channels.
What helps a company earn media coverage?
Newsworthiness depends on the ability to connect company information with events and issues of public interest.
This is the strategic role of media relations: identifying editorial opportunities, providing knowledgeable sources and developing story ideas that support journalists’ work.
Making this content useful requires editorial judgment: identifying the right subjects, recognizing the right moment and offering information, sources and perspectives that contribute to coverage of issues that matter to society.
The question, then, should go beyond how can we publicize this announcement? to why would this information matter to someone outside the company?
That shift in perspective requires business knowledge, an understanding of the external environment and the ability to recognize opportunities that may never appear on the corporate calendar.
What matters to a company may not matter to the public
Every organization has developments it considers worth announcing: a product launch, a new leader, an investment, a certification, a new facility or the results of a project.
Internally, these milestones may represent months of work and significant strategic decisions. But something can matter greatly to an organization without being newsworthy.
In a study published in Journalism Studies, Tony Harcup and Deirdre O’Neill revisited the criteria that help determine the news value of an event. These include impact, conflict, novelty, relevance, proximity and public interest.
Their paper, What Is News? News Values Revisited (Again), reinforces a fundamental point: an event’s news value is not determined by how important its central player considers it to be.
An investment worth millions of reais may be a major achievement for a company and still attract little interest beyond its industry. Conversely, a seemingly routine decision can become news when it reveals a significant shift in consumer behavior, employment practices or the economy.
The difference may have less to do with the scale of the event than with what it means.
Newsrooms do not work to corporate calendars
There is also a fundamental difference between the pace of organizations and the pace of journalism.
Companies work with schedules, campaigns, launches and commercial priorities. Newsrooms work with events, context, public interest and editorial decisions.
A company may spend months preparing an announcement and want it published on a specific date. Yet a political crisis, an economic decision or an international event that day can completely change the news agenda.
What seemed relevant yesterday may no longer be relevant today.
This does not mean media relations is unpredictable or cannot be planned. It means planning must account for a variable the organization does not control: the world around it.
A story about regulatory change, technological transformation or a market trend may create an opportunity for a company to contribute relevant data, knowledge and analysis.
The media relations team needs to recognize these opportunities and understand when the organization has the credibility to join the conversation.
A sound media relations strategy begins with an understanding of the public agenda, alongside the company’s own priorities.
Does your company need to be the story?
This may be the most important question.
An organization does not need a launch, an acquisition or a major investment to contribute to public debate.
A technology company can help explain the economic implications of artificial intelligence. A financial institution can offer insight into changes in credit markets. A manufacturer can contribute to an understanding of the challenges of the energy transition.
In these cases, the organization’s value to a journalist may lie in the knowledge it can offer rather than the announcement it wants to make.
Instead of looking exclusively for opportunities to talk about itself, the company starts identifying situations where its experience helps explain relevant developments.
This requires prepared executives, reliable information, deep sector knowledge and a willingness to join conversations in which the organization may not be the central player.
It also requires recognizing that journalists remain independent, free to investigate, question, provide context and consult other sources.
Authority is not established through repetition of corporate messages. It depends on the ability to contribute information and perspectives that have value beyond the interests of those offering them.
What happens when the story is one nobody wanted?
Organizations can plan what they want to communicate, but they cannot control every event that might affect their reputation.
In certain circumstances, individual behavior, business decisions and external events take on institutional consequences. The boundary between an executive’s private life and an organization’s reputation can become particularly complex when governance, trust or security is at stake.
In these situations, communication cannot erase the facts or dictate how journalists will interpret them.
Its role is to help the organization respond responsibly, transparently and with verifiable information.
Trust built over time can contribute to the credibility of that response. But no communication strategy can replace consistent conduct and sound decisions.
From exposure to authority
Changes in the information environment make this discussion even more relevant.
The Digital News Report 2026, published by the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford, examines how news consumption is distributed across digital platforms, social media, video and news outlets.
In this environment, earning attention is only part of the challenge.
Companies need to understand the difference between visibility, credibility and authority.
Visibility allows an organization to be seen. Credibility helps its information be considered trustworthy. Authority develops when its knowledge is recognized as relevant within a particular field.
These dimensions are related, but they are not equivalent.
Read the Digital News Report 2026.
A company may appear frequently in the media without being recognized as a leading source of expertise. Equally, it can build authority in its sector through consistent contributions without making headlines every day.
That is why media relations should be evaluated on more than the volume of coverage generated.
The quality of editorial opportunities, the relevance of the subjects addressed, the credibility of sources and the contribution to the organization’s positioning also need to be part of that assessment.
Ultimately, strategic communication must help a company do more than gain exposure.
It must help the organization understand when it has something relevant to say, why it matters and how it can contribute to the conversations shaping perceptions of its sector and its work.
Good media relations does not reshape journalists’ agendas to suit companies. It helps companies find their place in the conversations that matter.
