Key takeaways
• Copy approval is not a guaranteed right and many publications avoid offering it to protect editorial independence.
• The biggest reputational risks are usually created before publication through unclear messaging or insufficient interview preparation.
• Strong media relations rely more on trust, preparation, and clarity than on trying to control editorial outcomes.
• Written Q&As and detailed briefing processes can help reduce risk without undermining journalistic credibility.
After you’ve given an interview, you don’t control what gets published and in complex industrial sectors – where accuracy, nuance, and reputation matter – that loss of control can feel like a real risk. Internally, it often triggers pressure: leadership teams who want certainty; legal teams who want protection; from stakeholders who assume there must be a way to check what goes out before it’s live.
This is usually the moment when copy approval enters the conversation. It can feel like a way to manage risk – a final check before anything becomes public – but that’s where the misunderstanding begins.
What is copy approval?
When we say ‘copy approval’, we are talking specifically about the opportunity to review and request changes prior to publication of content written by journalists. This could be a write-up of an interview or a press event, for example.
We are not talking about the internal approval process all press releases, bylined articles, and editorial submissions go through before distribution to the media.
Copy approval usually involves a light-touch review of technical detail to ensure accuracy. It’s never guaranteed and in most cases isn’t offered at all. That’s because from an editorial perspective, approval raises fundamental questions of an outlet’s impartiality.
Journalists are not producing marketing material, unless it is paid for as a content creation service and clearly marked as advertorial. Their role is to report, analyse, and interpret – often independently and, at times, critically. For many editors, allowing sources to approve copy risks blurring that line and undermining credibility with their readers. This is why publications will sometimes double-check the facts but stop short of allowing brands to make tweaks to tone or style.
Influence has limits but those limits are what make earned media so valuable. Anyone can pay for an advertorial and paid media absolutely has its place, but when information is published at an independent third-party’s discretion – because they feel it is important for the industry to know – it carries different weight.
What copy approval achieves and what it can’t
Accuracy is as important to editors as it is to brands because their credibility as a reliable source for the industry depends on it. Copy approval can help ensure facts are correct but it can’t protect against unclear messaging, poorly judged comments, or statements that are technically accurate but reputationally damaging.
These are not problems that emerge at the point of publication. They are created – or avoided – much earlier in the process and aiming to address them with copy approval creates a false sense of security.
Where risk is really managed
Instead, risk needs to be managed at the source, rather than at the end, with proper briefing and preparation.
Spokespeople need to be clear on the messaging and aligned with the communications function on what should not be said too. They need to understand the context in which their comments will be interpreted and work on the assumption that nothing is truly off the record.
At SE10, we typically provide our client spokespeople with a detailed interview briefing document, including the journalist’s background, recent articles they’ve written, a profile of their publication’s audience, and the topics they are likely to cover. We can also work together to agree the three core messages to provide a strategic home base to return to throughout the conversation and even run an informal practice session if needed to go through potential questions.
You can read more about the preparation process in our blog post Your first media interview: A practical look at turning nerves into confidence.
Shaping the input, not the output
In some situations, we would even recommend a written Q&A over a live interview. This allows for precise language and internal alignment before responses are shared and reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation.
Many trade and specialist publications are comfortable working this way when the subject matter requires it. But even here, the principle remains the same. The goal is not to control the outcome, rather to ensure clarity and accuracy in the information provided.
What strong media relationships look like
Over time, journalists come to trust that a brand’s spokespeople will be accurate, thoughtful, and clear – and, reciprocally, communicators come to trust a journalist’s professionalism and intent. As that trust builds, the focus shifts away from control and toward collaboration. Conversations become more productive, the process itself becomes more efficient, and coverage becomes more consistent. But this requires patience. Media relations are developed gradually through regular, reliable interactions, and mutual respect.
You won’t control everything that gets published. But you can control how well prepared you are, how clearly you communicate, and how effectively you build relationships with the media that matter to your business.
Hannah Kitchener
Associate Director
About the author
Hannah is an associate director in the UK, leading strategic campaigns for industrial clients across the EMEA region. A professionally qualified journalist (NCTJ), she combines specialist sectoral knowledge in construction, energy, and materials handling with a strong network of trade media contacts to secure valuable coverage. Her expertise in inter-cultural communication, honed by degrees in modern languages and translation, is key to executing campaigns that succeed across diverse European markets.
