How to Handle
the Media
An 'Executive Survival Kit'
for doing media interviews,
reducing misquoting and misreporting,
and getting your point across in the media.
Jim Macnamara
Contents
About the author
Introduction - How to make or break your company or organisation and
your career in 30 seconds
1.
Understanding the media
•
The role of the media
-
2.
The ‘devil’s advocate’ approach
•
Why negative makes news
•
What is news?
•
Media bias
•
Media effects & influence
•
Commercial v public media
•
The relationship between advertising and editorial
•
Managing the interview
•
Differences between press, radio & TV
•
Interviewer styles
-
‘Baseliners’ and ‘net rushers’
-
The ‘midwife’ approach
-
‘Ambush’ interviews
Basic ingredients of media interviews and
relationships
•
•
Access
-
Fast-tracking media calls
-
Calling the media back
-
Appointing a media spokesperson
-
Training media spokespersons
Brevity
2
•
Keep it simple
•
Don't use the interviewer's name
•
Honesty, sincerity and compassion
-
3.
Seven tools for successful media interviews
•
Objectives
•
Frame of reference
•
'Must says' and 'like to says'
•
'Bridging'
-
4.
5.
What to say when you don’t know
The 10/30 Principle
•
Standalone statements
•
Reiteration
•
Avoid 'red herrings'
Ground rules for dealing with the media
•
Off the record
•
Non-attributable
•
Background
•
Exclusives
•
Embargoes
•
Leaks
•
Asking for questions in advance
•
Reading back copy
•
Copyright
•
Defamation
•
Misreporting - what to do about it
•
Over-exposure
Building relationships with journalists and editors
3
6.
•
Booze and blurb don’t work
•
Mutual respect
•
Backgrounding and briefing
•
Invitations
•
Tours and visits
•
Entertainment
•
Saying thank you
Media research: knowing more about the media
•
Media databases
•
Media monitoring
•
Media Content Analysis
•
The New Media
Checklist for media interviews
Media terms & definitions
4
About the author
Jim Macnamara has more than 25 years experience in the media and communication. He
began his career as a journalist and has written for leading newspapers including the
Sydney Morning Herald, leading magazines such as Walkabout, radio and television.
He holds a Diploma in Journalism, a Bachelor of Arts majoring in media studies and literary
studies and a Masters of Arts degree (MA) by research in media & public relations.
Jim has the valuable experience of having been both antagonist and protagonist in the
media. After almost eight years as a journalist, he became a public relations adviser and
spokesperson for a number of national and international companies and organisations.
He has appeared as a spokesperson on programs including 60 Minutes, The National
Today Show, the ABC's Four Corners and 7.30 Report, Good Morning Australia, as well as
television news and he has been at both ends of the microphone for literally hundreds of
press and radio interviews.
No stranger to controversial issues, Jim has personal experience in handling the media on
such sensitive subjects as industrial disputes; farm chemicals use; food contaminations;
animal welfare (as spokesperson for the National Farmers Federation in Australia);
electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone towers; and computer software piracy (as
Chairman of the Business Software Association in Australia for six years).
He has also been a media spokesperson for high profile international companies including
Microsoft and UK-based mobile communications giant, Vodafone.
The author founded a leading public relations consultancy, MACRO Communication, and
headed the firm for 13 years, advising companies including Microsoft, Compaq, Coca-Cola,
Singapore Airlines and Vodafone, before leaving to focus on research and writing.
He is the author of a number of other books including Public Relations Handbook for Clubs
& Associations, Public Relations Handbook for Managers & Executives, The Asia Pacific
5
Public Relations Handbook, The Modern Presenter's Handbook and is co-author of The
New Zealand Handbook of Public Relations.
6
Introduction
How to make or break your company or organisation
and your career in 30 seconds
Senior executives, public officials, politicians and leaders of all types of groups
cannot avoid facing the media at one time or another in today's 'information age'
with its pervasive communications media. Whether you operate at local community
level or in national affairs, at some time a microphone or tape recorder will be thrust
in front of you and you will be required to make a statement that will be read, heard
or seen by thousands or even millions of people.
When you face the media, nothing you learned in your career training, on the job, or
even in a fancy MBA program prepares you. Media interviews involve techniques of
questioning and editing of responses that are not taught in university or
management courses.
Journalists are trained in how to ask probing and often difficult questions. They also
are familiar with the equipment and technology of the media, including sophisticated
editing facilities that can extract segments of what you say, or join statements
together which can alter the context and even the entire meaning of your comments.
Spokespersons for organisations and companies often naively face media
interviews ill-equipped for the dynamic communication opportunity that media
interviews provide. In most interviews, the ‘other guy’ is holding all the cards.
It need not be so. Some basic tips and training can equip you to get your points
across in an interview and minimise misreporting and misquoting. If you talk to the
media now, or are likely to do so in the future, this handbook provides invaluable
advice.
7
When you talk to the media, your company's or organisation's reputation, sales of
your product or service, the success or failure of a project in which you are involved
- or even your career - could depend on how you perform and how the interview
turns out. In many interviews, only a short 'grab' of around 30 seconds or less of
what you say will be used. You can make or break your company or organisation
and your career in those 30 seconds.
A leading radio or TV program can expose your company or organisation and your
products or services to an audience of millions. Similarly, major circulation
newspapers and magazines reach large segments of your market or 'constituency'.
Interviews are also observed by government officials, regulatory bodies, consumer
organisations, environmentalists, the organisation's own staff and your competitors.
The aim of this sobering warning is not to scare would-be interviewees away from
the media, but to emphasise the importance of media interviews. They provide the
opportunity to talk to a mass audience far beyond any which can be gathered at a
public relations function, a marketing roadshow or in a conference or seminar.
It is ironic that many companies and organisations spend millions of dollars on
advertising and promotion to build a carefully honed and packaged image of their
company or products. But their key spokespersons are often not equipped to
support or defend that image in news or current affairs coverage. Advertising
agencies as well as public relations firms would be well advised to ensure that their
clients are competent to talk to news, current affairs and talk show programs.
Many executives and public figures believe that they do not need training in media
communication. Even leading MBA programs still do not include media skills in their
courses designed to prepare graduates for senior management. But like public
speaking, flying an aircraft, or ballroom dancing, giving successful interviews does
not come naturally. Even the most polished speaker who is well-educated, intelligent
and fully conversant with his or her topic, can be made to look foolish, evasive or
guilty by a gruelling interviewer and careless or mischievous media editing.
8
Media training programs of varying standards and styles are available to coach
spokespersons who face the media. Many such programs are run by retired TV or
radio personalities. However, while undoubtedly expert in the media, their focus is
usually precisely that - the media. Because of their background, they teach
spokespersons what to do and not do to meet the media’s requirements.
But a successful interview from a spokesperson’s perspective is not simply about
achieving the media’s objectives. Many media would consider an interview a
success if they had you on the floor screaming for mercy. A successful interview is
also about achieving your objectives. You don’t just want the journalist to go away
happy with a story; you want to get your message across and present your point of
view.
Some other media training programs spend a lot of time on how you should look
and speak to the media, what to wear, and so on. These are cosmetic issues and,
while of some importance for television, are far less significant than the content of
media interviews.
This handbook focuses on the content of media interviews and the tactics and
strategy involved in creating that content, whether for press, radio or TV news,
current affairs or chat shows. It tells you how to get your point across; how to say
what you want to say when a journalist pursues other issues; how to have your
comments reported accurately and avoid misreporting; what to say when you don’t
know the answer to a question; how to handle difficult situations such as ‘ambush
interviews’ and so on.
In other words, this handbook is not only about helping you meet the media’s
requirements and achieving their objectives; it’s about helping you achieve your
objectives.
The theme of this handbook is the 'win win' interview where the journalist gets some
good quotes to make or support a story and you get your message across.
9
Seen in this light, media interviews are opportunities. A top rating radio or TV show
can offer a company or organisation an audience of several million people for
several minutes without charge. A comparable opportunity purchased as advertising
would cost $100,000 or more in major capital cities. Even in smaller regional cities
or towns, a chance to be interviewed for a local newspaper or to appear on radio or
TV can be worth several thousand dollars in free publicity.
But you need to know what you are doing in media interviews. It is a high stakes
game when you are facing a tough and even potentially hostile interviewer and an
audience of thousands or millions. You can literally make or break your company
and career in 30 seconds.
For instance, a leading slate supplier to the retail market saw itself as a reputable,
well-managed company selling a quality product which was natural and relatively
safe from the media spotlight. But when the ABC’s Four Corners program turned up
to talk to a company spokesperson after interviewing a dissatisfied customer, the
reputation of the entire company and its products were on the line.
Despite having a strong case and being largely blameless for the customer’s
problems, the slate company came off badly in the interview, allowing the
interviewer to dictate the agenda and focus on negative issues. More complaints
poured in and sales fell sharply. The company had to engage a public relations firm
to help it rebuild its image and train its media spokespersons.
Another case in point involved an international chemical company. Chemicals are a
natural and essential part of our world. Many save lives and promote human and
environmental health. But when a well-known chemical company, responsible for
many life-saving drugs, wanted to build a new plant on the outskirts of a major city,
local ‘greenie’ and consumer groups lobbied the media to oppose the development.
The company’s spokespersons at first refused to talk to the media and then, when
they did, they appeared in the media as aloof, arrogant and unconvincing. As a
result, the company won the scientific battle with the Department of Environment
10
and Planning, but lost the publicity battle. The project was stopped and the
company's image was tarnished by a barrage of media criticism.
Because of the freedom and tenacity of the mass media, particularly in Western
democratic countries such as Australia, the UK and the US, executives of
corporations and major organisations are no longer able to hide from journalists
behind "no comment". General and specialist media probe all areas of business,
trade, industry and the professions. Silence only breeds suspicion.
If you don't tell your side of the story, the media will run the story anyway. They will
talk to your competitors instead. And, generally, you and your organisation will come
off worse for refusing to comment.
When the media do interview business and organisation spokespersons, they
frequently lament the lack of 'good talent' - a media term for spokespersons who can
present their information concisely and clearly in a way that will interest the
audience. Too often spokespersons ramble with long-winded explanations and
technical mumbo-jumbo that go over the head of the average person. To be
successful in media interviews, you need to understand how to package your
information for the medium and the audience.
By understanding the media and becoming familiar with and skilled in the
techniques of interviews, spokespersons can welcome media interviews and use
them as positive opportunities for communication.
In today’s competitive age, companies, organisations and even government
departments and services such as the police need to be able to coherently and
effectively communicate with their ‘stakeholders’ and the general public.
Professor C. Northcote Parkinson, famous for his ‘Parkinson’s Law’, told a Sydney
media conference during a visit to Australia:
11
“In the world today, you have no chance if you keep silent. There was a time
when strong silent men could not fail to announce their views. Today, if you
don't speak up, other people will - and not to your advantage. One has to say
one's piece and say it more effectively than one's opponent.” (Macnamara,
1984, p. 10)
12
1.
Understanding the media
________________________________________________________________
Many years of training spokespersons to face the media and analysing interviews
have revealed three principal reasons why interviews fail in terms of communicating
what an interviewee wants to say:
1.
Attitude;
2.
An imbalance of knowledge; and
3.
Lack of preparation.
This handbook will address all three areas and give you advice as well as a range of
practical tools and techniques to successfully conduct media interviews.
To work with the media, you firstly need to have some knowledge of how they
operate and how they approach their job. From the outset, your understanding of
media roles, functions, needs and operating procedures shapes your attitude
towards journalists and editors. Your attitude, in turn, will significantly affect
interviews that you give and your ongoing relationships with the media.
If you distrust and dislike journalists, it will generally show and affect your dealings
with the media. A climate of mistrust is not conducive to good relationships or
successful communication.
The relationship between business, governments and institutions and the media is
frequently antagonistic. A landmark seminar sponsored by the Ford Foundation in
the US which brought together a major gathering of America's business leaders and
senior editors, publishers and journalists, highlighted friction between what was
13
described as the "two powerful, often self-righteous, and openly antagonistic
institutions". (Simons and Califano, 1979)
The seminar heard that business did not trust the media. "And like other segments
of American society, it wonders why bad news drives out good, why business gets
no credit for all its good works but seems to receive publicity when something goes
wrong". (Simons and Califano, 1979, p. xii)
Louis Banks, a prominent US business spokesman, outlined a litany of business
complaints against the media. "Careless news stories present business executives
as saying things they never said or corporations as doing things they never intended
to do. In the reporting of figures, apples are compared to oranges, and decimal
points slide back and forth. In the corporate view, sensationalism ignores the 99 per
cent of constructive progress and gives headline attention to the bizarre, odd,
inconsequential, or exceptional. Chronic negativism fortifies this tendency, so that
the 'good news' or the positive TV footage does not see light of day in the mass
media, while the accident, or the competitor's slur, is surefire copy - and usually
wrong in detail. Ignorant reporting tangles business complexities into erroneous
conclusions or ducks the complexities in favour of power struggles and personality
clashes, real or imagined." (Ibid)
Walter B. Wriston, chairman of Citibank, said: "Let one scientist resign and say that
nuclear power is a lethal accident waiting to happen, and he is awarded the front
page with pictures. He has unlimited interviews on television. The massive
achievement of hundreds and hundreds of scientists and the comfort of millions of
citizens who enjoy the product of nuclear power go for nothing." (Simons and
Califano, 1979, p. xiii)
Industrialists, bankers and business leaders claimed that "most business stories,
save those involving national strikes, layoffs, shortages, or rising prices, fail to meet
network entertainment requirements." One speaker told the seminar: "... we're not
asking for much - fairness, a willingness on your part to accept the fact that maybe,
14
just maybe, sometimes we are right ... You, the media, say you have your rights. We
accept that. But we have our rights too ...". (Simons and Califano, 1979, p. 204)
“The news media’s preference for action-packed or contentious stories means its
treatment of business will favour controversy over accomplishment,” American writer
on the media, Donald W. Blohowiak, bluntly points out. (Blohowiak, 1987, p.27)
Professor Larry Sabato in a recent review of standards in American journalism,
identified three phrases which he described as:
•
Lapdog journalism (1941 - 1966);
•
Watchdog journalism (1966 - 1984); and
•
Junkyard dog journalism (1984-present).
The Australian Press Council News reviewed Professor Sabato’s comments on
‘junkyard dog journalism’, describing it as: “journalism which is harsh, aggressive
and intrusive and where feeding frenzies flourish and gossip reaches print”. (Kelly,
1995, p. 3)
One of Australia’s largest media owners, Kerry Packer, is himself no fan of
journalists. Packer says: “When the media are criticised, the immediate reaction is
to crucify the critic. Shoot the messenger. It’s hardly surprising therefore that people
are less and less interested in standing up against the media bully boys. One, it
doesn’t do anything and, two, it only draws attention to yourself which, in this
country, is not something you want to do. Unfortunately, many Australians want to
pull down anyone who achieves. And journalists are no exception. They have
become a law unto themselves. The truth is that journalists, like everyone else, have
to be responsible to somebody.” (Kelly, 1995, p. 28)
Critic and editor, Sam Lipski says the media have become a new power elite. He
says journalists are no longer the Fourth Estate. They are the New Estate. “The
media like to see themselves as watchdogs. But these days they have grown into
huge and fearsome mastiffs. They are so all-pervasive, so all-powerful and yet
15
where are the checks and balances? They are so rudimentary, so embryonic and in
many cases, so useless that there is this growing sense of disquiet.” (Kelly, 1995, p.
22)
Called the Fourth Estate in nineteenth century England because they were the
fourth source of social influence after the House of Lords, the House of Commons
and the Church, the media have gained increasing influence in many modern
societies. A 1994 study in eight industrialised countries found that newspapers and
TV news ranked higher than the Government and the Church as a credible source
of information in the US, UK, Canada, Germany, Italy, France and Spain. Only in
semi-industrialised Mexico was the Church still the leading institution. However,
even there, the nation’s government leaders were rated as less believable than the
media.
FIGURE 1.
COUNTRY
United States
Canada
Britain
France
Germany
Newspapers
68
71
53
68
84
TV
Church
Politicians
73
81
85
74
90
60
47
44
35
40
49
53
26
41
40
Figure 1. Impact of the media on public opinion
(Source: The Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press, Los Angeles
published in the Los Angeles Times, 16 March, 1994)
If you are concerned about the power of the media, sceptical of the media’s motives
or have had bad experiences in dealing with the media in the past, you are certainly
not alone. Long-standing criticism of the media is evident in this poem written by
Humbert Wolfe in 1930 and reproduced in the Columbia Electronic Dictionary of
Quotations:
“You cannot hope
16
to bribe or twist
(thank God) the
British journalist.
But, see what
the man will do
unbribed, there’s
no occasion to.”
US statesman, Adlai Stevenson, said:
“An editor is someone who separates the wheat from the chaff and prints the
chaff”. (Quotations for Speeches, Bloomsbury, London, 1989, p. 101)
Another anonymous quotation expresses a similar satirical view of what many
people think of the media:
“Doctors bury their mistakes. Lawyers hang them. Editors puts theirs on the
front page. (Quotations for Speeches, Bloomsbury, London, 1989, p. 101)
While business and industry are often highly critical of media and their power, the
Ford Foundation seminar also found that business frequently did not let the media
hear its side. In a democracy, "the business community needs, first, a well-informed,
competent channel of communication to the public and, second, an attentive,
persistent, and constructive critic. Without these, the business community lives with
a public that is ignorant of the way business works, suspicious of its motives,
unsympathetic to its problems - and easy prey to ill-conceived schemes for
government intervention into business affairs", media representatives at the seminar
warned. (Simons and Califano, 1979, p. xxii)
One senior editor, addressing the seminar said: "We in the press make some
terrible mistakes, partly through stupidity, partly through haste, and partly through,
sometimes I suppose, just plain meanness. It ain't an easy job, but it's not made
much easier by the corporations ... I think business has got a long way to go in
17
dealing with the press, despite enormous efforts to develop public relations
systems." (Simons and Califano, 1979, p. 206)
One business representative admitted: "I think it is a fact that most businessmen, or
at least a lot of businessmen, are afraid of the press." (Simons and Califano, 1979,
p. 225)
There is also evidence that executives in organisations and institutions fear the
media. For instance, a study among scientists in the Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), found “many scientists regard the media
as a kind of ogre and lack self-confidence in dealing with it, despite the fact that it
may be a key factor in the battle for research funds”. (The Weekend Australian,
1994)
The media have been criticised for pursuing entertainment at the expense of serious
analysis of issues. One of Australia’s leading judges, Justice Michael Kirby, accuses
the media of following a ‘pack mentality’ by reporting important and complex issues
as though they were sporting contests. “The media in Australia has become very
much a matter of entertainment - the separation of fact and comment is much less
to be seen today than it was”. (The Australian, 1994)
The role of the media is widely commented on and debated in virtually all societies
and there are quite widely differing views on what it is and what it should be. The
role of the media in free democratic countries has been referred to with simplistic
catch cries such as ‘the seeker of truth’ and ‘watchdog of society’. But these phrases
are rather superficial in explaining what the media do or are supposed to do. It is
important that we have a more specific understanding of the role of the media as
this shapes our attitude towards the media and forms the basis of our knowledge of
how to deal with journalists and editors.
18
The role of the media
Roles of the media vary widely around the world. We often ethnocentrically believe
that our particular model is the way the media ought to be in all countries and that it
is intrinsically right. However, there is no one role of the media.
