Why Public Communications Matter: Lessons from Blackburn Rovers and the Lancashire Telegraph

Public communications are the bridge between an organisation and the people it serves. When handled well, they build trust, protect reputation, and strengthen relationships. When handled badly, they create unnecessary conflict, damage credibility, and spark headlines for all the wrong reasons.

The recent dispute between Blackburn Rovers FC and the Lancashire Telegraph is a perfect example of how poor communication choices can escalate quickly. What began as a disagreement about coverage spiralled into a reputational crisis, driven not by the issue itself, but by the way the club chose to communicate about it.

A Situation That Escalated Quickly

On Friday, 26th September, Blackburn Rovers published a statement banning Lancashire Telegraph reporter Elliott Jackson from covering matches at Ewood Park. The statement accused the Telegraph’s reporting of being “unbalanced,” and while it didn’t name Jackson directly, the subtext was obvious. You can read it here.

Later that day, the Lancashire Telegraph published its own article covering the ban. Their response made it clear they viewed the club’s actions as not only disproportionate but also damaging to the long-standing relationship between Blackburn Rovers and the local press. They highlighted that their role, and Jackson’s role as their football reporter, is to cover the facts, provide scrutiny, and keep supporters informed about what is happening at their club. That is the job of any local newspaper, and they had every right to report the situation accurately.

The Telegraph did not engage in personal attacks or retaliatory language. Their coverage was factual and professional: Rovers had banned their reporter, and here is what happened. By sticking to the facts, they underlined just how unnecessary and personal Blackburn’s tone had become.

But instead of drawing a line under it, the club escalated. The following day, they issued a second statement, and this time they named Elliott Jackson outright. Not only that, but they doubled down by questioning his professional integrity. What began as a disagreement about coverage became a direct attack on an individual journalist.

The Backlash

The reaction was swift. Supporters, neutrals, and journalists across the country criticised the club’s approach. Many pointed out that it looked less like an organisation protecting itself and more like one lashing out because it didn’t like the coverage.

The replies to the club’s posts on X make this crystal clear. Fans accused the club of embarrassing itself, undermining its own credibility, and making the story far bigger than it needed to be.

What could have been a professional disagreement handled quietly turned into a reputational crisis that attracted national attention.

📰 Club Statement: Lancashire Telegraph Update

Following the Lancashire Telegraph’s coverage of the withdrawal of media access, Blackburn Rovers wishes to provide further clarity on the matter.#Rovers 🔵⚪️

— Blackburn Rovers (@Rovers) September 27, 2025

Why the Second Statement Made Things Worse

The first statement was heavy-handed but might have been contained. The second statement crossed a line. By naming Jackson and openly questioning his professionalism, the club made the issue a personal one. Once you do that, you lose control of the narrative.

The Telegraph had every right to report on the ban and to continue covering the club for its readers. That’s their job. By going after the journalist personally, Rovers handed the Telegraph, and every other outlet watching, an even bigger story. It also reinforced the perception that the club wasn’t really worried about fairness in reporting, but about silencing a voice they didn’t like.

The Importance of Media Relationships

This is the bigger lesson. Organisations and journalists don’t always see eye to eye. Coverage won’t always feel positive, and there will be times when it feels harsh or unfair. But journalists are not there to make PR departments happy. They are there to inform, question, and scrutinise. That is part of a healthy relationship between the press and the institutions they cover.

When a club attacks a journalist personally, it damages that balance. It doesn’t just put off one reporter or one paper; it sends a message to all journalists that the club is unwilling to accept scrutiny. And it sends a message to supporters that their club would rather silence criticism than engage with it.

The Bigger Lesson for Businesses

This is not just about Blackburn Rovers Football Club. Any business that finds itself in the spotlight can learn from this. Disagreements with the media will happen, but the way you handle them is what defines your reputation. Go personal, and you lose. Stay professional, and you keep the door open for a constructive relationship.

The Lancashire Telegraph did its job. They reported the facts. Blackburn Rovers chose to personalise the dispute and, in doing so, made themselves the story. For other organisations, the lesson could not be clearer: protect your reputation by keeping communications factual, respectful, and professional, especially when you disagree.