If you are a normal person, you've probably never heard of #TurnArdern and I congratulate you on your happy existence. For the purposes of this post, however, I should explain that this is an initiative by some Twitter users to weaken the prime minister politically by turning backwards magazines and books bearing her visage. There is not really any evidence that this "movement" exists beyond a handful of people online.

It is also not entirely clear how serious they are. If you take what they say at face value, they appear to be earnest. When you consider how naff most people agree their campaign is and the impossible prospect of real-life impact, you just can't rule it out as a giant if lame troll. In any event, it is the kind of contemptible little thing that happens all the time politics, used to turn John Roughan's biography of John Key face down, for example. There is no evidence that a spate of book turning has engulfed the nation or that people are finding it hard to find volumes. And until recently the prime minister did not have any comment to make or alarm to raise herself.

Nevertheless, the activities of this group prickled the sensibilities of the usual collywobblers on Twitter who were astonished at the lèse-majesté. That, in turn, makes the story newsworthy under our current system where social media sets the agenda for what journalists cover. He says the reporter from the Herald called him up and informed he would be naming him in a story which led to the man attempting to give his side of what was happening.

The result was the inevitably harshly critical story in which the interviewees own words were used to hang him. Then the reasonably foreseeable thing happened. Leftwing Twitter users finished the job by sharing the man's work details, address, phone numbers and even fax details.

On Twitter, the person is fairly well known as one of the site's partisan remoras. Whenever there is a criticism of Labour to be made, fair or not, he is one of those who can always be relied upon to comment, like and retweet. There are a bunch of accounts like this on both sides and if it is not your kind of content you soon learn to tune it out.

But just how this went down and whether or not you have any sympathy for this guy, it’s worth remembering not to talk to the media lightly. When it comes to reporting, journalists rarely adhere to an ethic of fair play that people sometimes take for granted. They will think nothing of gaining somebody's confidence by giving the misleading impression that they are concerned to get their side out. They will ask unfair questions to get foolish answers. They will not let you subsequently review or clarify or giving you any say in how your comments are put across.

And in fairness to them, that's not their job. They are not members of a learned and regulated profession. They have one imperative: advancing the narrative of the story. Of course, sometimes you cannot avoid talking to the media, especially if the media is determined to talk to you.

In that case, try to put them off momentarily while stressing that you do want the opportunity to consider a response. Ask them to put their questions in an email and promise to get back in touch with them as soon as you can.

In my experience, reporters hate this. I was once asked to comment on something highly controversial and wanted to choose my words carefully. I consented to give an opinion but only by email. The reporter blurted out that she preferred not to do that because people often said things in live interviews they wouldn't say otherwise.

Well, quite.

But the point is to buy you some breathing space. The minute you hang up the phone, google and then call somebody in the public relations field. In the same way you should never talk to the cops without consulting a lawyer, find someone who knows what they're doing before talking to a journalist.

It might cost you a bit of money, but it just may be some of the best money you've ever spent.