In Communist countries, the role of the media was to function as an ‘agent of the
State’. The Stalinist and Marxist founders of Communism saw the media as an
essential tool for galvanising political support and ‘educating’ the people. We may
not agree with this role, but it is important to recognise that the media do not operate
in a political, ethical or commercial vacuum. They carry out a role assigned to them
by the governments and societies that they serve.
In a number of developing countries such as in South East Asia, the media perform
a role described as ‘agent of development’. In Indonesia, for instance, the
government sees the media as a critical resource to assist in communicating vital
information and education on basic issues such as health, water purification and
birth control to the nation’s 180 million people living on more than 13,000 islands.
The media are expected to assist the government in its task of unifying and building
the nation, as well as covering national affairs.
Differences in media roles in various societies have been a source of political friction
at various times. Countries such as Singapore and Malaysia are highly sensitive to
criticism and cannot understand the way Western media operate. They see the
problems outlined in the previous pages and consider the ‘free’ media of Western
countries to be politically subversive, socially dysfunctional and morally bankrupt.
Equally, Westerners cannot understand how Singaporeans accept the government
controlling the country’s media and even closing down or banning media which do
not comply with its guidelines.
The role the media perform relates to the political system and state of development
of the country. Mass media which have evolved within sophisticated, developed
Western countries are different to those in a developing nations. This is an
19
important point to note if you travel overseas and talk to the media in foreign
countries.
Other commentators add that we get the media we deserve.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) lists its charter as "to inform, educate
and entertain". It is significant that even this bastion of conservative media sees
entertainment as a key part of its role. Spokespersons are usually only concerned
with ‘informing’ and ‘educating’. But it is important to recognise that entertainment is
a major part of the media’s role - even the BBC’s. Commercial media place even
higher emphasis on entertainment.
The functions of the media in modern democracies such as those in the US, UK,
Europe, Canada and Australia are best described under what is termed the social
responsibility theory of the media. Fred Siebert defines the functions of the media
under the social responsibility model as:
1.
Servicing the political system by providing information, discussion and debate
on public affairs,
2.
Enlightening the public so as to make it capable of self-government,
3.
Safeguarding the rights of the individual by serving as a watchdog against
government,
4.
Servicing the economic system, primarily by bringing together the buyers and
sellers of goods and services through the medium of advertising,
5.
Providing entertainment,
6.
Maintaining its own financial self-sufficiency so as to be free from the
pressures of special interests. (Siebert, 1979, p. 74)
20
One of the most controversial functions performed by the media under a social
responsibility model is acting as a ‘watchdog’ against government. In recent times,
the media have broadened this function to include being a watchdog against big
business and institutions as well.
Why? Why do the media see themselves as watchdogs and why do we accept the
media performing this role? The answer to this question goes to the heart of
understanding modern media.
Modern industrial and post-industrial societies have massive infrastructures devoted
to distributing what is essentially propaganda. If you think that is too strong a word,
let’s just say that there are major institutions and systems for communicating
information that those who control those institutions and systems want us to know.
For instance, the entire advertising industry exists for the sole purpose of
communicating good news and propaganda about products, services, companies,
organisations and even governments. You never see a press advertisement or a TV
commercial telling the public what is wrong with a product or what a company failed
to do. Billions of dollars a year are devoted to presenting one side of the story.
Equally, the growing field of public relations is comprised of professional
communicators whose sole function is putting a positive spin on information they
distribute for their employers and clients. The vast majority may do this ethically, but
they put a positive spin on things nevertheless.
In a hard-hitting book entitled Toxic Sludge is Good for You, authors John Stauber
and Sheldon Rampton describe public relations as a monolithic conspiracy to
brainwash, mislead and corrupt public opinion and point to what they term “the
undemocratic power of the multi-billion dollar PR industry to manipulate and
progagandize on behalf of wealthy interests”. (Ray Argyle, 1996)
21
Public relations practitioners describe Stauber’s and Sheldon’s comments as ‘over
the top’, but they highlight the perception among many in the media of an organised,
multi-billion dollar infrastructure to promulgate propaganda and ‘good news’.
Governments of all political persuasions set up information offices to distribute news
and information from the government’s point of view, and politicians appoint press
secretaries. When was the last time you saw a government information unit willingly
distribute news about bureaucratic failures, policy inadequacies, inefficiencies or
corruption?
Industries are represented by powerful lobbyists and professional associations,
unions represent workers, and organisations of all shapes and sizes have formed in
pluralist democracies to push a barrow of some type. Many of these voices publish
their own magazines and newspapers, produce video programs, issue media
releases, dot the landscape with billboards and neon signs proclaiming their
successes and magnanimity, and even distribute information via the Internet.
In an environment where the public is bombarded with information from advertising,
public relations sources, government information units, ‘spin doctors’ in industry and
professional associations, lobbyists and so on, journalists and editors believe that
they must provide a balance by consciously and aggressively searching for the bad
news.
‘Devil’s advocate’ role
In modern pluralist democracies, the media have adopted a 'devil's advocate' role. It
is worth understanding the origin of the term ‘devil’s advocate’ as it throws light on
the behaviour of the media in many situations. The term originated from the process
of canonising saints in the Catholic Church. When a person was being considered
for canonisation, a group of Cardinals or Church officials was appointed to consider
the case. In order to ensure balance and that every flaw was uncovered, one
Cardinal or eminent person was appointed as the ‘devil’s advocate’. Irrespective of
his personal view on the sainthood or otherwise of the candidate, his role was to
rigorously search for any wrong-doing, failing or flaw.
22
After a certain period, when the ‘devil’s advocate’ was confident that he had
exhausted all avenues of inquiry and diligently performed his job, he was permitted
to resign his role as ‘devil’s advocate’, thus clearing the way for canonisation of the
person as a saint.
The analogy is useful for understanding journalists. The media see it as their role in
society to act as the ‘devil’s advocate’. They see the forces of government and
business and lobbyists of various types gathered seeking canonisation. They see
themselves as a lonely sentinel standing guard for right and truth. This is perhaps a
melodramatic analogy, but the ‘devil’s advocate’ role adopted by the media is the
reason reporters dig for bad news like a Terrier. They ask if they don’t, who will?
Whatever concern you might have over handing such an important role in society to
journalists and whether they are adequately equipped to handle such a role, it is
difficult to answer that question. The ‘Watergate’ expose by the Washington Post
stands as an much-quoted example of why democratic societies need a free media
and adds legitimacy to the ‘devil’s advocate’ role of the media.
If you understand this ‘devil’s advocate’ approach of the media, you will not be
affronted or put off by tough interviewers. Don’t mistake professional interrogation
and investigation as personal hostility. In most cases, a journalist is simply doing a
job. It is stretching the analogy too far to say that they are like actors playing a part.
But to some extent, this is true. A journalist may actually agree with your point of
view, but still ask you difficult, apparently hostile questions - because that is his or
her job.
An aggressive reporter may in fact do you a favour. We all feel more comfortable
with soft easy questions. But, experience shows that we perform better when we
argue strongly and put conviction into our words. The interviewer who says, "Well,
tell me about your organisation" will lull you into a false sense of security. You are
likely to ramble on as if you are chatting to a personal friend. You are not. You have
a five, 10 or 30 second shot at communicating with an audience made up of people
23
concerned with their own problems, cooking dinner, talking with their family or just
hoping you will shut up so they can catch the weather.
Some journalists deliberately adopt a tough 'devil's advocate' stance to get you
going. They know it will be a better radio or TV interview if you get stirred up a little.
This does not mean you should get angry or agitated. You should never lose your
cool in an interview. But you should be firm and forceful, while remaining objective
and rational. If you are asked a facetious or particularly nasty question, you should
feel free to set the record straight in no uncertain terms. You might raise your voice
just a little and say:
"Let me set the record straight. The facts are, one, our organisation represents
100,000 members nation-wide. Two, I was elected by an overwhelming vote to push
for reform in this area.”
When journalists are convinced that you are telling the truth and not covering
something up, they will usually relax their tough, aggressive stance and become
more friendly. Like the original ‘devil’s advocate’ in the cloistered halls of the Church,
they will ‘resign’ from their unsavoury self-appointed role and adopt a more
amenable approach. They can even become good contacts or friends as we will see
later.
Why Negative Makes News
The ‘devil’s advocate’ role pursued by the media is one of the reasons that negative
makes news more than positive stories. Journalists argue that the public is targeted
with advertising, propaganda and public relations campaigns through a range of
channels. They see it as their job to provide a balance. That means focusing on the
bad news - the failure more than success; the breakdown rather than smooth
operation; the accident rather than safety; the crime rather than virtue; the evil rather
than good.
24
Journalists and editors contend that your company or organisation will already be
boasting about its successes, proclaiming its product virtues and noting its safety
standards through advertising, public relations, promotions, direct marketing and
other corporate communications.
Critics argue that the media overdo their ‘devil’s advocate’ role and anecdotal
evidence every day suggests that at least some do. But the alternative to a ‘devil’s
advocate’ approach is a media easily persuaded by governments, pressure groups,
big business or other vested interests to follow their line. The results are too
frightening to imagine. Societies which do not have an aggressive, free media are
commonly the victim of excesses by government, political parties and business.
There are also other reasons that news media focus more on negative rather than
positive issues. Media argue that they provide what the public wants and people
have a palate for horror and the macabre. This is supported by the success of horror
movies, TV shows and books. Also, you only have to observe the way gawkers slow
down traffic on highways when there is an accident, or a fire truck pulls up outside a
building, to confirm that people are fascinated by death, disability and disaster.
Combined with this perception of their role as the ‘devil’s advocate’ and a lowest
common denominator interpretation of public taste is another media trait - cynicism.
Former American journalist, Donald W. Blohowiak, who wrote an executive guide to
the news media back in 1987, summed up journalistic cynicism from his practical
experience:
“Reporters have heard all the politicians promise nirvana and seen all the
hopeful promises fade as quickly as the campaign posters were torn down.
They’ve heard business leaders promise not to lay off workers or close a
factory and watched as the unemployment lines grew and the plant gates were
locked ... Good news is presumed not to be the truth. Truth is negative gossip or leaks - from dissidents. How cynical our press is. How unavoidable this
cynicism is. How important it is for you as a business person to understand
that.” (Blohowiak, 1987, p. 26)
25
No doubt some journalists pursue negative news simply because, as a friend in
Texas says, “they are just plain ornery”. The CEO of one of Australia’s leading
companies says “journalists are bastards”. It is true that there are journalists and
editors who abuse their power just as there are politicians and business leaders and
even members of the clergy who do. More often, however, the media’s approach to
news is founded on good intentions, shaped and worn by pragmatic cynicism and
the media’s view of its role in society. Even when journalists do not learn this role at
a theoretical level, they absorb it in the workplace through osmosis.
It is important for you to understand the ‘devil’s advocate’ approach of the media. It
explains a lot about how the media operate in US, UK, Australia and other
democratic countries. However, it does not preclude good news - or at least
balanced news. So let’s look in more detail at what makes news in the media to see
how you can make news that is positive and which achieves your objectives.
What is news?
Journalism originated from the French words du jour meaning ‘of the day’. Journals
were notations of what happened during a day gathered and written by reporters,
also called journalists.
Modern Western journalism grew out of a partisan background in the nineteenth
century when reporters unashamedly took up causes and even blatantly sided with
particular political parties. What's changed, I hear you ask? It is unlikely, though,
that the media will ever return to the style of the American 1700s. For instance,
Washington's first newspaper, the National Intelligencer was founded as an organ
for the Jeffersonian party after President elect Thomas Jefferson suggested the idea
to editor Samuel Harrington Smith. American media analyst and author, Michael
Nelson, also outlines how The Globe was established by Andrew Jackson and was
edited by his circle of advisers. (Nelson, 1982)
26
Partisan journalism continued until around 1900 when it was replaced by a new
school of thought which emerged in response to increasingly educated readers and
the influence of the widely circulated wire services which found that partisan reports
lost as many clients as they gained. Exemplified by The New York Times, a new
‘objective’ model for journalism developed. The ethic of objective journalism,
according to Nelson, was strictly defined as “to report the news, not make or
evaluate it”.
However, critics of the objective school of journalism point out that media objectivity
is, in fact, a myth. All news is subjective. No matter what the subject, someone in the
media has to decide that the story should be published or broadcast. If you hold a
news conference, or invite the media to a special event, someone has to decide
whether it is worth sending a reporter or camera crew along. Then reporters choose
the words they will use to describe the event. Finally sub-editors and editors decide
where to position the story on a page or in a bulletin.
Objective reporting of ‘straight news’, the Holy Grail of most mass media through the
late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries, also became a straight jacket
for the media. For instance, if a journalist interviewed a public official and knew that
he or she was lying, the strictly applied rule of objective journalism meant that the
journalist had to stick to reporting only what the official said. Watergate would never
have been exposed by the Washington Post if the early objective journalism model
was followed.
Watergate prompted a new synthesis of ideas on journalism including a focus on
investigative journalism and a temporary affair with the ‘New Journalism’ - a style of
highly personalised writing which not only allowed writers’ opinions, but substantially
relied on them.
Out of this melting pot of ideas and models has come an emerging late twentieth
century style of journalism referred to as evaluative journalism. Largely attributed to
Charles Peters, an American lawyer, founder of the Kennedy era Peace Corps and
editor of the Washington Monthly, evaluative journalism moves beyond the mere
27
stenographic recording of information by reporters, but stops short of deliberately
opinionated writing favoured by the New Journalists.
Evaluative journalism calls for serious analysis and interpretation by journalists. But
it maintains the requirement for accuracy and factual basis in reporting from the
objective school.
However, combined with this intellectual approach to journalism is the perceived
‘devil’s advocate’ role of the media discussed previously. The bent of journalists and
editors to look for the bad news rather than the positive permeates the media’s
interpretation of news. News is not necessarily just about what is new.
Tom Brokaw, a leading American reporter, defines news as events that elicit
excitement or outrage. “News stimulates. By this definition, ‘bad’ and ‘good’ are
arbitrary values. Drama and conflict define what’s news”. (Blohowiak, 1987, p. 28)
This explains why the evening television news is dominated by stories of domestic
disputes and shootings, fires destroying buildings, floods ravaging some remote
town or village, bombings in a far away country - even the demolition of some old
disused warehouse or block of apartments invariably makes the national evening
news. Headline writers of newspapers are similarly drawn to words like “kill”,
“shooting”, “murder”, “bashing”, “bombed”, “crash”, “hold-up”, “siege” and such like.
News also requires topicality. It needs to contain some announcement, previously
unknown information or facts, an original statement, or at least a fresh perspective
on an issue. It does not necessarily need to be new, but it has to be topical. For
instance, a story about home heating may not announce any new products or
technologies, but it is topical at the beginning of winter. Of course, news value is
enhanced if you have something that is dramatically new such as a world first, a
technological invention, or a breakthrough new product.
You cannot be newsworthy and not say anything interesting. News, by its nature,
involves standing up and speaking out. You will often need to ‘sharpen’ your
28
messages to make news. For instance, saying that the government’s policy is
“rather disappointing” is not likely to make the evening news or tomorrow’s
headlines. Calling it “a sham” or a “formula for disaster” will appeal to news editors’
and news directors’ appetite for conflict and outrage.
At the same time, you need to retain credibility. You should not indulge in
sensationalism or issue exaggerated statements just to make headlines. Being
newsworthy involves balancing on a knife-edge. To make the news, you need to get
out of the ‘chasm of conservatism’ because news requires strong, even aggressive
statements. But, equally, you don’t want to go too far and plunge into the ‘abyss of
irresponsibility’. You could disappear forever, or at least it will take you a long time to
climb back to a position of credibility.
A third characteristic of news is that it has an insatiable thirst for details. In
particular, journalists and editors want numbers. Generalisations are avoided by
most good editors and journalists. Numbers, dates and statistics are preferred over
adjectives and description every time. For example, it is pointless telling a journalist
that something is high. What is high? For a high jumper, two metres is very high. But
for a pilot flying a jumbo jet, it is not very high at all. Similarly, the media do not want
to know that your company or organisation is long-established. They want to know
whether it is seven or 70 years old. If you are claiming that a certain course of action
will increase costs, the media want to know whether costs will rise one per cent, five
per cent, 10 per cent or more. Don’t say a large audience attended your event; tell
the media how many people were there. Be precise and give details.
A graph, chart or a table of figures seems to work wonders in getting the attention of
journalists and editors. Somehow, numbers and graphs seem to add veracity and
credibility to information for the media the same as they do in the boardroom. Some
newspapers and magazines will even publish your graphs or charts, although they
will usually have their art department re-draw them for reasons of copyright and to
suit the design of their publication. Numbers and specifics increase the
newsworthiness of information.
29
But there is even more to news - a secret ingredient that even editors argue over
and which often makes it a mystery to companies and organisations which try to
deal with the media.
Without understanding this extra ingredient of news, the selection of media stories
can appear illogical and paradoxical. For instance, whenever an aircraft crashes, it
is invariably news. But news value is not always proportionate to the magnitude of
the accident. For example, if a small Cessna crashes 100 kilometres away killing
two people, it will be of more interest to local news than a jumbo jet crashing 1,000
kilometres away killing 200. News value declines as a function of time and distance.
There is also inconsistency in the way issues are treated by the news media. Even if
a small private aircraft comes down and kills one person, it makes headlines. But
every year another form of transport kills 50,000 people in the US and injures 3.5
million. The toll in Britain and Europe and Australia is also horrific. Do the media
proportionately write headlines about this form of transport? No. They devote
columns to lauding its latest incarnations, often complete with large photographs of
the latest models. Reporters wax lyrically about every curve of design and talk of
travelling in it in sexual terms. Specialist magazines are entirely devoted to this
‘killer machine’. It is, of course, the motor car.
The explanation of these apparent anomalies, and the key ingredient for all media
content is relevance. While political, social and personal agendas sometimes
influence journalists and editors, the media are primarily focused on their audience.
Commercial media live or die financially by satisfying their ‘customers’. They
therefore select content that is most relevant to their readers, listeners and viewers.
In the case of a local air crash, it is relevant to people because it happened in the
neighbouring area and may have even involved someone they know, whereas a far
away crash is distant and intangible. The atrocious safety record of the motor car is
not reported as incisively as air crashes for precisely the reason that it is so relevant.
Most people own cars - and many are enthusiastic car lovers - so the media do not
want to attack something that is close to the heart of their audience.
30
Understanding the importance of relevance will more than give you a general insight
into the media; it is a vital clue to giving successful interviews and gaining positive
publicity for your company or organisation.
News is fundamentally about what interests and affects people. It is true that drama
and conflict interest people. But also people are interested in investing in
superannuation, buying a house, renovating their kitchen, saving money, improving
their education, taking a trip, getting on the Internet, buying a pet, losing weight and
a thousand and one other things. Within this diverse range of interests, lies
opportunities for stories about your company or organisation and its products or
services.
Whatever industry, profession, organisation, sport or field of interest you represent,
making the news will largely depend on making your information relevant to the
audience. The media do not want to know how excited your company is about an
announcement; they want to know what it will mean to the local community, workers,
the economy, for jobs, and so on. Nor will the media fall over themselves to rush
your comment to air or into print if you are talking only for the benefit of a small
group or elite interests. You need to ‘translate’ what things mean in broader terms.
You need to not only make your case - you need to make it relevant.
The relevance of information to a particular audience is what the media call angle.
Every story has an angle. In simple terms, angle is explanation of the relevance. It is
looking at information from the angle of perspective of the audience, rather than
from a personal perspective. An easy method to find the most appropriate angle for
a statement to the media or news story is to ask yourself a very simple question
about your information:
“What does it mean to ... (insert audience)?”
