Silence not only works, but is essential, when health and safety could be compromised by too much disclosure. Silence may also be necessary when speaking reveals proprietary corporate information, may influence an ongoing investigation or trial or when the media is asking for information that just is not (yet) at hand.

Having said that, I usually recommend that a spokesperson explain why he or she cannot answer a question. (“We’re working on that and as soon as we know, we’ll tell you….” or “We don’t want to speculate; we want the public to have accurate information and we’re still gathering that information….” or “Speaking now might endanger health/safety/lives, but as soon as it is safe for us to do so, we will disclose the information,” etc.)

In Tiger Woods’ case, it’s hard to demand selective privacy. You’ll see what I mean if you go to: http://www.intotherough.co.uk/assets/_files/images/feb_09/itr__1235647290_Tiger_Woods,_Elin_Nordegren_&_.jpg. If you’re so set on insuring privacy for yourself and your family, why pose for and permit the distribution of a family photograph like this?

One final note: were Tiger Woods not a public figure, silence would be appropriate, but then the media wouldn’t be terribly interested in his wandering ways, would they?