Citigroup: When "No Comment" is News

Bloomberg is notoriously demanding when it comes to updating hot news. While such relentlessness often moves the story forward from the original scoop, it also sometimes forces the tiniest of details to be given unusual prominence, as reporters grasp for anything resembling a fresh angle.

Take today's Bloomberg update of the Chuck Prince resignation story, "Citigroup Doesn't Deny Prince Exit as Shares Drop 31% (Update2)." As the hed indicates, the "new news" is that Citi is not commenting.

"'We are completely declining to comment,'' said Leah Johnson, a Citigroup spokeswoman and member of the New York-based company's management committee."

But that detail is not as insignificant as it may seem. As Jack Flack pointed out earlier in his "Five Levels of CEO Media Hell," one of the tell-tale signs that the boss is indeed being shown the door is the refusal of the company's flacks to deny the rumor.

While the original scoop in the Journal noted that a "spokeswoman for Citigroup declined to comment," such non-statements are less telling before the story actually breaks, as smart flacks seek to avoid pejorative denials. But once the ice is broken, and a dozen or more hours pass, the refusal to comment usually means there has been a change in the internal chain-of-command. A CEO who is still in full command would undoubtedly be banging on the desk, insisting the flacks knock the story down.

The Journal story itself says much about just how thick the chum is getting these days in the cold, choppy waters of Wall Street. The story credits eight reporters, revealing a true flood-the-zone effort. With several of the Caynes and Mozillas of the world still bobbing on the surface, Jack Flack has a strong sense that the Journal is determined to make the NYT O'Neal/Wachovia stinger the exception that proves the rule.