The answer to this question is the angle of a statement or story which establishes its
relevance and goes a long way towards making it newsworthy.
31
In summary, news is:
•
Dramatic;
•
Topical;
•
Specific with details, especially numbers; and
•
Relevant to the media’s audiences.
You also need to remember that news is competitive. Editors and news directors
report that for every story published and broadcast, at least another 10 are
discarded. In some major national and city media, as few as one in a hundred
available stories are selected. Your news and comments have to compete to ‘get a
run’ at the expense of other material. You can increase the competitiveness of your
information by ensuring your statements to the media contain as many of the above
criteria as possible. Your news and statements may not involve conflict or drama indeed, you may not want them to - but you should try to score at least three out of
four to be newsworthy.
Media bias
The media are frequently accused of bias in this process of selecting information to
publish or broadcast and in their processing of information. Alleged media bias is
one of the most vexed issues concerning mass media in society and it is an issue
which particularly concerns companies and organisations that throw themselves at
the mercy of the media in interviews, news conferences and other contact.
A number of complete theses have been written about media bias, so this handbook
cannot hope to provide an exhaustive discussion on this issue. However, several
points are worth noting as they affect our attitude towards the media and sometimes
our behaviour in dealing with journalists and editors.
Bias, like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. What one person sees as bias,
another sees as a fair account. Every person's ‘truth’ is different. For instance,
32
during the 1975 Australian Federal election campaign, caretaker Prime Minister,
Malcolm Fraser, became sick with flu. Continuing to campaign, he called a news
conference and was photographed in his garden looking sick and pale. When the
photograph appeared on the front page of The Age, Liberal supporters were
outraged and accused the newspaper of bias because it used a picture showing a
gaunt and sickly Liberal leader. But that was how Mr Fraser looked on that particular
day. And, after all, he had called the news conference.
People often want the media to show things as they would like them to be, or from
their personal perspective. On many occasions during my journalistic career, I wrote
an article and received a perplexing response. After previewing a new model car, I
received a letter telling me I had been totally unfair on the vehicle, that I had not
given credit to its fine points, I had unjustifiably criticised its performance and
alleging that it was quite clear I drove an opposition make. In the very next letter that
arrived, its writer informed me that I was not fit to be a motoring writer as I had been
infatuated by the new car and failed to reveal its sloppy handling, lack of
performance and inflated price. I ask you, what’s bias?
‘Encoding’ and ‘decoding’ information
Psychologists explain that each of us encode and decode information differently.
We choose words to reflect a meaning which we wish to convey. But someone
receiving that information may interpret our words to mean something different.
Take the example of two friends talking. One friend may slap the other on the back
and say, “You’re a fool. A real fool”. The other will clearly interpret the comments as
a friendly jibe. However, imagine if the same person said the words to a stranger.
The person might quite easily draw an entirely different meaning and take serious
offence.
We each encode and decode information within a context. The example of the
conversation between two friends would most likely take place in the context of a
smiling expression and a joking tone of voice. If the context is common to both the
encoder and the decoder, accurate communication takes place. But the same words
33
in a slightly different tone of voice or without the visual clues could create a totally
different reaction.
Information is also filtered through the mental framework of our attitudes, our
knowledge and our mood. Hugh Mackay calls this our ‘cage’. He says that everyone
lives within a mental cage which is constructed from their knowledge, past
experiences and attitudes. (Mackay, 1995, pp. 61-86)
When someone sends information, they filter it through their attitudes, knowledge
and even their intellectual capacity to explain it. Likewise, when someone receives
that information, it is filtered through the recipient’s attitudes, knowledge and
intellectual capacity to understand it. Because everyone’s ‘cage’ is different, people
can see the same information and draw different interpretations.
Bias does occur in the media. Two noted British media critics described the media
as “a flawed mirror into which thirty-two million Britons look every day”. (Hirsch and
Gordon, 1975, p.10)
Bias occurs for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it occurs deliberately because
journalists or editors project their personal point of view in a story - or a point of view
that has been suggested to them. It occurs because of the ‘system’ - the crushing
demands of the media for speed and insatiable thirst for news to split-second
deadlines. It occurs occasionally because of poor training or educational standards
among reporters, although this is steadily being overcome with more and more
journalists holding university qualifications. Bias also occurs accidentally. It occurs
through slip-ups under the pressure of deadlines, misinformation being passed to a
reporter, and human error. More often than not, bias is accidental or personal rather
than organised and deliberate.
Avoiding a ‘siege mentality’
If you approach the media with a suspicious attitude believing journalists and editors
are deliberately biased and out to get you, you will have little chance of successful
34
media relations. A ‘siege mentality’ promotes hostility. And it creates a defeatist
attitude which begins to imagine bias in every story.
The media are not an homogenous sector or group that shares a unified view of the
world. Occasionally, the media will focus on an issue or rally en masse behind a
cause, but this is usually coincidental, driven by a widely shared consensus of what
is news and market research findings on what the public wants. There is also a
concept called ‘pack journalism’ which results in what appears to be shared
ideologies and organised conspiracies in the media. While not something the media
should be proud of, ‘pack journalism’ is more a factor of human nature than an
organised conspiracy. Journalists, like other professionals, tend to follow leaders. So
when one influential reporter or medium takes up an issue or makes a stand, others
tend to follow in what sometimes eventuates into a media ‘feeding frenzy’.
Newspapers, radio and television networks are locked in fierce competition. Also,
most journalists and editors tend to be independent individuals. The media are not
out to get you. When you face the media, you are facing an imperfect institution
rather than an organised army.
Don’t ‘kill the messenger’
As well as avoiding a ‘siege mentality’, you should also resist the temptation to ‘kill
the messenger’. What is often perceived as bias in the media, is in fact a reporter
reporting what someone said. Journalists cannot be responsible for what their
sources think and say.
“But why do the media give time and space to ratbags and extremists,” people often
ask?
Many journalists believe that they should not edit out comments by sources simply
because the sources appeared biased towards a particular view. Journalists are not
qualified to make ethical and moral decisions about what it truth and what is not.
Their job is to report what people say and do. You should not blame a journalist or a
35
particular section of the media for quotations that you do not agree with. The
journalist is merely the messenger.
Most journalists and editors are hard-working people doing a job which they take
seriously. Accusing them of bias, ranting and raving about something they have
printed, or taking a superior attitude because you think all journalists are lapdogs to
some cause or higher authority, will not get you very far.
The media are in the business of trying to find out what is going on in the world and
making that information available to the community as quickly as possible. It is the
media’s job to tell things as they are - no matter how ugly, violent, distasteful or
immoral the events themselves may be. The media are not public relations agencies
for anyone.
As a journalism textbook from the University of Columbia in the US says:
"Sometimes, elements of the news media do overreach themselves.
Since journalism is far from being an exact science and journalists
cannot be handled like computers, grievous errors sometimes may be
made and great wrong may be done. However meritorious the majority
of news organisations and individual journalists may be, some in every
era and in every land are guilty of abuses ranging from mistakes in
judgement to faulty reporting, from inexcusable sensationalism to a
vicious partisanship, libel, and worse. Yet, where the tradition of selfgovernment is strong, the sins of the journalist are tolerated for the sake
of the undoubted benefit that a free press can bring to free people."
(Hohenberg, 1973, p. 6)
Media effects and influence
Another aspect of the media which affects our attitude towards journalists and
editors and the way we react to media stories is the so-called ‘power of the press’.
36
The press was accused of “power without responsibility - the prerogative of the
harlot throughout the ages” by British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, using words
allegedly written for him by his cousin Rudyard Kipling.
A continuing debate rages over whether the media is the voice of public opinion; the
reflector or mirror of public opinion; the organ of public opinion; the controller of
public opinion; the regulator of public opinion; or the creator of public opinion. As
Denis McQuail asks: “Are the media changing something, preventing something,
facilitating something, or reinforcing and reaffirming something?” (McQuail, 1984, p.
34)
It is inarguable that the mass media do have an effect on public attitudes and public
perceptions. The famous 1938 radio broadcast by Wells of “War of the Worlds”
showed just what influence the media can have. The program, which was a radio
play, involved simulated news broadcasts reporting an alleged invasion by men from
Mars. People listening to the broadcast panicked, ran into the streets, and some
were stopped on the brink of mercy killing their children and attempting suicide.
The media are largely attributed with bringing down the Labor Government in
Australia in 1975, although the real effect of a campaign against the Whitlam
Government by major media groups cannot be objectively assessed. Did the media
cause people to vote conservative by criticising the Labor Government, or did the
media simply reflect pre-existing widespread public concern?
An entertaining story illustrating the alleged ‘power of the Press’ was told by
Adelaide Advertiser columnist, Des Colquhoun, in one of his columns. The story
concerned a group of journalists covering the war in Cyprus in the 1960s. The ‘press
corps’ joined a group of Greek militia which had surrounded a Turkish village and a
pitched battle was in progress. What happened is best told in Colquhoun’s own
words:
37
“The village sat exposed in the middle of ploughed fields. Bazooka and mortar
shells and machine gun bullets ripped back and forth across the open fields in
a terrifying frenzy ...
The Greek guerillas had to yell at us to keep our heads down as we
interviewed them. So a score of us huddled in ditches to watch. Detached
observers or not, we soon got the message that this was the real thing and we
did more huddling than watching.
At least we did until, unbelievably, a French TV journalist in his 60s took out his
grimy white handkerchief held it aloft and, bent so low that his memorable
Gallic nose almost touched the ground, walked out into the crossfire. His
astonished soundman and cameraman took out their hankies and followed him
with spectacular reluctance.
They walked a few paces toward the Turkish village and there was a noticeable
drop in the shooting. You could hear the London Daily Express man saying to
himself, "Hell, if a Froggie can do it, I can do it.” So out came his hanky and he
headed after the Frenchman. So then the Daily Mirror man felt he couldn’t be
scooped by the Express, and the Daily Telegraph man thought he couldn't be
beaten by anyone. And yours truly of the ‘Tiser had to be in it, so there were
soon a dozen of us hunching our nervous way across no-man’s land.
Before we’d gone 100 metres the war just stopped dead. No-one was going to
risk killing the international Press. They had more power and influence than all
the guns on Cyprus.
When we reached the village the war broke out again and we spent a few
hideous hours under fire. Then the Frenchman decided he had to file his story,
so he set off with his hanky for the Greek lines. We followed, our hankies in our
hands and our hearts in our mouths.
Again the war just stopped dead until we’d reached the other side.
38
Now that’s what I call the power of the Press.” (Colquhoun, 1983)
That the media do have effects is well established. Media researchers such as
Denis McQuail point out that the mass media “through selective presentations and
the emphasis of certain themes, create impressions among their audiences that
common cultural norms concerning the emphasised topics” exist.
A key criticism made of the media is that they are responsible for ‘agenda-setting’.
That is, the media select events and issues that are discussed and considered by
the community. By their selection process for stories and programs, the media set
the agenda for public discussion - and other issues go ignored. In this way, critics
say, the media define social reality.
The media are also blamed for almost every social ill known in our society. The
media have been said to cause crime, violence, teenage delinquency, promiscuity,
racial strife and drug taking. But, in fact, little proof or evidence is available to
substantiate these claims. Precisely what power the media really do exert in
contemporary society continues to be debatable.
Joseph Klapper released a landmark study of the media in 1960, “The Effects of
Mass Communication” which destroyed many of the myths concerning the power of
the media and shattered assumptions. Klapper concluded from extensive research
that “persuasive communication was more often associated with attitudes
reinforcement than with conversion”. Klapper’s basic assertion, which is still held as
relevant today, was that mass communication was “more likely to reinforce existing
opinions than to change them, and more likely to produce modifications than
conversion”. (Barr, 1977, p. 9)
Not everyone agrees with Klapper. But we can note from his research that
generalisations about the media’s power to change opinions or create new opinions
are dangerous. Modern mass communication studies and psychology find that
39
people draw their opinions from a range of sources and the media are but one
influence.
Possible links between media coverage and portrayals of violence and the level of
violence in society is one area which has received considerable study and attention.
There is a general belief that media coverage and portrayal of violence and
lawlessness contributes to lawlessness and disorder. However, while one school of
research is now convinced that media portrayals of aggression can provoke
aggression in child audiences (Berkovitz, 1964), another school of research
(Freshbach, 1971) has found that the effect of fictional violence is more likely to be
cathartic and have an aggression releasing tendency. (McQuail, 1977, p. 85)
In 1965, the psychiatric department of Denmark’s Council for Forensic Medicine
reported that “no scientific experiments” could lead one to the assumption that
pornography or obscene pictures and films contributed to committing of sexual
offences by normal adults and youths.” (The Report of the Commission on
Obscenity and Pornography, 1970, p. 58)
In response to this report and substantial supporting sentiment in the country, the
Danish Parliament repealed the legal prohibitions against written pornography in
1967. In 1969, the Danish Government ended film censorship for adults and
legalised the sale of pornographic pictures and photographs to anyone over the age
of sixteen. (Merrill and Lowenstein, 1971, p. 149)
The prophets of doom forecast that Denmark would slide into moral decay. But
guess what happened? Sex crimes fell sharply in the year following the 1967
Government action and decreased further after the repeal of virtually all
pornography laws affecting adults in 1969.
There is also research on audience retentiveness which suggests that newspaper
and magazine articles and electronic media broadcasts do not have the all-powerful
influence or effect we sometimes think they do. Research by the influential Wharton
Research Center at the University of Pennsylvania has found that people retain only
40
around 10 per cent of what they hear or read once and no more than 50 per cent of
what they see. (Hallan, 1993, pp. 42-43)
What this suggests is that you should not over-react to a media story. When one
negative article appears in the media, it is not the end of the world. Despite the
warning about “making or breaking your company or career in 30 seconds” at the
beginning of this book, the media does not inject opinions into the public like a
vaccine.
Before you over-react to a negative story in the media, consider the following
formula for newspaper impact:
•
On average, only 10 per cent of a newspaper’s circulation will read any one
particular story in the paper. Some don’t read the paper at all on some days
and most people skip read, selecting items of interest;
•
On average, of those who read a particular story, most will remember only 10
per cent of the content.
This means that an average article in a newspaper with a circulation of 100,000 will
only be read by 10,000 people and only 1,000 will remember what they read.
There is also research which shows that, even when awareness is created, attitudes
do not necessarily change and, furthermore, when attitudinal change occurs, it does
not necessarily lead to behavioural change. So, even if 1,000 people remember
what they read in the newspaper, only a small percentage of these will change their
attitude because of the information and even fewer will change their buying
behaviour, voting preference or patronage.
The purpose of these examples is not to contradict earlier comments about the
importance of the mass media, but to provide a rational view of media effects. The
media can neither be blamed for all of society’s ills, nor can they be seen as a
panacea for changing opinions in your organisation’s favour.
41
A realistic view of media effects also suggests that communication with the media
has to be on-going. One good interview or story is not going to achieve your
objectives any more than one negative story is going to cause ruin.
Commercial v public media
Most media are commercial businesses. They have shareholders who demand a
return on their investment and anxious accountants who watch circulation figures
and ratings. They need to satisfy the needs of their consumers, or they will go out of
business. This means that commercial media are finely tuned to what the public
wants. As much as some observers and critics lambast the media for what they do
and claim they should do things differently, continuing ratings and circulation are
undeniable proof that a medium is satisfying the market.
Few would argue that the media are just businesses, however. The media accept an
important and privileged place in our society and with that position go
responsibilities.
There is a powerful incentive for the media to live up to those responsibilities. Media
in modern democracies are largely unregulated and resist any form of Government
intervention with fierce independence. Most media proprietors keep one eye over
their shoulder for signs of encroaching regulation, ‘Big Brother’ intervention or
systems of control. They too have their public relations. They know that if they don't
perform to society’s expectations, the pressure for regulation and compulsory
changes will grow.
But, while we can reinforce the need for the media to accept certain responsibilities
because of the special role they play in society, we must recognise that commercial
media are businesses. They are not charitable institutions there for our benefit. They
will publicise and broadcast stories which increase circulation or ratings because
that is their financial imperative.
42
Publicly owned media, such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC in
the UK, and public access radio, are not motivated and influenced by the need to
sell advertising or make a profit. However, most public institutions today are
governed by strict budgets and increasing demands for accountability. Public
institutions are increasingly operating as quasi-businesses along commercial
principles. The largesse common on some public institutions in the seventies and
eighties is no longer common.
Some public media adopt a special role based on a perception that much of the
mass media serve commercialism and are strongly linked to major institutions in
society. Public radio stations and even major networks such as the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation take a ‘devil’s advocate’ stance even more seriously than
commercial media and lean to the Left on many issues. They define part of their role
as giving a voice to alternative views and ideas which do not see the light of day in
commercial media. This is worth bearing in mind when you are dealing with public
media.
The relationship between advertising and editorial
When you buy advertising space or time in the media, you can do what you will in
that space or time, restricted only by laws on obscenity and defamation. You own it,
so you can control it. But, in the news pages and programs, you are seeking to be
mentioned, preferably favourably, in space or time that is owned by the media
concerned. You don’t own editorial space or time, so you can’t control its content.
And, despite what you might have been told, as a general rule, editorial is not up for
sale.
You need to clearly understand the difference between advertising and editorial
media. Even though they co-exist, often on the same page, they are generally
worlds apart.
A common misconception is that spending a lot on advertising guarantees editorial
space, or at least ensures favourable treatment. In the quality media such as the
43
major networks, leading national and city newspapers and reputable magazines, this
is not the case. In fact, even suggesting to an editor that he or she should give you
favourable editorial treatment because you advertise is often a sure way to gain the
opposite result. Reputable journalists and editors are bound by codes of ethics and
professional integrity. One way to get reputable journalists and editors off side is to
pressure them to give you favourable treatment because you advertise.
What confuses the picture is that a number of smaller, close to the breadline media
compromise their editorial integrity and do deals to keep the wolf from the door. As a
general rule, this is restricted to small trade publications and some vertical market
media. In some small publications, the proprietor is both editor and advertising
manager, resulting in a blurring of the lines between advertising and editorial.
Also, some media publish special advertising supplements or sections which are a
hybrid, sometimes referred to as ‘advertorial’. But, forget what anyone has told you
about getting editorial coverage in the news or feature pages of The Wall Street
Journal, The Times, The Australian, The New York Times, The Sydney Morning
Herald, The Age, or on a major TV network just because you bought a few
advertisements. Even if you spent a few million, most editors will be insulted by any
suggestion that you feel they can be bought off.
Ignore what enthusiastic advertising sales representatives say. Media advertising
reps frequently make promises which they have no power to deliver on to lure clients
into signing advertising orders. Advertising and editorial departments are usually
physically separated, rarely being on the same floor in major media networks and
publications. And there is little contact between advertising and editorial staff. Often
there is little love lost. To an editor or journalist, an advertisement is space taken
away from editorial in which he or she could have had an story. To an advertising
salesperson, editorial is the space between the ads on which he or she receives no
commission and which does not earn money for the media. Therefore, they see it of
little value and are happy to give it away - even when it not theirs to give.
44
Even if your company or organisation spends millions of dollars a year advertising in
the media, there is no advantage in mentioning this to most journalists or editors.
They don’t care. Nor should they. If journalists made a practice of giving favourable
treatment to major advertisers and ignoring non-advertisers, the media would have
no balance at all. News would be defined and dominated by the biggest spenders.
If you pull your ads in protest at editorial treatment, someone else will take your
place and you will have lost out doubly.
Conversely, if you are ever asked by a journalist or editor to buy an advertisement or
commercial because they are giving you editorial coverage, look at them in surprise
and righteous dismay and remind them of the journalists’ Code of Ethics. For
instance, the Code of Ethics of the Australian Journalists Association (now the
Media and Entertainment Arts Alliance in Australia) specifically precludes editorial
for advertising deals and vice versa.
Managing the interview
The fact that editorial content is owned by the media concerned, and therefore
cannot be controlled, causes significant unrest among many executives. In
particular, CEOs and senior executives used to wielding power and being in control,
sometimes become indignant at the prospect of “some snotty nose young journalist”
calling the shots.
Some raise the question that, if you cannot control what the editorial media print and
broadcast, why take the risk of giving interviews and comment. Hopefully the
introduction and discussion of the media so far have convinced you that you cannot
prevent or avoid media coverage. Even if you don’t co-operate with the media, they
will write and talk about you and your organisation anyway.
Even though you cannot control editorial coverage in the media, this does not
necessarily mean that you have no control over news or comment about you or your
organisation. Like many other areas of public and private life, you can significantly
45
influence outcomes through effective management. As an aside, it is debatable
whether executives really control other areas of their responsibility such as staff or
resources. You can’t make people work efficiently or force projects to be completed
on time. You influence them through careful and intelligent management. This
handbook and the techniques taught are based on this philosophy of managing
interviews so that we can positively influence outcomes.
You will not be able to control editorial media unless you buy the network or
publication - and possibly not even then. But a range of tools and techniques will be
provided to you in this handbook which will equip you to exert a significant degree of
influence over media agendas and content.
Differences between press, radio and television
A key question which almost every person who faces the media asks is, “what is the
difference between press, radio and television interviews?”
Because newspapers generally publish longer articles than radio or TV news, many
assume that press interviews can be much more relaxed and statements can be
longer. This is largely a misconception. Even long newspaper and magazine articles
are broken into short paragraphs and your comments will rarely comprise the entire
article. Often, just a few paragraphs (referred to in the media as ‘pars’) containing
your comments will be used, along with quotes from other spokespersons and
analysis by the journalist. While some magazine and newspaper feature articles will
cover an issue in more depth and afford you more space than radio or TV news,
most press interviews have similar requirements as electronic media in terms of
news value and brevity.
The apparently relaxed nature of press interviews compared to electronic media
interviews with their microphones, cables, lights and sense of urgency and tension
should not lull you into a false sense of security. Press journalists may have a
relaxed style, but they are just as incisive and their requirements just as demanding
as their more glamorous electronic media colleagues. Print media interviews are, in
46
fact, “much harder than broadcast despite their lack of intimidating cameras and
recorders. Print reporters take advantage of this seemingly conversational approach
and can keep you chatting for hours if you let them,” warns Jim Cameron, a former
news director of NBC television and founder of JFORUM, the CompuServe on-line
service for journalists who has trained hundreds of CEOs, authors and celebrities to
face the media.
There are some key differences between press, radio and television in terms of style
and physical presentation. Television is seen as the big challenge by most
interviewees and many fear TV interviews. Television is more demanding in the
sense that the audience see you as well as hear you. Your body language, dress,
background and movements all contribute to communication with the audience. If
the words come out right, but you are sweating profusely, you will not appear
credible. You have to sound and look right. If a fly is crawling up your nose, viewers
will miss everything you say because they will be too occupied watching the spinetingling progress of the fly. Your appearance, including dress, hair and facial
expression are important on TV.
The power of television is its visual impact. When you have a story that needs to be
shown rather than told, TV is the medium. For instance, describing the aerobatic
capability of a new type of fighter aircraft at a demonstration or air show is difficult in
print or on radio. But TV can take the audience there to see it for themselves. On
television, when accidents are reported people see the blood; they see the twisted
wreck and the anguished faces.
In advertising, a radio or newspaper advertisement selling sausages presents a ‘flat’
image and relies on words to get the message across. But the combined pictures
and sound of golden sausages sizzling in a pan with fresh bacon and eggs can have
our mouth watering in seconds even without a word being spoken.
Because television is a visual medium, it wants visual stories. TV likes action,
movement and illustration. Television does not like ‘talking heads’. This means you
should look for opportunities to illustrate or add action to your stories. If you are
47
being interviewed about the building industry, TV would prefer you standing in front
of a construction site rather than sitting in the office. If you are launching a new
product, demonstrate it working for TV. Even a backdrop of some graphs or charts
at a news conference can help television coverage.
Television also has massive reach, particularly at peak viewing periods. A survey in
the UK in 1982 showed that 84 per cent of people regarded television as their
primary source of news. This has major implications for managers and executives
and begs the question of how well they prepare for and handle television interviews.
(Rutzou, 1983)
Television’s disadvantage, even more exaggerated than radio, is its compression of
information. Whereas radio has several hours of news and talk each day, television
crams the day’s event worldwide into 30 minutes or an hour. And of that, at least
one-third will be taken up with commercials, sport and weather.
To illustrate the compression of television, consider that an average hour-long
television news bulletin is comprised of around 30 items. This involves a script of
around 4,000 words. By contrast, a 72-page daily newspaper has an average of 250
stories containing around 150,000 words. (Simons and Califano, 1979, p. xiii)
In television interviews, you may have only 30 seconds to summarise your
organisation’s 200-page report. Often you will have even less time, as modern TV
interviews increasingly deal in ‘sound bites’ of 10 to 15 seconds. Encapsulating your
information for TV news demands clear thinking and an ability to get to the point
quickly.
Radio should never be regarded as ‘television without pictures’. Radio has its own
particular characteristics and communication benefits unmatched by television. For
instance, up to nine-tenths of television air time is occupied by drama. A very small
percentage of air time is devoted to news and current affairs where interviews with
your company or organisation can be used. Radio goes to air 24 hours a day in
most cities with news on the hour as well as many opportunities for you to talk to
48
large audiences in ‘chat shows’ and ‘talk back’ programs. Radio offers more scope
in sheer time available under most circumstances.
Radio transmission has tripled in the past 25 years with more than one billion radio
receivers in the world - approximately one for every four persons on earth. People
listen to radio driving, walking, jogging, doing the housework, on the beach, in the
shower and making love. (Deakin University, 1983)
As well as being ubiquitous, a key aspect of radio is its immediacy. Radio is what’s
happening now. Even taped interviews will go to air within a few hours at most. This
is an aspect of radio unmatched by other media. If you want to get your message
out quickly, radio is the medium. Radio does not wait until this evening’s news
bulletin, or tomorrow’s morning paper.
Another - and probably the major feature of radio - is that it is a personal medium.
It is used as company by many people. Psychologists describe the ‘wall of sound’
effect or the ‘sound drug’ where people use radio to fill in background to their social
landscape.
Radio gives the illusion of a ‘one to one’ relationship. This is driven home in the
instances where listeners have fallen in love with announcers and are horrified to
learn that other people share the same relationship. One text comments that radio
“is really the means we have of eavesdropping on a conversation that is going on
between two people”. (King and Roberts, 1973, pp. 24-32)
This has important ramifications for users of radio. The personal nature of the
medium means you should adopt an appropriate style when you go on radio
programs. News comments can be hard-hitting. But particularly in interviews on
‘chat’ shows or ‘talk-back’ programs, you should adopt a friendly personal approach.
In radio you are talking (or chatting) to or with people, not ‘at’ them. Radio can be
extremely intimate. It is a ‘warm medium’, whereas print is cold.
49
The radio message, however, is a fleeting moment of sound. It is not the medium for
complex explanations or lists of facts and statistics. People have to be able to grasp
your point at one pass of the information. There is no visual reinforcement and no
hard copy to check back for verification.
Despite many predictions of their demise, newspapers continue to be popular and
magazine titles and circulations have increased substantially in the past decade. For
less than one dollar in many cases, newspapers provide an enormous amount of
information ranging from world news to the local TV guide, sports reports, horse
racing results, comic strips to entertain the children (and grown up children),
crossword puzzles, stock market reports and more.
Paper remains important in society because people frequently want a copy of
information to refer to later or keep. Newspapers and magazines free us from the
tyranny of ‘prime time’. They provide information that we can read in our own time
rather than when the media determine. We can access printed publications or
articles for reference or research more easily than recorded tapes as they don’t
require playback equipment, and we can easily transmit printed information to others
such as by facsimile.
Most communications and media experts predict that newspapers and magazines
will be around for a long time yet and they still reach audiences of billions every day.
Interviewer styles
Interviewers use different approaches and you should note some of the most
common interviewing techniques so that you are prepared.
‘Baseliners’ and ‘net rushers’
One terminology describes interviewers as ‘baseliners’ or ‘net rushers’. As the tennis
analogy suggests, baseliners hold back and throw questions at you, waiting for you
to make a play or a mistake. Net rushers serve up the first question and then come
50
at you with a rush. You shouldn’t let them panic you, but you have to be prepared for
their volleys.
A common tendency is to fear net rushers and feel comfortable with baseliner
interviewers. However, the best interviewee performances frequently come from
interviews where the journalist puts pressure on and forces the play. A baseliner
type of interview could go like this:
Question:
“Well, John, tell me about your new national program to teach Swahili in
schools nationwide.”
Response:
“Well, you know, we think Swahili is a wonderful language. I learned the
language when I was there in 1980 and they’re a wonderful people you
know. It’s a very rich culture with a long heritage and ...”.
The interviewee is rambling. Who cares about the interviewee’s experiences almost
two decades ago? And why is he talking about the people and the culture of a far-off
land when the interviewer asked him why a specific overseas language should be
taught locally?
A ‘net rusher’ interviewer may approach it like this:
Question:
“Swahili is not a popular language worldwide. Why teach it here?”
Response:
“Well, we believe that we should broaden our society to wider cultural
influences and Swahili is really a very beautiful language ...”.
Question:
“But why Swahili here?”
Response:
“Firstly, we think students should have a wider choice of languages.
Secondly, we think we should offer languages from all continents and
Africa has been largely ignored to date. Thirdly, we are increasing trade to
the Swahili-speaking part of the world and we need to develop language
skills to continue this.”
51
In this scenario, the journalist came straight in with a volley, forcing the interviewee
to sharpen up his game. Irrespective of what you think of the merits of learning
Swahili, the second response was far more relevant and convincing.
The ‘midwife’ approach
A third type of interviewer is the one who takes what is termed the ‘midwife’
approach. This technique is usually restricted to programs where you have five or 10
minutes for the interview and things can proceed at a more leisurely pace. For
example, comperes of day-time TV talk shows and radio ‘chat’ shows frequently
take a ‘midwife’ approach to interviewing.
An interviewer adopting the midwife role sits back and lets you do the talking.
Particularly if you are an expert in your field, a personality, or a VIP, the audience
wants to hear you - not the interviewer. The ‘midwife’ interviewer gets his subject to
do all the work and is content to keep an eye on things, adding the occasional word
of encouragement or prompting.
The ‘ambush’ interview
A situation which you will hopefully not have to face is the ‘ambush interview’. As the
name suggests, an ‘ambush interview’ is where the journalist catches you
completely off guard with a surprise question or attack. If there are skeletons in your
corporate closet, you should know about them and be on your guard. It is important
that your media spokespersons are well briefed. Here is a summarised example of
real ‘ambush interview’ from a leading national TV current affairs show:
Question:
“Have you ever made or issued a statement claiming (name) is corrupt.”
Response:
“No, never.”
Question:
“You have never made allegations against (name)?”
Response:
“No.”
52
Question:
“Well, I have here a copy of a statement issued by your office, on your
letterhead, which makes a number of claims against (name). I will read
them to you ...”
In this example, the interviewee looked and almost certainly felt like a fool. ‘Ambush
interviews’ are quite often used in current affairs television which thrive on drama.
They are legitimate tactics by the media provided that the information is obtained
legally and that the journalist does not lie or use subterfuge in obtaining the
interview. In the example quoted, the interviewee clearly should have been aware of
correspondence emanating from his office.
Another form of the ‘ambush interview’ which you should be wary of is where a
journalist seeks an interview ostensibly to talk to you about some positive issue, and
then asks questions about a totally different (and usually negative) topic. If a
journalist lies in seeking an interview, you are justified in terminating the interview.
Certainly, if serious information such as in the example given is suddenly revealed,
you should immediately end the interview until you can avail yourself of the facts.
But don’t expect journalists to always ask straight up and down questions. As we
have seen in this chapter, the media act as the ‘devil’s advocate’ and their
questioning style is often more reminiscent of a courtroom prosecutor than an
interviewer.
In summary, the media comprise a very imperfect institution, with many faults,
inconsistencies and sometimes even gross failures. There are ideological factors at
work in the media. But, most often, problems between companies, organisations,
institutions and the media are the result of misunderstandings and lack of
knowledge.
A key factor which contributes to one-sided media interviews is that most start with
an imbalance of information and knowledge. The interviewee usually knows a lot
about his or her subject, but little or nothing about the medium. On the other hand,
53
the journalist knows the medium inside out, but often little or nothing about the
subject.
Public relations executives spend much of their time trying to increase media
knowledge about their client organisations. But to fully redress this imbalance of
information, company and organisation spokespersons also have to know
something about the media.
This chapter has been designed to give you a basic understanding of the media and
how they operate. Understanding news, how the media perceive their role and how
interviewers approach their job will give you a basis for developing media skills
which will be further discussed and developed in the following chapters.
54
2.
Basic ingredients of media interviews
and relationships
________________________________________________________________
There are a few basic ingredients fundamental to all media interviews and
relationships. Without these, you will not get to first base with the media, so these
essential elements will be discussed briefly in this chapter, before looking at some of
the more sophisticated steps and techniques for handling media interviews.
Access
The first basic ingredient for doing successful media interviews and developing
positive relationships with journalists is that you have to be accessible to the media.
Accessible in media terms means something different to what we normally consider
accessible in business or professional life. At work, arranging a meeting with a
senior person may require a few days notice, or even more. But the media often
require an interview in a matters of minutes, or hours at the most.
Many company and organisation executives work in a corporate cocoon, shielded by
secretaries, personal assistants, receptionists and public relations departments.
Journalists become impatient with these layers of bureaucracy and, unless you
respond quickly to their requests for information or comment, they will go elsewhere
- possibly to your competitors.
55
Companies, organisations and individuals successful in dealing with the media
usually have a policy of fast-tracking media inquiries and responding to media
requests immediately.
Steps that you should consider to expedite media contact include:
•
Brief your reception to fast-track media calls. All callers should be identified
and calls or messages from journalists should be passed immediately to a
nominated person or persons for quick response.
•
Return all media calls immediately - even if it is to say that you need more
time to obtain information. If you don’t call back quickly, journalists under the
pressure of deadlines, will look for alternative sources. Letting them know that
you are chasing up some facts and will have them within a specified time preferably before their deadline - will identify you as a reliable source and
keeps lines of communication open.
•
Nominate appropriate spokespersons - preferably more than one.
Invariably a principal spokesperson will be unavailable on some occasions
through business commitments, holidays, overseas travel, and so on. Also, you
may need specialist spokespersons who are expert in a particular field. If you
have offices or facilities in other locations, you should consider appointing a
spokesperson in each location to talk to local media on local issues.
Also, even though a company’s or organisation’s principal media spokesperson
is usually its CEO, you may not always want your CEO up front. Choosing the
right person to put forward is crucial, according to Robert Gottliebsen, editorial
director of Business Review Weekly, one of Australia’s premier business
publications. Involving your CEO in every media story will take a large amount
of his or her time away from running the organisation. Also, as Gottlibsen says:
“... if the boss slips up you can be in big trouble. If someone else slips up, then
the company can say ‘that person got it wrong’.” (Allen, 1996)
56
Having more than one spokesperson gives you options and ensures that you
can meet most if not all media comment opportunities.
•
Train your media spokespersons in communication skills and the techniques
of media interviews. This handbook is a good start. But you also may find
coaching and advice from a specialist consultant or trainer beneficial.
•
Provide after hours contact numbers if possible. The media do not work
nine to five Monday to Friday. Most media operate around the clock including
on weekends and public holidays. The content of Monday morning
newspapers has to be researched and compiled on Sundays. You and your
organisation will be at an advantage if you provide media with after hours
contact numbers.
This can be inconvenient and intrusive on the personal life of spokespersons.
But it is unavoidable if you want to be accessible to the media and competitive
with other sources of information. I have spent many years of my life taking
calls from morning radio programs as early as 6 am and carrying a mobile
phone 24 hours a day - even to the beach on weekends and on holidays. But it
pays off. When the media get used to you being available, they will call you
regularly as they know they can count on you - provided, of course, that what
you have to say is usable.
Mobile phones are increasingly an essential communications tool for fast and
reliable access as many executives spend a lot of time out of the office. If you
decide to use a mobile phone for media calls, use a digital mobile phone
preferably as this offers superior voice quality and is suitable for doing ‘live’
radio interviews. Analogue mobile phones are notorious for drop-outs and
crackly interference. Many radio stations will not accept calls from or make
interview calls to analogue mobile phones.
Brevity
57
Some people argue that they need to explain important or complex issues at length.
However, it is worth reflecting that the Lord’s Prayer contains just 56 words; the Ten
Commandments by which millions of people live contain 297 words; and the famous
Gettysburg address by Abraham Lincoln which galvanised a nation contained just
210 words. Each of these can be read in just a few minutes.
You can and should package your statements and comments for the media in a way
which gives them the best chance of broadcast or publication. That means briefly.
Broadcast media - radio and television - use short, sharp statements of 10 - 30
seconds. Even newspapers, which publish longer articles, need short, snappy
paragraphs. Media call these short statements grabs - because editors can simply
grab them in editing and use them without time-consuming cutting and joining.
If you talk for five minutes without taking a breath, you will not succeed in getting
your comments into the media the way you want them. You will only succeed in
attracting heavy editing, or your statements will not be used at all.
If the media have to heavily edit your statements, they will do it with less sympathy
and less understanding of the issues than you have. Forcing the media to drastically
edit information, often under the pressure of tight deadlines, is one of the principal
causes of misquoting. The media may not have any mischievous intent.
Misreporting is often simply a case of a busy reporter or editor trying to get a 30second ‘grab’ or a few pithy statements out of 20 minutes of speech and, in the rush
of media production, choosing the wrong ones or accidentally juxtaposing two
statements which alter their meaning.
You need to self-edit when talking to the media. This requires discipline - and
practice. It does not mean that you should give just 30 seconds of comment. But if
you are giving a news or current affairs interview, give short statements. In media
interviews, less is often more.
A useful technique for developing brevity is to practise putting yourself into summary
mode. This is a mode of communication where we accelerate our speech slightly,
58
heighten the intensity of our tone and select only the most vital pieces of
information. Everyone is capable of summarising. Picture a simple scene such as a
parent farewelling a child at an airport. If the final boarding call is made before the
parent has finished imparting last-minute instructions and advice, he or she will go
into a summary mode. The conversation will become very brief. Sentences will be
short. Only priority information will be exchanged.
On hearing the final boarding call, the child will probably exclaim: “Gotta go. Bye.
Take care.”
The parent will say something like: “Make sure you eat something. And don’t forget
your vitamins. Call me when you get there. Bye.”
Six or seven messages have been communicated in those two brief exchanges
which, without the pressure of the imminent departure of the aircraft, would have
taken much longer in normal conversational speech.
Another everyday example of how people can summarise what they need to say
when they have to is a person talking on a mobile phone when the battery starts to
go flat. Long-winded conversations are suddenly condensed into a more urgent and
condensed style of communication.
In talking to the media, you should maintain a relaxed, confident style of speech.
You should not summarise to the extent of using staccato, machine-gun like
statements or shouting the way you would to a departing family member or friend.
But the heightened communication intensity of summary mode is necessary in
talking to the media. Time is definitely not on your side in media interviews.
Effective summarising usually requires a trigger. For instance, a public speaker
changes tone and adopts a briefer, more urgent form of speaking when he or she
comes to the conclusion of a presentation. People shuffling in their chairs or going
to sleep may be a trigger to bring on the conclusion earlier than planned. Lawyers,
who may talk for hours or even days during a court hearing, change the style of their
59
argument when it comes to the summing up. They know that there is very little time
and a lot of information has to be reviewed. Media interviews are about conclusions
and summing up, not the main body of information on a topic.
Triggers to invoke a summary mode of speech include a number of common
everyday word cues which you will have heard - and probably used when a friend or
colleague talked for too long. For example, people regularly use the following
phrases:
•
“Cut to the chase”;
•
“What’s the bottom line?”;
•
“What does it all boil down to?”.
You can use these simple mental triggers to practise summarising what you want to
say in media interviews. Rather than thinking of everything you would like to say
about a topic in preparing for an interview, ask yourself, “What does it all boil down
to?” or “What’s the bottom line?”.
Some interviewees even use these verbal triggers for summarising in their answers
to media questions to focus themselves. They begin: “What it all boils down to is ...”.
What follows is usually a much condensed version of what they previously said or
would have said had they not triggered themselves to summarise.
The media want you to boil information down to the main elements. They don’t want
all the ins and outs. They don’t want your life story or the corporate history of your
organisation. They don’t want every specification of your product, or a blow by blow
description of an event or activity. The media want the main facts or points as briefly
as possible.
Keep it simple
The oft-quoted KISS formula - Keep It Simple Stupid - is critical in media interviews.
You need to remember that, even if your topic is complex, the media’s job is to
60
explain it to a mass audience. Techno-babble and professional mumbo-jumbo such
as legalese will not used by the media except in the specialist technical columns of
trade journals.
“They are but 10” was the sobering reminder written by British newspaper magnate
Lord Northcliffe as a guide to Fleet Street reporters. He was not alluding to the
chronological age of his readers, but to the mental age or capacity which most
people apply to reading a newspaper. The same can be said of radio and TV
programs. Few people focus their entire intellectual capacity on a news report. Most
often media are consumed while eating breakfast and sending the kids off to school
or in the evening stretched out relaxing on the lounge after a hard day’s work.
An expert in the use of language, Professor Robert Eagleson from the University of
Sydney, says many people are guilty of placing a misguided concern for status and
importance above concern to communicate with their public. It is an amazing
phenomenon that even people who can speak clearly and simply, turn into
Humphrey-style bureaucrats of “Yes Minister” fame the moment a microphone is
placed in front of them.
Many managers and executives fall into the trap of writing and speaking
cumbersome, convoluted prose when simple statements would get their message
across more clearly. For instance, consider the follow mumbo-jumbo phrases
alongside their simple English meaning:
•
Delicate vegetative structures
•
Restore the equilibrium of cost
Sensitive plants
price relativities
Restore profitability
•
Within predetermined guidelines
Within set guidelines
•
Lower socio-economic groups
The poor.
Gobbledygook confuses and costs time and money, according to Professor
Eagleson. He was engaged by the Victorian Government to supervise the redesign
61
and rewriting of its standard summons form. The result was savings of $400,000
through reducing queries, errors and administrative workload. (Eagleson, 1996)
In the UK, airline passengers fill out a form every year for the Customs and Excise
Department to claim unaccompanied baggage. The form had an error rate of 55 per
cent. Redesigning the form reduced the error rate to three per cent, saving 3,700
staff hours a year in processing - a financial saving of $90,000 a year. (Eagleson,
1996)
The US Federal Communications Commission rewrote its application for CB radio
licences and was able to redeploy five staff who had been engaged full-time in
handling inquiries. (Eagleson, 1996)
And yet people persist in speaking and writing mumbo jumbo which utterly bewilders
its audience. Consider this Australian Federal Government instruction:
“It should be born (their spelling error) in mind that the annual publishing
program consists of not only those publications scheduled for printing
during 1984-85 but also those publications which will be paid for during
1984-85; that is, publications which are not expected to be delivered to
the AGPS until May or June of this year should be included in the 198485 publications program because they will not be paid for until 1984-85.
Notwithstanding this, those publications which are expected to be
delivered to the AGPS during May and June of 1985 should be included
in the 1984-85 program.” (Howard, 1987)
It would not be surprising to find some bureaucrat somewhere in Canberra still trying
to work out which publications go where. When you speak to the mass media, you
need to use simple, clear words and sentences.
Don't use the interviewer's name
62
Many interviewees believe it is friendly and a sign of their status or familiarity with
the journalist to address an interviewer by name. They respond: "Yes, John. The
answer to that is . . ." or “No, Jane, our company is not polluting the river.”
You are not talking to the interviewer during interviews. You are talking to the
audience who may not see or even hear the interviewer. The interviewer is really
only a conduit to the audience.
As a general rule, don’t use the interviewer’s name when being interviewed. You will
hear politicians and some famous people call journalists by their first name on air.
This is often an attempt to be patronising. Presidents, Prime Ministers, stars and
major media figures can get away with it. But you and I should follow preferred
media procedures.
Honesty, sincerity and compassion
There are three other vital ingredients of all media interviews - honesty, sincerity and
compassion or empathy.
You should always be honest with the media. That does not mean that you have to
tell journalists everything. But you should tell the truth in what you do say. Also, you
should not be evasive in answering questions. In electronic media, the audience will
be able to hear or see this and will believe you are hiding something sinister.
Journalists will sense it and close in for the kill.
Many journalists are trained in questioning techniques which reveal whether a
person is telling the truth. Some interviewees become irritated at being asked the
same or a similar question several times. Deliberately repeating questions in slightly
different form is but one of the ways of checking consistency in responses. You
should avoid sarcastic responses such as, “As I already told you, ...” in answering
repeated questions. The journalist is simply doing his or her job. Observant
journalists also carefully watch body language during interviews. The level of eye
63
contact and contractions or twitches of muscles around the neck, mouth and eyes
send signals when someone is lying.
Don’t be affronted by journalists’ assumption that you may be lying. Unfortunately,
journalists are lied to every day. Remember the ‘devil’s advocate’ role discussed in
Chapter One. It is part of a journalist’s job to play the role of the ‘devil’s advocate’. If
you play it straight with journalists, most will soon recognise your honesty and relax
their cynicism.
What to say when you don’t know
Don’t be afraid to say you don’t know. There will be times when you don’t have the
answer. Under no circumstances should you try to bluff your way through with the
media. Just be honest and say, “I don’t know.” If the information is important to the
story, offer to find out and get back to him or her as quickly as possible.
Honesty can be refreshing in media comments and interviews and can work in your
favour. When 60 Minutes presented a story on the financial crisis in the national
economy of the Cook Islands which included allegations of incompetence by the
island state’s political leaders, the reporter was visibly taken aback when the Prime
Minister admitted he had made mistakes. When the PM went on and said solemnly,
“I was wrong and I take full responsibility,” the reporter remarked that it was the first
time in his career that a spokesperson had admitted a mistake. From that point on in
the interview, the reporter gave the interviewee considerable respect and sympathy.
(60 Minutes, May 12, 1996)
You should always be sincere in what you say. Sincerity shows in one’s eyes. On
television, the audience will look at your eyes and know whether you mean what you
say or not. In newspaper and radio interviews, the journalist will watch you closely
and form an opinion on whether you are sincere. When journalists are convinced of
your sincerity, they are likely to report your story more sympathetically.
64
Enthusiasm is a common by-product of sincerity. If you really believe in something,
you become enthusiastic about it - and enthusiasm is a positive element in
interviews. Enthusiasm is contagious. If you are enthusiastic, even cynical
journalists will be at least a little affected by your energy and belief. And enthusiasm
is often catching for the audience. Your enthusiasm should not be ‘over the top’.
Gushing propaganda and hype are not welcomed by the news media. But, you don’t
have to be a wooden Indian. When you have genuine enthusiasm or even passion
for your subject, don’t be afraid to let it show.
Compassion or empathy is important in interviews which include tragedy or a
negative impact on some person or group. It is important to empathise with
audiences about their concerns, fears and anxieties - even if you believe they are
unfounded or unreasonable. In a story such as a price rise announcement, a
company spokesperson should appear empathetic to the financial stress faced by
ordinary people. Consider the difference in the following statements made by
executives defending price rises:
Spokesperson 1: Our costs have gone up and we can’t be expected to wear them. So we
have passed the costs on. It’s simple economics. Talk to the unions and
the producers of our raw materials if you want to point the finger at
someone.
Spokesperson 2: We know times are tough for consumers. That’s why we have absorbed all
the cost rises we can and have delayed putting up prices for as long as
possible. But people want our products to remain high quality and, to
continue to meet our customers’ needs, we have to make some price
increases.
Which company would you prefer to do business with? Most people would prefer the
second one because the company seems to care about its customers and is
sympathetic to their problems, rather than being myopically fixated on its own
interests.
65
Honesty, sincerity and compassion are highly personal issues and each individual
expresses these attributes in different ways. But it is important to recognise that
none of the techniques for handling media interviews taught in this handbook will
work if a spokesperson is lying, insincere or arrogant and uncaring about the people
who are reading, listening or watching.
When you incorporate these basic ingredients into your media interviews - being
readily accessible, speaking briefly, using simple language that ordinary people can
understand and displaying honesty, sincerity and enthusiasm - you become
recognised by the media as ‘good talent’. ‘Talent’ is a trade term which the media,
particularly radio and television, use for all interviewees and commentators.
Journalists gravitate towards ‘talent’ who they know can perform, so your ambition
should be to earn their recognition as good talent, as this will open up many
interview opportunities for you and your organisation.
66
3.
Seven tools for successful media
interviews
________________________________________________________________
The seven ‘tools’ explained in this chapter provide practical, easy to use techniques
which will revolutionise the way you give media interviews and the outcomes of
those interviews.
Each step on its own will not make a dramatic change. Some are very simple and
basic. But used together, they provide a set of highly effective tools to construct
successful media interviews.
In many years of training executives in media interview skills, I have promised to
hand back my fee if participants in the program did not find a dramatic reduction of
misquoting and misreporting, as well as an improvement in getting across their
points, after using these tools. No one has ever asked for their money back. In fact,
some executives including CEOs who previously had a poor track record in having
their comments reported accurately and fairly, have written delighted at a dramatic
turnaround in their relationship with the media.
Remember, these tools are designed to work together, so read through all of the
seven tools and then we will discuss how they can be applied and used together in
media interviews. The first three are to be used before interviews as part of
preparation. The remaining four are important tools or techniques to use during
interviews.
67
As was explained in Chapter One, you cannot control media interviews. But you can
significantly influence the agenda and the outcome of interviews with these
management tools.
1.
Objectives
A journalist approaches each interview with an objective. It may not be an explicitly
thought out or written objective. But he or she will have a clear idea in mind for a
story of which the interview is part.
You also should have an objective. But, even though interviewees usually know the
subject and a broad outline of the issues for discussion, few have a clear positive
objective in mind when they approach an interview. Most commonly, they wait to see
what the journalist asks and then answer his or her questions. This allows the
journalist to dictate the agenda.
It is highly unlikely that your objective will be the same as the interviewer's. The
media's objective may be to put you on the spot. Or it may be to pursue a particular
point that is debatable, or which you feel is wrong. It may even be to level criticism
or accusations at you - such as claims that your company is polluting the
environment or mistreating workers, or that your organisation is inefficient.
Research carried out with hundreds of interviewees over many years has found that
in the few minutes immediately before a media interview, one objective was usually
uppermost in their mind. The most common objective was survival.
Unless we prepare ourselves and consciously set a positive communication
objective, our default objective when we face a microphone or TV camera is ‘to
survive’. Most spokespersons fronting up for an interview think primarily about
getting in, getting it over with and getting out.
This is hardly a positive approach and it is not likely to lead to successful interviews.
Imagine a business or marketing plan of which the objective was simply ‘to survive’.
68
Such an approach would be considered defeatist, strategically weak and a waste of
time.
What should your objective be in a media interview? Clearly it should be to
communicate to the audience the main points that you or your organisation want to
make about the topic under discussion. For instance, if your organisation is accused
of inefficiency, you will probably want to show that it is efficient and you may want to
quote some research to prove that. Alternatively, your objective might be to accept
the criticism, but show that was in the past and that things are now changing.
Interviewers will usually ask a range of questions. They will often repeat questions
phrased differently to probe and test you on an issue. They will sometimes try to
lead you off one subject to another in search of a weak spot. Unless you have a
clear objective, you will allow the journalist to set the agenda and you will follow like
a rat behind the Pied Piper.
Clearly, you cannot set your own ambitious objectives for an interview and ignore
the journalist's objectives. If interviewers do not achieve their objectives, at least to
some extent, the interview is hardly likely to get to air or into print. But you can set
your own objective or objectives and meet in the middle in a ‘win win’ interview.
To achieve ‘win win’ interviews, you need to have a few more tools in your kit and
these are outlined in the following.
2.
Frame or reference
If your objective is to communicate to the audience the main points that you or your
organisation want to make about the topic under discussion, you need to have a
clear idea of who comprises the audience of the newspaper, magazine, radio station
or TV network that is seeking to interview you.
Knowing and understanding the audience, shapes the tone, style and content of
communication. It even determines the words we use. For a clear demonstration of
69
this, watch when an adult talks to a new-born baby. Even lawyers and accountants
and middle-aged business professionals say things like “goo-goo little tiddlywinks”.
“Hi bumpkin”!
When talking to people, we take our cue from the audience and pitch our message
and the style of delivering it to them. Scientists addressing a seminar of their
colleagues talk in highly technical terms; an executive addressing a board meeting
will seek to hit the audience’s ‘hot buttons’ with lots of economic or marketing jargon;
while a boss speaking to a group of factory workers will change gear into everyday
speech and even use a little slang and ‘street talk’. This is natural and necessary.
The more closely tuned communication is to the audience, the more effective it will
be.
However, when doing an interview, most interviewees have only a vague idea of the
audience. A newspaper, radio station or TV network often reaches a wide audience
somewhere ‘out there’. An interview is further complicated by having an audience of
at least one right in front of you. There is a natural tendency to address the journalist
as the audience. For TV interviews, there can be a crew of three or four standing
around listening and watching intently.
Psychology teaches us that we act and behave within a frame of reference. In
communicating, we have a frame of reference of who might be reading, listening or
watching what we say and do. It is important to recognise that we always have a
frame of reference. When we are talking to a visible audience, it is relatively easy to
set our frame of reference. But even when we cannot see our audience, such as
when doing a media interview, we either consciously or unconsciously have a frame
of reference.
When we do not consciously set our frame of reference to a particular group or
groups, we fall back on a default frame of reference. Importantly, although not
surprisingly, psychologists find that our default mode is dominated by audiences
who have power or influence over us and whom we need to please - people such as
70
our boss, employer, our peers, or organisations such as government regulatory
bodies or trade unions which directly impact our business or life. (See Figure 2.)
FIGURE 2.
Government
Government
Boss
Boss
Regulators
Regulators
YOU
HQ
HQ
Peers
Peers
Unions
Unions
Consumers
Consumers
Customers
Customers
Figure 2. Default Frame of Reference
This means that if you do not consciously set your frame of reference for an
interview, you will probably speak to audiences within your default frame of
reference. This is why when scientists appear on television, many talk in terms that
most of us cannot understand. They are not really talking to us. They are talking to
their peers and probably members of the board or panel that approved their
research funding. Similarly, when a trade unionist talks to the media, many make
outlandish claims and threats because their frame of reference is not the media’s
wider audience. The union’s executives are really talking to their members and
trying to show them what tough representatives they are. They are in default mode
which often means missing large segments of the media’s audience. Remaining in a
default frame of reference can mean alienating members of the media’s audience.
71
To give successful interviews, you need to set your frame of reference to the
audience of the medium to which you are speaking. If it is a trade journal, you can
speak in technical terms and assume a high level of audience understanding of the
issues. But if you are being interviewed by a journalist from a mass circulation city
newspaper, you will need to set your frame of reference to its audience of mums
and dads, daily commuters, teachers and students, taxi drivers and shift workers,
blue collar workers and professionals, the wealthy, the middle class and those on
the minimum wage.
If you are talking about proposals put forward by your company or organisation, a
regional or suburban newspaper will be interested in the local impact of the
proposal. National business media will be interested in what it means for the
economy. And specialist programs and magazines will be interested in any impact of
the environment or on health. What it means to your company or organisation
internally is of little consequence to most external audiences.
FIGURE 3.
Government
Government
Boss
Boss
Regulators
Regulators
YOU
HQ
HQ
Peers
Peers
Unions
Unions
Consumers
Consumers
Customers
Customers
Figure 3. Setting Frame of Reference to key target audiences
72
Setting your frame of reference is important for two reasons. Firstly, it is necessary
in order to have your comments used by the media. Editors, news directors and
program producers are unlikely to use comments of little or no relevance to their
audience. Many interviews end up unused, not because the interviewee could not
speak well or that the information was unimportant, but simply because it was not
relevant to the medium’s audience.
Secondly, setting your frame of reference helps you communicate effectively as it
allows you to zero in on your audience and reach them through relevant, interesting
comment and information, expressed in appropriate language.
Setting your frame of reference can be likened to setting the sights of a gun. Rather
than using a scatter gun and aiming your comments at no one in particular, you
should use a rifle shot approach aiming at the audience of the medium through
which you are speaking.
Statements made within a consciously set frame of reference are often identifiable
by phrases such as “What this means to the local community/the state/the national
economy/workers or business is ...”. This shows an interviewee interpreting his or
her information to the audience.
A very effective approach to assist you determine your frame of reference and give
relevant comments is to ask yourself two questions before every interview:
1.
To whom am I speaking?
Think consciously about the audience of the medium which is about to
interview you. If you don’t know much about its audience, ask the journalist or
producer. Most media are very happy to talk about their ratings and
demographics, giving you a clear idea of the type of people who will read,
listen to or watch your comments. Picture this audience in your mind and you
will find yourself focusing on the most relevant points and using appropriate
language.
73
2.
What does my proposal/idea/product etc mean to them?
Answering this question will help you interpret and explain your subject in a
way which is relevant to the audience. Rather than talking about the
engineering aspects of a proposal to build a new road, talk about how much it
will reduce commuting time and traffic congestion. Rather than telling the
media how pleased you are to win a major contract, explain the benefits in
local job creation, local industry and the national economy. Instead of trying to
doggedly defend a mistake by your company or organisation, appeal to your
audience by asking, “Who hasn’t made a mistake?” Preferably, you should
then show what you are doing to rectify the situation.
Sometimes, particularly when being interviewed by a mass circulation publication or
program, there will be multiple audiences with differing interests within the total
audience. In these cases, you can use several rifle shots, aiming statements at each
key group. An example of a statement which targets several audiences is:
“This new service launched by Acme Corporation will mean a greater choice and more
competitive prices for consumers; it will create up to 100 new jobs; and it involves
technology that we may be able to export resulting in export income to boost the
national economy.”
This statement can be made in around 15 seconds and addresses three key
audiences or interest areas - consumer prices and choice, jobs and the national
economy. You will know what you should say and to whom if you ask yourself the
two questions provided.
You must get out of default mode and consciously set your frame of reference when
doing media interviews. Things will go a lot easier if you are focused on your target
audience rather than thinking about what your peers and colleagues will say or
trying to please the Board. This does not mean ignoring, or deliberately offending
groups on the left side of Figures 1 and 2. You should not say anything in an
interview which is irresponsible or likely to provoke unwanted reaction from an
74
important group. You should have your boss, head office, peer groups, etc in mind
when doing an interview - but in the back of your mind, not the front. In the front of
your mind your frame of reference should be your target audience.
As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, these tools work together. You should
think of your frame of reference at the same time as setting objectives for an
interview. Rather than setting objectives in isolation, determine your objectives with
your audience in mind. This will help ensure you set relevant, realistic objectives for
interviews.
3.
'Must says' and 'like to says'
The third step of preparation for an interview, after having determined your objective
and set your frame of reference, is to work out what you really need to get across on
the topic to the audience involved. What are the critical messages that you or your
organisation want to communicate?
Not being fond of technical terms or pseudo-scientific descriptions, I refer to these
key messages or points simply as ‘must says’. They are what you must say and get
across in the interview - irrespective of what questions the journalist asks. More on
that later.
With your audience in mind and focused on your objective, you should work out in
advance of the interview what you must say on the topic concerned. Write a few
points down if you wish. You may not be able to read them in the interview, but
writing them out will help you crystallise your thoughts and encapsulate them into
short phrases. If time permits, you should have a few additional points up your
sleeve which you would like to say. In the same spirit of simplicity, I call these your
‘like to says’.
Many interviewees are overly optimistic and expect to be able to communicate four,
five, six or more points in one interview. Particularly in newspaper interviews which
may go on for 30 minutes or more, interviewees feel that there is plenty of time and,
75
therefore, they can get a lot across. But even newspapers and magazines will often
use only a few paragraphs of your comments - not much different to the 10 - 30
second ‘grabs’ of radio and television.
In most interviews, you will be able to successfully get across from one up to a
maximum of three major points. This will become clearer when we look at some
of the other tools to use during interviews.
Remember that an interview is not a communication program. One interview cannot
get across all that you want to say. There will often be other interview opportunities
to say other things. And some of the things you want to communicate may require
other channels such as advertising, printed information materials like brochures or
corporate profiles, newsletters and other public relations strategies. But you can
successfully get across one, two or three key points in media interviews.
However, unless you prepare and persistently pursue your ‘must says’ in interviews,
you will find yourself side-tracked by the journalist’s questions and complete the
interview without having communicated your main points. Or you will have buried
your main points in a lot of other information and the media may select the less
important information in editing your interview. This editing may not be deliberate
selection. Often the media simply pick what looks or sounds best to them. They
cannot be expected to know the priority you attach to certain information.
Having your ‘must says’ worked out in advance means that you do not have to
simply follow the journalist's agenda and graciously answer everything he or she
asks you and nothing more. If you do that, you will help the journalist achieve his or
her objective. But, inevitably, you will fail to achieve your objective.
Some ‘must says’ can be worked out well in advance of an interview. For instance,
if your company is a world leader in its field, that could be a ‘must say’ in every
interview. At every opportunity, you and other company spokespersons could say,
“XYZ, which is a world leader in ...”. If your company has an excellent safety record,
this would be a ‘must say’ whenever industrial or safety matters are discussed with
76
the media. A mobile phone company for which I worked was offering digital services
while its competitors continued to offer older analogue technology and it determined
that this was a ‘must say’ for virtually every interview. The company’s specialist
focus on digital services was a key differentiator, so this was mentioned at every
opportunity in media interviews.
Other ‘must says’ will have to be worked out immediately before the interview based
on circumstances at the time. For instance, if the government suddenly announces
an inquiry into your department or organisation, it is difficult to predict relevant ‘must
says’. Many companies and organisations urgently call their senior management
team together in such circumstances, often with their public relations advisers
present, and work out their response. These messages, or ‘must says’, are then
communicated uniformly to the media, staff, suppliers, customers and so on.
It may appear that there is nothing you can say in some situations. How can a
positive spin be put on an accident at a chemical plant, an oil tanker disaster, a
damning report, corruption charges and so on? Well, consider this true story:
A major international chemical company called my public relations firm around
lunch time one day saying there had been an explosion in its plant on the
outskirts of the city and that, even no one was killed, there was a pall of black
smoke, white foam running down the gutters of neighbouring streets and the
three TV crews were camped outside the main gate shooting footage and
recording ‘wild’ sound (media term for natural sound). The managing director
was in a state of thinly disguised panic and wanted to send the media away.
We explained that the media couldn’t be sent away and that, even if they were
kept off private property, they would shoot pictures through the fence and
interview eye witnesses for the evening news. The result would be speculation
and possibly erroneous reports which could be far worse for the company than
giving an interview.
77
The CEO then argued that there was nothing he could say that would put the
company in a good light. We asked some questions.
Q.
Was anyone killed or injured?
A.
No.
Q.
Had there been any other accidents at the plant before?
A.
No, never.
Q.
Had chemicals leaked into the street or stormwater drains where they could
enter waterways?
A.
No. The white foam in the street was an agent sprayed by the fire brigade to
prevent fumes escaping, and the company had constructed its own intervention
system at great expense which captured all spills before they reached the
outside stormwater drains.
Q.
What was the company doing?
A.
The company was working with emergency services to clean up the spill and
would co-operate fully in an investigation to find the cause of the accident.
Here were the company’s ‘must says’. The CEO fronted the media, expressed
his concern and regret about the incident, advised that no one had been killed
or injured and assured the public that there was no danger because of the
control measures put in place by the company and swift action in co-operation
with the emergency services. His final assurance that the company would
provide full co-operation to authorities in an investigation was sufficient to
convince even the most hardened news hounds that this was a simple
accident with no hidden story. As a result, media reports were balanced and
the story was dropped within 48 hours.
In most situations, there are statements that you can and should make. These
should not put too much of a PR spin on the facts, or they will be seen as flippant,
insensitive or just plain ‘bullshit’ . But you do need to accentuate the positive.
Remember the description of the journalist’s role as a ‘devil’s advocate’ seeking out
the negative and the wrong-doing in the interest of truth and balance. It’s up to you
to ensure your messages (‘must says’) come across in an interview.
78
Most of the ‘must says’ used by the chemical company CEO were already known
before the accident. Only the company’s response to the accident in calling in
emergency services and supporting an investigation required a policy decision or
initiative at the time. ‘Must says’ on key issues can be worked out in advance
through scenario development. Either within your management team, or with the
help of public relations specialists if available, work through possible scenarios
which could lead to media interviews. Scenarios to consider for development of
‘must says’ include:
•
Launch of a new product or service;
•
Winning a major order or contract;
•
Opening of a new facility such as a head office, factory or plant;
•
Restructuring of your company or organisation;
•
Staff redundancies;
•
Release of a submission to government;
•
Release of a major report relevant to your industry or sector;
•
An accident involving a company plant, factory, vehicle, etc;
•
Response to customer complaints.
In each of these scenarios, you can reasonably accurately predict the questions
which would be asked by reporters and prepare key ‘must says’ for use in your
responses.
Few executives would get up before a potentially hostile or difficult audience to give
a speech without preparation. Likewise, you should never give an interview without
preparation.
The aim of preparing ‘must says’ in advance of an interview is not to turn you into a
robot that recites key phrases by rote. If you do this, you will appear very plastic and
false in the media - if they use your comments at all. You must maintain a dynamic
approach to interviews, talking to the journalist in an original and genuine way. But
this does not mean that you cannot prepare. And it does not mean that you have to
speak about everything under the sun.
79
Having your ‘must says’ thought out and clearly in your mind gives you a plan to
pursue in an interview. While we all like to believe that famous speakers such as
Winston Churchill and John F. Kennedy ad libbed their memorable lines, the reality
is that they were prepared beforehand. In the dynamic cut and thrust of a media
interview, if you haven’t prepared to say key points, you won’t say them.
4.
'Bridging' - the 10/30 principle
Many interviewees see the logic of these first three tools, but are still sceptical. A
key question emerges. It’s great to have an objective for each interview, set your
frame of reference, work out your ‘must says’ and then try to say them in an
interview. But, meanwhile, journalists have their own agenda. What if they don’t cooperate and, instead, ask you about other issues which are unrelated to what you
want to say or on which you don’t wish to comment?
In the real world, this is likely to be the case. Rarely will journalists ask you to
comment on precisely the things that you want to talk about. If it was that easy, no
one would need media training or handbooks like this. It is more likely that
interviewers will probe with a range of questions most or all of which will be
unrelated to your ‘must says’. This is where the fourth tool comes into use and
becomes an essential part of the media interviewee’s tool kit.
You will need to develop the art of ‘bridging’. This involves linking from what the
journalist asks to what you want to say - ie your ‘must says’.
Consider this example from an actual interview:
Journalist: “Unemployment has reached 10 per cent, but your government seems to be
doing nothing. You are pandering to big business with incentives, but ignoring
the unemployed. What about jobs?”
80
Politician: “The Government is very concerned about the unemployment situation, but we
have to recognise that unemployment is a result of other macro-economic
factors such as inflation, interest rates and business profitability. The
Government is pursuing strong macro-economic policy to address the causes of
our problems and we are making very good headway in bringing down inflation
to just two per cent and holding interest rates.”
The journalist has asked about unemployment and is single-mindedly concerned
with jobs. The politician wants to talk about macro-economic policy and, in
particular, the government’s success in reducing inflation and pegging interest rates.
In this interview, the politician ‘bridged’ from jobs to macro-economic policy with the
linking phrase “but what we have to recognise is ...”.
Linking phrases are polite expressions in the English language which allow the
speaker to change the topic of conversation or the direction of the debate - often
quite markedly. One of Australia’s long-serving State Premiers, Neville Wran, was
renowned for one particular linking phrase which he used regularly. When
interviewed on a topic not directly related to what he wanted to talk about, the
Premier would, after briefly commenting on the question, thrust his index finger in
the air and declare, “Let me say just this”. He would then proceed to introduce some
new topic or point, often totally unrelated to the journalists’ questions.
Former US President, Ronald Reagan, frequently used a similar although less
dramatic bridge. Sometimes, even in mid-sentence, he would drawl, “But let me say
...”, after which he would head in some new direction.
It is not necessary to use linking phrases to ‘bridge’. However, they smooth the way
for a change of direction. Without them, changing the subject can appear abrupt and
can annoy the journalist and the audience. Some linking phrases are so smooth that
the journalist and the audience barely notice that you have gone 90 degrees, or
even 180 degrees in another direction. If linking phrases help you bridge to your
‘must says’ - and experience shows that they do for many people - use them.
81
'Bridging' can be facilitated by linking phrases such as:
•
But the key point here is ...
•
However, what has to be recognised is ...
•
Let me just say ...
•
Let me remind you ...
•
Another point which needs to be recognised is ...
•
To fully understand this you need to consider ...
•
And so on.
The example quoted involving the politician is also a good illustration of the ‘10/30
principle’ which is important in bridging. This approach, used successfully by many
interviewees, involves spending 10 seconds addressing the question and 30
seconds saying what you want to say - ie presenting your ‘must says’.
The ‘10/30 principle’ is not to be interpreted literally. It is not meant to imply that you
should spend just 10 seconds addressing a journalist’s question and exactly 30
seconds on your ‘must says’, or that answers should be 40 seconds long. As we
have seen, media ‘grabs’ and ‘sound bites’ are sometimes even shorter. But the
principle is important. The ‘10/30 principle’ is designed to illustrate that you should
never simply answer the journalist’s question. You should pursue your own objective
in an interview by ‘bridging’ to your ‘must says’ at every opportunity. Ultimately, your
aim is to spend as much time on your ‘must says’ as possible.
Equally, however, the ‘10/30 principle’ suggests that you cannot ignore the
journalist’s question. A 0/40 approach will not work. If you ignore a journalist’s
question completely, he or she will either interrupt you or re-ask the question.
Worse, it will seem like you are avoiding the question to the audience. While the
‘10/30 principle’ unashamedly suggests that you should not confine yourself to the
journalist’s question and that you should ‘bridge’ to other points that you want to
make, you should address the question to some extent. Preferably, respond to the
journalist’s question first, then ‘bridge’ quickly to your ‘must says’. If you start by
82
talking about something else, even if you intend ‘bridging’ back to the question,
many journalists will not wait and will cut you off. So don’t try a ‘30/10’ approach.
Part of confidently using these tools is not being intimidated by journalists. They are
to be respected no more and no less than other professionals. You don’t have to
kowtow to journalists any more than you should feel superior or patronising to them.
We need journalists and editors to gather and process news and information. But
they need you. You are the source of information they need. You are the expert. As
this handbook has said several times, you cannot control media interviews, but you
can influence them and, with the tools at your disposal, achieve the ‘win win’
interview.
‘Bridging’ is a question of balance. It requires deft verbal footwork. But, once
mastered, ‘bridging’ is one of the keys to successful interviews. If you don’t ‘bridge’,
journalists will set the agenda of interviews and lead you off at tangents from the
issues that you wish to discuss. There is no 11th Commandment which says “Thou
shalt answer the question and only answer the question”. ‘Bridging’ is your tool to
influence agenda-setting in media interviews. Respond to every media question to
some extent, but ‘bridge’ at every opportunity. Where do you bridge to? To your
‘must says’. This is how these tools work together.
5.
Standalone statements
The four tools introduced already should have you a little excited about the prospect
of doing better interviews and achieving your objectives rather than simply following
the journalist’s agenda. But journalists and editors can still edit your comments,
taking parts out and juxtaposing pieces together. Even if you get your ‘must says’
into the interview, they can be left out of the final story or misinterpreted by the
reporter or a sub-editor. Misquoting and misreporting are the most common
complaints from media interviewees. The results can not only be embarrassing, but
damaging to your company or organisation.
83
Now comes one of the most important tools of all. This tool on its own will eliminate
much of the misquoting and misreporting that some spokespersons suffer. Yet it is
simple to understand and use. Try it and judge for yourself.
From the time we are children, we are taught to answer questions. Now I am going
to tell you something which will, at first, sound radical and even rude. In media
interviews, you should not answer questions. That’s right, don’t answer questions.
Let me explain.
Answers are usually phrased with a peculiar grammatical construction. This is
difficult to explain to modern generations who have never studied grammar at
school. Those who have studied grammar will understand terms such as subject,
verb and predicate or object. However, to keep it simple and avoid classroom terms,
let’s demonstrate by example.
Let’s suppose my company has been performing poorly, losing contracts and my
leadership is in question. A media interview could go like this:
Question:
“Mr Macnamara, your company is performing poorly and there are suggestions
that you will have to go. Will you resign as Chairman?”
Answer:
“No, I will not.”
Now, imagine if you never heard the question in the preceding scenario. The
answer, “No, I will not” does not make any sense. It is not a complete sentence. In
grammatical terms, it does not contain a subject, verb and predicate or object.
Answers, by nature of their grammatical construction, commonly depend on the
question for their meaning.
While this is fine for everyday speech where we always hear the question, or we can
ask for it to be repeated, this is an extremely dangerous situation for media
interviews. Consider how many times you read the journalist’s questions in a
newspaper article. Almost never. It is only in the rare case of a long interview
84
published verbatim in the style of Time Magazine that the audience ever sees the
questions. Also, it is increasingly common in radio and TV interviews to cut directly
from a newsreader to a spokesperson making a statement. The reporter’s questions
are seldom heard or read by the audience.
So what happens in the scenario presented? Clearly the reporter cannot use my
words, “No, I won’t”. My answer makes no sense at all when used outside of the
actual interview. The reporter asking me whether I would resign as Chairman of my
company would most likely write or report:
Mr Macnamara denied that he would resign as Chairman of his company.
The reporter paraphrases my answer into a complete sentence. Immediately, even
in this simple example, you will notice that value words have been introduced in the
rewriting by the reporter. The word “denied” suggests I am being defensive or
belligerent. Frequently we blame the media for the way they paraphrase our words.
But, in this instance, I have forced the journalist to rewrite my words. I have given an
answer that is not a complete sentence which will stand on its own, so the journalist
has no option but to paraphrase my words so they make sense.
By no means am I saying that all misquoting and misreporting are the fault of
interviewees and that journalists are blameless. But often misquoting and
misreporting are avoidable through some simple changes to the way we respond to
questions. Consider an alternative response to the same question asked of me:
Question:
“Mr Macnamara, your company is performing poorly and there are suggestions
that you will have to go. Will you resign as Chairman?”
Response:
“I will not resign as chairman of my company.”
In this scenario, my response is a standalone statement. Grammatically it is a
complete sentence. If you never heard the question, you would still understand what
85
I was saying. Think about this for a few moments and the importance of using
standalone statements in media interviews, rather than answers, will become clear.
The journalist writing a story for a newspaper or magazine can use my words
verbatim as follows:
“I will not resign as chairman of my company,” Mr Macnamara said.
Reflecting on the tools already discussed, you will note that, even though the above
response is a standalone statement, it does not attempt to ‘bridge’ to any ‘must say’.
I could further improve my response by saying:
Response:
“A major restructuring program to improve performance is already in place and
is having positive effects, so I will not resign as chairman of my company.”
In this response, I inserted my ‘must says’ - a restructuring program was in place
and it was already having positive results - rather than simply answering the
question.
The journalist writing a story for a newspaper or magazine could then report:
“A major restructuring program to improve performance is already in place and is
having positive effects, so I will not resign as chairman of my company,” Mr
Macnamara said.
OR
Mr Macnamara said he would not resign as chairman because there was a major
restructuring program to improve performance already in place which was having
positive effects.
Similarly, radio or TV reporters could use a ‘grab’ or ‘sound bite’ of me saying the
statement. It stands alone and make sense. It is easy to edit. And it is unambiguous.
By comparison, no reporter could use the earlier answer.
86
Using standalone statements in response to questions rather than direct answers
allows you to redefine the terms of the interview. No reporter or audience could say I
did not answer the question posed. But I did much more than answer it.
In fact, my response could go even one better as follows:
Question:
“Mr Macnamara, your company is performing poorly and there are suggestions
that you will have to go. Will you resign as Chairman?”
Response:
“A major restructuring program to lift performance is already in place which is
having positive effects, so I will continue as chairman of my company.”
This standalone statement involves a very subtle but important change. Instead of
adopting the negative stance of the journalist and discussing resigning, this
response uses a positive statement, “ ... I will continue as chairman ...”.
Using standalone statements allows you to address issues in terms that you choose,
rather than reacting to the negative terms often set by the journalist. In military
terms, this is comparable to one of the principles of war - fight on ground of your
own choosing. Successful generals do not fall into the trap of fighting on ground
chosen by the enemy. Choose your words and express them as standalone
statements to say what you want to say in an interview.
Remember that journalists - excepting columnists and editorial writers - cannot
report their own words. When a journalist asks if you will resign and you respond by
saying that you will continue in your role, the journalist has no quote using the word
“resign”. Too often, spokespersons fall into the trap of repeating a journalist’s words
or allegations and therefore putting them ‘on the record’. Another example is if a
journalist asks, “Are you considering a recall of your product?” If your product is safe
and you are not considering a recall, you should answer something like:
87
“Product (name) is completely safe. It has been tested and approved by all the
relevant authorities and we stand by it and consumers can be confident buying it.”
In this instance, you have successfully plugged your product, stated that it is safe (a
‘must say’), avoided any mention of the word “recall” and addressed your audience
(correct frame of reference). Unless someone else says it, the journalist has no
source or basis for writing about a product recall. Had you answered, “No, we will
not recall our product because it is completely safe”, the journalist would have been
justified in using the word recall because you said it. He or she could even have
written a headline, “Recall rejected”. So be careful you don’t write your own bad
news. Standalone statements are a key tool for saying what you want to say in your
own terms.
There is no question that cannot be responded to with a standalone statement
instead of a direct answer. One of the famous examples of a trick question is “When
did you stop beating your wife/husband/partner?” Any answer to this question
effectively admits that the person did at one stage beat his or her partner. However,
a standalone statement response that completely circumvents the negative
undercurrents of the question could be: “My partner and I have a very happy
relationship”.
Here are some typical media interview questions and standalone statement
responses to help you fully understand this concept.
Question: “Don’t you acknowledge that your products are expensive?”
Response: “(Company name) products are high quality and are priced competitively with
other quality products of this type.”
Question: “Your company has been found to have polluted the environment in the past. So
why should people trust you now?”
Response: “(Company name) has a strong commitment to the environment. We have
rectified any problems which have ever occurred and we are implementing
88
responsible environmental management in all of our operations. For example ...”
(give example).
Question: “After the problems experienced by Mrs Smith, will you recall the product line?”
Response: “We will resolve Mrs Smith’s problems and if any other customer has a query or
concern, they should contact us and we will address any concerns they have.
We have set up a special toll-free number for this. Customers can call us on 1800 123 123.”
Question: “Would you agree that your department has bungled this issue?”
Response: “The Department of (name) handles thousands of cases such as this a year and
we have done the very best we can. We regret any inconvenience to consumers
and we are working to further improve our systems.”
In relation to the last question, you should not use the word “bungle” in your
standalone statement response in any circumstances. If you do, the headline could
be “X admits bungle” where ‘X’ is your organisation’s name. Don’t write your own
bad news.
Practise giving standalone statements in response to interviewer questions. You will
find it harder than you think at first. Most of our life is spent answering questions.
But, with practice, you will fall into a habit of using standalone statements and it will
dramatically improve the accuracy and effectiveness of media reports based on your
interviews.
One technique that may help you use standalone statements rather than answering
questions is to pause for few seconds after each question before speaking. Many
people start to answer immediately a question is asked. Some even talk over the
end of questions. When you launch your response off the end of a question it is
invariably linked to the question. But even a few seconds of silence gives time to
gather your thoughts and breaks the bond between question and answer, allowing
you to start afresh with a standalone statement. Former NBC news director and
89
media trainer, Jim Cameron, says, “Don’t feel obliged to fill ‘dead air’ after a tricky
question. Just pause, think ... and then answer.” (Cameron, 1995). Practise leaving
a few seconds of silence after each question and then beginning a statement which
deals with the content of the question.
Also, you should avoid leaving a hanging yes or no in responses to media
questions. Hanging yeses and nos are so called because they hang there almost
begging to be mixed up with another question where they drastically alter the
meaning of what you say.
For example, imagine if you are asked whether your company cares about the
community and you answer, "Yes". Then the next question is: "But isn't there some
risk associated with your development". If an editor mixed up your first answer with
the second question, there would be red faces all round. This is a very simplistic
example. But the principle is acted out every day in the media when electronic
editing and speed combine to juxtapose comments together in a mosaic of
information that makes up news bulletins.
As a general rule, yes and no serve no useful purpose. It is generally better to make
a short affirmative or negative statement such as “We will carry out a full
investigation” or “We will not back down in our negotiation for a wage rise”.
Deleting hanging yeses and nos removes another of the major opportunities for
misreporting of your interview.
Using standalone statements will radically change the way you respond to media
questions and the way information which you provide is used by the media.
6.
Reiteration
The sixth tool is very simple, but critically important. In the same way as we answer
questions, most of us feel that it is not necessary to say things more than once
unless someone asks for clarification. In fact, people who say things more than once
90
are disparagingly labelled ‘nags’. But there are at least three powerful reasons why
reiteration is the sixth tool that you should use in media interviews.
Firstly, a clarification of meaning. Repetition is saying exactly the same thing again.
Reiteration is making the same point again, but not in the same words. The
difference is important because repetition can be boring and even annoying.
However, reiteration is critical for the following reasons.
1.
Reiteration ‘signposts’ key points as important and draws the journalist’s and
editor’s attention to them. If you talk to a journalist for 30 minutes, or even five
minutes, he or she will have far more information than necessary for an
average media story. How will the journalist or editor know what your main
points - your ‘must says’ - are? Sometimes journalists will not write up their
story for many hours or even days after they interview you, by which time they
may have forgotten the emphasis in your voice or subtle suggestions you
made to them about what to use. One certain way to draw the journalist’s
attention to a point is to reiterate it several times. If a journalist finds you said
something two, three or even more times in an interview, it is patently clear that
you feel strongly about that issue and you want them to use that particular
comment. There is still no guarantee that they will use it, but at least you have
signposted to the journalist or editor that you want to make that point.
2.
Reiteration reduces misunderstanding by the journalist. On returning to their
newsroom, journalists go through their notes or tapes to select information to
use. Some have rusty shorthand - or no shorthand at all. Others have limited
time to replay tapes of recorded interviews. Because even journalists are
human beings, it is possible that they will misunderstand what you say at
times. If they happen to misunderstand one of your ‘must says’ and you have
only said it once, a serious misreporting or misquote could occur. However, if
you have reiterated your ‘must says’, the journalist has clarification of your
meaning. A journalist may even write down what you say incorrectly. But if they
have written it down twice or three times in different statements and different
contexts, it is highly unlikely that they could write it down incorrectly three
91
times. In most cases, the media will not use your statements more than once.
But a lot of misquoting and misreporting can be eliminated by an interviewer
reiterating his or her main points.
This reiteration to ensure accurate transmission is called communication
redundancy. In the same way that telecommunications transmitters send a
signal down a wire or through the air more than once to ensure that one
complete message arrives, or that several partial transmissions can be joined
together, reiteration of your ‘must says’ serves as a quality control mechanism.
If the second or third reiteration is not needed, it is redundant communication
and will be discarded. But often it is needed and it is better safe than sorry.
3.
Reiteration, if used in the final edited interview, improves communication.
Sometimes, the media will use one of your statements more than once and, if
this occurs, all the better for you. Remember, memory experts tell us that most
people remember only 10 per cent of what they see or hear once. But, when
we see or hear things twice, retention increases to 50 per cent. So, if you can
get your key ‘must says’ into a media story more than once, you will have
substantially improved communication.
You should use reiteration rather than repetition. Repetition, which is saying the
same thing over and over, will not be welcomed by interviewers. Reiteration is
making the same point, but expressing it differently.
Here is an example of a company spokesperson with clear ‘must says’, ‘bridging’ to
those and reiterating them several times in an interview:
Question:
“Isn't your company acting irresponsibly in attempting to build a chemical
plant in the middle of a residential area. Why don’t you take it elsewhere?”
Response:
“The area in which Acme Chemicals proposes to build its new plant is
zoned industrial, and we have gone through all the proper channels
including the Department of Environment and Planning and the local
92
council. Let me also point out that Acme Chemicals is a major employer
contributing over 800 jobs. We believe this facility will be good for the local
community as well as for the State and the nation.”
Question:
“But what about the risk of accidents?”
Response:
“The new Acme Chemicals plant will incorporate the latest technology
available in the world, providing safety levels well beyond even the strict
requirements laid down by the Government. Safety is not an issue. The
issue is whether this state-of-the-art plant and 800 jobs go ahead here, or
whether they go to another State or even overseas.
What this interviewee has done is identify that jobs are the main area of interest for
the target audience. While not dismissing safety, the interviewee has hammered
away on the jobs theme, reiterating the message of 800 jobs in the second
response.
It is your responsibility as a media spokesperson to communicate your ‘must says’
as clearly and forcefully as possible, understanding that your comments will be
edited and only a small part of what you say will get through to the final published
article or broadcast story.
7.
Avoid 'red herrings'
The seventh tool is avoiding red herrings. The main reason interviewees forget or
omit their 'must says' and get into quicksand in an interview is that they lose sight of
their objective and fall for a red herring - a question that draws them off in another
direction.
Understanding and identifying red herrings may seem fairly easy. But, in media
interviews, I apply a particular definition of a red herring. In media interviews, a red
herring is anything that is not one of your ‘must says’ or ‘like to says’. You don’t have
to answer every question a journalist asks and, in particular, you don’t have to
answer questions that are irrelevant to the main topic under discussion or off the
93
main point. Often the journalist will go probing, looking for a soft spot or just seeing
what a few questions peripheral to the main issue will turn up. You need to be on
your guard.
The danger of responding to red herrings is demonstrated in this story:
A chemical company CEO not as astute as the one previously quoted was
fronting a media news conference following an accident. He had weathered a
storm of questions from gathered reporters quite well, sticking to his ‘must
says’ about safety, company concern and working with authorities to
investigate the cause of the accident. During the news conference, one of the
reporters had asked him the cause of the accident. The CEO’s ‘must say’
which he used to respond was to the effect that the company did not know the
cause of the accident at this early stage, but that a full investigation would be
carried out in co-operation with the relevant authorities.
Towards the end of the news conference, in a final attempt to get something
more, another reporter returned to the issue of what caused the accident and
the following exchange took place:
Question:
“Sir, you must have some idea of the cause of the accident?”
Response:
“It is too early to tell the cause of the accident, but we are cooperating fully with the authorities and we will support a full
investigation to find out what happened so we can avoid such
occurrences in future.”
Question:
“But you must have some ideas. Could it be the company’s fault
because of lack of safety standards?”
Response:
“The plant has the highest standards of safety equipment and
procedures for preventing accidents. We are very confident in our
systems. However, we will co-operate with authorities in a full
investigation.”
94
So far so good. The CEO was employing very good reiterations of one of his
key ‘must says’. But then this.
Question:
“Theoretically, could the accident have been caused by human
error?”
Response:
“I don’t think so. We have the highest safety standards ...”
Question:
“Could it have been caused by someone outside the company sabotage?”
Response:
“I guess that’s possible. Anything is possible. We are not ruling out
any possible cause...”
Reporter:
“Thank you sir.”
Four hours later, the largest headline typeface available in the city’s afternoon
newspaper proclaimed “POSSIBLE SABOTAGE AT SOUTHAM”. (Note the
name of the place has been changed to protect the guilty.)
You may feel that the newspaper was stretching the truth in writing this headline.
But, technically, the interviewee had acknowledged that it was possible. He could
not rule out the possibility, so he should have stuck to his ‘must says’.
The technique for avoiding red herrings is:
1.
‘Bridge’. Bridge to where?
2.
Back to your ‘must says’.
3.
Even if you have already said them, reiterate them again.
95
This is how these tools are designed to work together as a formula for successful
interviews. They are not only powerful tools in their own right. They are designed to
be part of an integrated approach to doing media interviews. They are tools you can
use to achieve ‘win win’ media interviews, even when there is bad news or a hostile
reporter.
Remember and use the seven tools for successful media interviews:
1.
Set your objective.
2.
Set your frame of reference.
3.
Work out your ‘must says’ before an interview - as well as a few ‘like to says’
if time allows additional points.
4.
‘Bridge’ from the journalist’s questions to your ‘must says’.
5.
Express your ‘must says’ as standalone statements, not as answers.
6.
Reiterate your ‘must says’ two or three times if possible to ensure the
journalist understands them and reports them accurately.
7.
Avoid red herrings. “Bridge’ back to your ‘must says’.
In summarising the seven tools for successful media interviews, it is necessary to
stress that balance is important. You will not have credibility if you sound like a
parrot reciting pre-learned messages. As discussed in Chapter Two, “Basic
ingredients of media interviews and relationships”, you should always show
sincerity, honesty and compassion in interviews. You need to look like a real person,
not a plastic imitation or a robot. But, equally, you should not be aimless and allow
the interviewer to dictate the agenda and dominate the interview. Journalists employ
techniques and tools of questioning and interrogating. You now have at your
disposal tools for making statements to the media and structuring those statements
in an optimum form for media consumption, both in terms of their length and style as
well as in terms of achieving your objectives.
96
4.
Ground rules for dealing with the
media
________________________________________________________________
Imagine if an American Gridiron player ran on to an English soccer field to play, or a
baseball player turned out with mitt and round bat to join the Australian cricket team.
Not only would they look out of place, but they would not know the rules of the
game. As a result, notwithstanding their undoubted talents, they would be likely to
make fools of themselves.
A number of comedies have been based on such situations. But not knowing the
ground rules of the media can lead to situations which are not funny. Misquoting and
misreporting can occur because interviewers and interviewees did not agree on
what was ‘on the record’ and what was ‘off the record’; executives can find
themselves quoted in the media when they thought their comments or name would
not be used; embargoed information can be released and even legal action can
occur through not knowing the ground rules of dealing with the media.
Not knowing the ground rules of dealing with the media is yet another way that you
can make or break your company or career in 30 seconds.
When you do media interviews, you are playing in the media game. You need to
fully understand the rules of that game. Even with the seven tools at your disposal,
you may be caught out by not understanding the law, customs, conventions and
standard operating procedures relating to the media.
97
The following are some of the key ground rules for dealing with the media. You may
already be familiar with some of these, but read through these points carefully to
ensure you fully understand them.
Off the record
A practice which causes considerable confusion in dealing with the media is 'off the
record' comments. The first thing you should know is that, legally, there is no such
thing. Legally, everything you tell a journalist can be reported. Remember, many
journalists carry tape recorders in their jackets or handbags and some even tape
their telephone conversations - although in most countries they are required to tell
you when you are being recorded.
Occasionally, there may be information which you do not want made public, but
which is essential to the journalist’s understanding of an issue. For instance, let’s
suppose your organisation suddenly fired a senior executive, but you cannot
comment publicly because there are alleged improprieties involved which may be
the subject of legal action not yet filed. In these circumstances, it is highly likely that
your lawyer will advise you not to make any comment on the reasons for the
dismissal or the activities of the executive. However, a journalist asking for comment
would be intrigued by your reticence. If you make no comment, the media will only
dig deeper and may even speculate which could lead to further legal action for
defamation or damages.
Such a situation is not in the interests of your organisation, the dismissed executive
or the media. So, to address these situations, a convention has evolved in the
media whereby many, but not all, journalists will accept certain statements off the
record. When it is accepted by the media, off the record means that the information
supplied under that stipulation is not for publication or broadcast in any way or in
any form. It is solely for the journalist’s background.
It is strongly recommended that you follow these three steps in using off the record:
98
1.
Ensure that you really need to be off the record and that it is warranted.
Journalists will usually only accept off the record where it is justified and, as a
general rule, you should use off the record sparingly.
2.
Ask the journalist if he or she agrees to accept a statement as off the record.
Not all journalists do and if you simply give them off the record statements,
they are under no obligation to respect your wishes. Even though off the record
is not legally enforceable, at least seek a ‘moral contract’ from the journalist. In
fact, to play it safe, it is advisable to only use off the record with journalists you
know and trust.
3.
If the journalist agrees to accept the information off the record, give the
information clearly indicating at the beginning, “This is off the record ...” and
concluding with “I am now back on the record”.
In the example given, you could explain to the journalist:
“There is some background which I could only give you if it is off the record. Are you
agreeable to this information being off the record?”
If the journalist agrees, you could then explain:
“There is possible legal action pending between our organisation and the executive.
No case has yet been heard so I am not legally able to talk about or comment on the
allegations and, of course, if you write about them you also could be implicated in
legal action.”
Phrased politely, this will not sound like a threat to the journalist but, rather, you
have explained why you cannot comment on the record and warned the journalist of
a possible contempt of court or sub judice situation - ie information which is before
the courts but which has not yet been heard and, therefore, the release of which is
an offence.
99
Another example of when you may wish to be off the record is in talking to a
journalist about a competitor. It is generally against corporate policy or considered
unprofessional to be quoted talking about one’s competitors. However, if one of your
competitors is experiencing problems such as a product recall, service breakdowns
or slow delivery, you may wish to draw this to a journalist’s attention. Rather than
quoting you, you could ask the journalist to accept the information off the record
from you. The journalist will then be alerted to the problems and will look for
someone else to go on the record.
In this second example, there is another, perhaps better, way of providing the
information to the media which we will discuss a little later.
Problems occur with off the record comments when the practice is over-used or the
speaker is vague about which information is off the record. A speaker at a meeting
or media news conference may find it necessary to go off the record briefly to
explain a key point. He or she should follow the points outlined, explaining clearly to
journalists in attendance which comments are off the record and when the speech is
back on the record. If you are not clear, journalists may accidentally report an off the
record comment.
A further important point is that, at some time, off the record information is likely to
become on the record (ie reportable). If a journalist has respected your request to
be off the record, you should advise that journalist whenever the information
becomes usable. If one journalist has respected your off the record request and
then you subsequently release the information publicly to another journalist, the
original interviewer will not be very happy with you.
Non-attributable
You should understand the difference between off the record and non-attributable
material. As previously discussed, off the record effectively means that the comment
never existed. To all intents and purposes, you never made it. However, at times
you may wish the media to report something, but not to have it sourced or attributed
100
to you. In these circumstances, you can offer the comment to a journalist as usable,
but non-attributable.
In the case of wanting to pass the media some information about one of your
competitors, it is most likely that you would want to do this as non-attributable rather
than off the record. If you give it as off the record, the journalist is requested not to
use it at all. But, in some instances such as this, you will be happy for the media to
use the information. You simply don’t want your name on it.
Non-attributable material is used only occasionally by the media. As we saw earlier,
the media like to attribute all comments and opinions to a named person. Editors
and media consumers are often sceptical of quotes attributed to an unnamed
“company spokesperson” or unspecified “industry sources”. When quotes are not
attributed, there is often a suspicion that the journalist could have made them up.
Without a named spokesperson, there is no way of checking. However, nonattributable material is sometimes used where it means either having the information
non-attributable or not having it at all. Alternatively, if you provide information as
non-attributable to you, the journalist can find another person to quote on the record.
Like off the record, use non-attributable statements sparingly. If you want to provide
non-attributable information to the media at some time, follow the same three steps
outlined for providing off the record information:
1.
Ensure that your statement cannot be attributed to you and give a reason to
the journalist so he or she understands your position.
2.
Ask the journalist if he or she agrees to accept a statement as non-attributable.
Like off the record, there is no legal basis to non-attributable statements, but at
least seek a ‘moral contract’ from the journalist.
3.
If the journalist agrees to accept the information as non-attributable, give the
information clearly indicating at the beginning, “This is non-attributable ...” and
concluding with “What I am now saying is attributable”.
101
Background
The term background is often used in relation to the media and by the media
themselves, so it is important to be sure what it means. It is not always the same
thing to all people.
Background can be:
•
On the record (ie for publication or broadcast);
•
Off the record (not to be used at all); or
•
Non-attributable (able to be used but not with your name).
Background differs to news in that the information may not be relevant or topical
enough to be published or broadcast by the media, but it is necessary in order for
them to understand an issue. For instance, if you have just won a court case, the
media may wish to report the outcome. But, if they have not been following the case
and do not know what it was about, you may need to spend some time
backgrounding journalists. Background typically includes a summary of the history,
explanation of the key issues involved, profiles of individuals or companies
concerned and, sometimes, ‘inside’ information that a journalist needs to know to
understand an issue.
Backgrounding is yet another technique available to you to reduce misreporting. You
should be prepared to invest some time in explaining the background to various
policies, events, new product announcements and so on as it will significantly add to
the media’s ability to accurately report and analyse.
You should be careful, however, to indicate whether your background information is
on the record, off the record or non-attributable.
Exclusives
102
Another potential pitfall in dealing with the media occurs in offering ‘exclusive’
information. ‘An exclusive’ means that the information is provided to a single media
publication, station or network only. There are situations where exclusivity is a fair
and legitimate practice, but there are others where it can get you into trouble with
the media.
The best way to understand the pluses and minuses of exclusives is to put yourself
in the shoes of a journalist. Imagine you are a reporter who is the recipient of an
exclusive. When your job is gathering news and beating your competitors, you take
great pride in an exclusive. You will probably bask in the glory for a day at least. The
editor might even call you into his or her office to congratulate you. And your
colleagues will be admiring and envious.
However, imagine for a moment that you are a journalist at one of the competing
publications or networks which did not get the story. Your professional pride will be
dented by being beaten to a news story by a competitor. The editor will probably call
you in and ask why you didn’t get the information. There may be questions raised
over whether your contacts are good enough to cover the area concerned. You
know on the way home that you can forget about that pay rise or promotion you
were hoping for.
In short, when an executive or spokesperson for a company or organisation grants
exclusives to journalists, they please the journalist who is the recipient, but they put
many others off side and open themselves to accusations of favouritism. It is a case
of 'win one, lose a hundred'. So, as a general rule, you should avoid giving
exclusives to journalists. Treat all media equally and fairly. Resist pleas from
journalists to give them an exclusive. However persuasive one journalist is,
remember the other journalists who miss out.
There are special situations where an exclusive may be warranted. One example is
if you have highly specialised or technical information and there is a well-known or
prominent specialist journalist who writes about that particular field. In this instance,
you will receive more accurate coverage if you allow the specialist to ‘break’ the
103
story, because other media will tend to take their cue from the specialist. If you
release it concurrently to all media, some reporters who do not properly understand
the subject may write highly erroneous reports. In such an example, your granting of
an exclusive to a known specialist will be seen as justifiable.
There is one rule on exclusives which you should understand and which is advisable
in dealing with the media. It is: ‘initiator has rights’. If you initiate a story, either by a
news release, report or personally briefing a journalist, it is your story and you
should distribute it in an even-handed manner to all media in most circumstances.
However, if a journalist initiates a story by coming to you with questions or following
up an issue, it is the journalist's story. In this case, you have no right to provide the
information to other media. If you do, the journalist is unlikely to come back to you particularly if it was a scoop or a ‘hot’ story.
Considerable problems can occur over exclusives in dealing with the media. But the
simple rule of ‘initiator has rights’ and a policy of even-handedness and fairness will
avoid the pitfalls which get the media offside.
Embargoes
Another convention used in dealing with the media which has no legal status is
embargoes. The lack of any legal basis should be clearly recognised when using
embargoes. Writing or typing “Embargoed until 7 am, Wednesday, 10 May” does not
guarantee that the information will not be published or broadcast before 7am on
May 10.
Embargoes can, however, assist both the media in gaining access to information
and your organisation in receiving media coverage and they have become a
commonly followed convention. Like other conventions, they should be used only
where justified and employed correctly.
104
An embargoed release of information is common and justifiable when an
announcement or activity falls close to or shortly after a media deadline, or where
the media need time to research and prepare their coverage.
For instance, if a speech is to be delivered at a conference at 4 pm, it is very late in
the day for morning newspaper journalists who have to file stories by five or six. The
speech could be released early in the morning under embargo until 4 pm. Even
though the newspaper cannot physically print a report until the next day, you should
still embargo the information as radio networks could run the story on their hourly
news bulletins before 4 pm.
You should also give consideration to embargoes for media with long lead times
such as weekly business television programs and weekly or monthly magazines. If
your information is due to be released on the 20th of the month and an important
magazine goes to press around that time, it will not be able to cover your story as it
will miss the current month’s issue and be old news by next month. You can release
the information to the editor or a reporter earlier under embargo so they have time to
read the material and prepare their story.
Major reports are frequently released on an embargoed basis several days before
their official release date. Imagine if you were a journalist and a 400-page report
landed on your desk in the morning and you were required to write a detailed
analysis of the report by 5 pm that day for the following day’s newspaper or morning
news bulletin. It would be virtually impossible for you to read the report and write a
thorough and accurate analysis. Such situations lead to superficial reporting and
even inaccuracy.
In such situations, the organisation responsible could distribute the report to the
media several days before its official release date under embargo. This way, the
media have ample time to read the report thoroughly and prepare well-researched
reports. As a result, media reporting is likely to be more accurate and in-depth.
105
Media embargoes should be clearly printed across the top of all material “Embargoed until ... (time and date)” or “Not for publication or broadcast until ...
(time and date)”.
You should not use embargoes simply to manage the news to suit your own
purposes as this will be looked upon cynically by editors and journalists. For
instance, holding back bad news till late on a Friday or a Saturday when daily
newspapers are not at work and the weekend media are focused on sports news is
not an ethical use of embargoes. But, used intelligently, embargoes are a
convention which can help you and the media achieve comprehensive, accurate
coverage of important issues and activities.
Leaks
Leak is a colloquial term for the unauthorised release of information to the media
either deliberately or accidentally. In many situations, deliberate leaks are a breach
of corporate or organisation guidelines, possibly a breach of employment conditions
and, in some cases, are even illegal. For instance, leaks by members of the armed
forces or employees of the Department of Defence are serious offences. In the
business world, leaks of confidential financial information about a listed company
can lead to insider trading charges. In the very least, leaking confidential information
can be embarrassing for a company or organisation.
In most situations, leaking of information is not an ethical practice and, therefore,
should not be used in dealing with the media. However, there are some
circumstances where leaks are used as a strategy and are justifiable, or at least
acceptable.
As a general rule, junior and middle level employees should not leak information to
the media. When they do, it is usually against the wishes of management and used
to expose some grievance within the organisation. However, senior management
may decide that certain information should be made public or that it would be
106
beneficial for it to be known even though the information is not authorised or
approved for release.
For example, company X was suffering a crisis of investor confidence and its share
price was falling. Meanwhile, the company had won a major South East Asian
project which was forecast to boost the company’s profitability considerably in the
following 12 months. However, local management was prevented from announcing
the SE Asian deal because of political sensitivities and slow-turning wheels of
bureaucracy. The company was attracting bad publicity because of an alleged lack
of action by management and the share price was plunging even further. So the
company’s senior management made a decision to leak some information about the
SE Asian deal. Only the bare threads of the story were leaked, but it was sufficient
to arrest the company’s share price slide and stabilise its position.
You can be the judge of whether the local management of company X were justified
and acted with propriety. Leaking is a personal decision, fraught with ethical and
legal questions. There are only certain instances where leaking information is an
acceptable practice, so be very wary and consider legal advice before deciding to
leak information to the media.
Asking for questions in advance
Interviewees sometimes ask if they can have a journalist’s questions in advance.
Some even try to insist that media questions are submitted before an interview.
Occasionally, magazines preparing feature articles will agree to this and even print
the questions before each answer. But for news, even the Royal Family and the
President of the United States cannot get away with demanding questions be
submitted in advance.
Journalists will tell you in broad terms what they want to talk to you about, so you
have time to collect information that is relevant. But rarely will journalists tell you
precisely the questions that they will ask. They argue that if you have been warned
of the topic and you know your subject, you will be able to answer questions without
107
further priming. News media seek spontaneity, regarding this as closer to the truth
than prepared statements.
You should always be sure of what a journalist wants to discuss before agreeing to
an interview. But avoid asking for the exact questions. Even if they tell you,
journalists will rarely stick to the advised questions. This provides a trap for the
unwary. Many an interviewee, under the impression that certain questions would be
asked, has memorised responses to the extent that when a totally different question
was posed, he or she totally froze up. The tips and tools provided in this handbook
are designed to help you prepare for interviews, but in a dynamic way. Always be
prepared for the unexpected in media interviews.
Reading back copy
After interviews have been conducted, one strategy which some interviewees
propose to prevent misreporting is asking journalist to read back copy before
publication or broadcast. However, while good in theory, this does not work well in
practice.
Firstly, asking a journalist to read you his or her story before publication or
broadcast is, in effect, saying “I don’t trust you to get it right, so I want to check your
work”. Some journalists will flatly refuse. Others may agree, but will be silently
offended.
Furthermore, and even more importantly, having copy read back to you gives no
guarantee of accuracy. Remember that media stories pass through a production
line. They go to a sub-editor after the journalist files the story and the ‘sub’ will write
a headline and edit the story. Whole pieces may be taken out, paragraphs may be
joined together, and the story may even be combined with another. There is no
guarantee that what is read back to you is what will be printed or broadcast. So it is
not worth the hassle of pressing a reporter to read back copy.
108
If a reporter volunteers to read back or fax you copy for checking, that is a different
story. You should take up his or her offer. But, an important word of advice for when
you preview a journalist’s copy: read it and suggest corrections of errors only. Don’t
try to tell a journalist how to write a story. And definitely don’t rewrite the story and
fax it back.
If you have serious concerns about a story, you will have to discuss these with the
journalist. Resolution will require negotiation. The media will not publish or
broadcast your copy if you rewrite the story. And the journalist will probably never
speak to you again. But, in most cases, a journalist who is sufficiently concerned for
accuracy to read or fax you copy for checking, will also be prepared to make some
changes if you are tactful and constructive in your criticisms.
Copyright
With the evolution of multimedia and the use of e-mail (electronic mail) for wide
distribution of information, copyright is increasingly coming into focus as a concern.
Modern computer technology allows the production of multimedia documents which
contain text, graphics, photographs, sound and even video images. Multimedia and
the capability for fast transmission of material electronically are creating a nightmare
for owners of intellectual property and intellectual property legislators.
In most cases, copyright is not a major concern for spokespersons talking to the
media as you own the copyright of what you say. However, if you provide printed
material to journalists, you should ensure that you, your company or organisation
owns the copyright.
This will be straightforward in relation to reports, corporate profiles, brochures,
newsletters and other literature produced by or for your company or organisation.
Even if these materials were produced by an outside agency such as a public
relations firm or advertising agency, your organisation will own the copyright if they
were produced for you under explicit or implicit paid agent agreements.
109
But copyright can become an issue if you want to give a journalist a copy of a report
authored by someone else. In this case, the author owns copyright and you have no
right to distribute the material without permission. Also, the journalist has no right to
reproduce the material without permission of the copyright owner.
In countries which support the Berne Convention, copyright is automatically vested
in all original creative works. Authors or creators do not have to apply for copyright.
It is implicit and immediate from the time of creation. Creative works, under the
terms of the Copyright Act 1968 in Australia and similar legislation in other countries,
include most written and printed material, graphics and designs, audio recordings of
voice or music, photographic material, video footage and computer software. A
photograph or slide is copyright. A graph or chart created by someone for a report is
copyright. The only exceptions to copyright are "advertising slogans of a short and
banal character" and basic lists such as prices and lists of weights and measures.
(Sawer, 1968, p. 74)
If you wish to provide materials such as a report, graphs or charts, photographs or
video footage to the media for reproduction, you need to either own copyright or
obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Some spokespersons mistakenly believe that they can use copyright material
without permission provided they give attribution - ie recognise the author or creator
in the text or in a footnote. This is a convention used in academic circles. The
Copyright Act 1968 in Australia and equivalent legislation in many other countries
provides an exception to restrictions on copyright material for “purposes of academic
study or research”. But these exceptions do not apply to commercial uses in
companies and organisations, or to providing material to the mass media.
The media and individual journalists have become sensitive to copyright as they are
significant copyright owners themselves. Recent court cases have ruled that
photocopying and distribution of press clippings by companies and organisations
without permission is illegal. Duplication and distribution of transcripts or tapes of
electronic media broadcasts without permission is similarly illegal.
110
You should note, however, that copyright applies only to the form of expression, not
facts or ideas. In this way, copyright law does not restrict a free flow of information
or education. It protects the specific form of work produced by individuals. For
instance, when an enterprising writer produced the first book with multiple-choice
endings, many other writers and publishers soon produced stories using this
ingenious idea. Copyright did not prevent others from using the idea of multiplechoice endings, but they could not copy the content of the first author’s stories. A
particular execution or form of expression of an idea is what is protected by
copyright.
While you cannot quote sentences or use graphs or charts from a report for which
you do not own copyright or have permission to copy, you can use facts and redraw
the charts or graphs. Provided your charts and graphs are different to the originals,
you have not breached copyright. You can also quote statistics and facts, but if you
want to use quotations or distribute substantial parts of another’s work, you should
obtain permission.
Defamation
Defamation law varies considerably between countries. In the US, strong “in the
public interest” provisions apply which allow potentially defamatory statements to be
made publicly if they pertain to a matter deemed to be in the public interest. Public
interest has been interpreted very broadly in the US and there is almost open
season on “public officials” and “public figures” in both the US and the UK. Also,
truth is a defence against defamation in many countries.
Australian defamation law is highly complex with eight different jurisdictions (six
States and two Territories) each with its own law and widely differing provisions. As
a general rule, Australian laws against defamation are far more stringent and
defences are much narrower than those available in the US and other countries. For
instance, truth is not a defence on its own in most cases in Australia (Sawer, 1968,
p. 18).
111
Because of the lack of uniformity between States and territories in Australia, a
statement published or broadcast by national media can be the subject of legal
action in any one or all of the jurisdictions. Potential suitors have a choice of
jurisdictions and can bring an action in the one which best suits their case. Thus, a
statement made in an interview in Sydney could be the subject of a defamation
action in Western Australia or Queensland.
Differences in defamation laws in Australia or Asia or South Africa are relevant to
companies in the US, UK and Europe, and vice versa, in today’s ‘Information Age’.
With communications through international media and increasingly via the Internet,
material can be published globally. Even if your comments are legal in one country,
they may be defamatory in another with stricter laws and you could be sued
internationally. So understanding the ground rules on defamation law in a number of
countries is important for media spokespersons.
The Australian Government has moved to reform its complex defamation laws to
provide uniformity and provisions more in line with other modern industrialised
countries, but this has proved to be a long and laborious process due to FederalState politics and significant differences of opinion between legal experts, media
proprietors and social reformers.
In the meantime, Australian defamation laws are, in the words of John Doogue, an
"unholy mess” and any spokesperson talking to the media needs to be wary of
making defamatory statements which could lead to legal action resulting in
significant damages settlements (Doogue, 1981, p. 23).
A defamatory statement at Common Law is one which:
1.
Exposes a victim to "hatred, contempt or ridicule; or causes him to be shunned
or avoided" or
112
2.
"Tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of
society generally". (Doogue, 1981, p. 24)
Defamation can take the form of either libel or slander. Slander is a defamatory
statement in a non-permanent form, usually spoken. Libel is a defamatory statement
in permanent form such as writing, printed material, film, video, audio recording, or
even sculpture.
In media interviews you should be careful to avoid making slanderous statements. In
addition, you should be careful that any background materials such as reports,
briefing notes or letters do not contain libellous material. For instance, a letter
containing allegations of impropriety or poor conduct sent to an individual of whom
the allegations are made is not libellous because the communication is private. No
other party has been exposed to the statement and, therefore, no defamation has
taken place. However, if the letter was provided to a third party such as the media,
the subject of the letter could sue for libel.
Gross defamations include allegations of criminality, dishonesty, fraud,
untruthfulness, immorality or disloyalty to one's country. Other lesser defamations
include suggestions that a person is unfit for an office, lacks qualifications or
competence in a trade or profession (eg calling a doctor a quack or a real estate
person a charlatan), or alleging a person or business is financially unsound.
It is important to recognise that defamation can be made directly (such as calling a
person a fraud or a crook) or by imputation. For example, saying a painting is a fake,
is by imputation, defamatory of the artist who produced the work even if you never
used his or her name, as your statement reflects on the artist’s professionalism.
Some years ago, a civic leader described a prominent city building as “a monstrosity
likely to fall down in a strong wind”. The architect and engineers involved in
construction of the building successfully sued for defamation. Even though they
were not named, the court held that reasonable persons involved in the building and
113
property field would know who designed and constructed the building and, therefore,
their reputations had been damaged.
The purpose of these warnings is not to intimidate you into avoiding all critical
comments to the media. But you do need to bear defamation law in mind when
talking to journalists. If in doubt, seek legal advice before an interview.
This is also another example of why you should prepare ‘must says’ in advance. In a
potentially litigious situation, you must say things right, or you could end up in court.
For instance, if your organisation is taking legal action against someone for an
alleged offence, you must be careful to use the word “alleged” and not say that the
person has committed the offence as if it was a foregone conclusion. Don’t let
journalists put words in your mouth. Carefully select your words and prepare your
key ‘must says’ in advance as discussed in Chapter Three.
Misreporting - what to do about it
Despite knowing the ground rules for dealing with the media and despite using the
seven tools discussed in Chapter Three, misreporting will occur in both print and
electronic media. Journalists and editors are human beings and make mistakes like
all humans. Occasionally, journalists will have ulterior motives, a vested interest or a
‘chip on their shoulder’ which distorts their view and what they report, or are just
plain lazy.
Fortunately, deliberate and malicious misreporting are relatively uncommon. Most
reporters are hard-working, honest individuals trying to do a job to the best of their
ability. The information about how the media work and how journalists go about their
job provided in Chapter One will help you understand the mindset of journalists and
editors, as well as the pressures and limitations which they face. If you skipped over
Chapter One, you should go back and read this section carefully as it provides a
basis for understanding many aspects of the media that will help you deal with
situations such as misreporting.
114
While conspiracy theories and political motives are often held up as reasons for
misreporting in the media, the real causes are often far more basic. Misreporting
sometimes occurs simply because of the pressure of deadlines on journalists which
limits time for checking and verifying information. In the 1990s, the economic
pressures which have affected all sectors of society have cut back reporting staff on
many newspapers and networks. Journalists have to cover more ground than ever
before and often their time and capacity are stretched to the limit.
Misreporting or misquoting of your comments also occurs beyond the control of the
journalist who wrote the story. Newspapers, magazines and broadcast networks are
major information production chains. After a story leaves a reporter’s desk, it goes
through a number of steps. It often goes to a sub-editor who cuts it to fit available
space. Sub-editors also usually write headlines in newspapers and magazines - not
the reporter. So phoning a reporter to complain about a headline is not going to
solve the problem. News editors or news directors may also order changes to a
story such as reducing it in length or combining it with another reporter’s story.
During such changes, significant alterations can be made to the meaning if care is
not taken. Under the pressure of deadlines, too little care is sometimes taken,
resulting in juxtapositions, important points being left out, numbers being mistyped
and points being confused.
Errors are also made through ignorance on the part of journalists. Some journalists
are specialists in their field. But many others are general reporters who cover a wide
range of industries and issues. Many journalists will not have, and cannot be
expected to have, a thorough knowledge of the subject which you talk to them
about. While we all feel a little indignant when someone appears ignorant on a
subject which we believe is of paramount importance, put yourself in the shoes of a
journalist again for a moment. Imagine going to work each day and having to
research and write articles about subjects as diverse as new technology, visiting
movie stars, a health campaign launched by the government, an industrial accident
and two people riding bicycles across the nation to raise money to fight leukemia.
This was the actual story list of one Sunday newspaper reporter I spoke to in
researching this book. Could she be expected to be an expert in each of those
115
diverse areas? The reporter concerned confessed she knew virtually nothing about
the technology discussed enthusiastically by a company spokesperson, had never
seen a movie in which the star played and did not know anything about the health
campaign before turning up for the interview.
Undoubtedly, some journalists are lazy and turn in sloppy work which contains
errors through their own fault. There is very little spokespersons can do to prevent
this, or to change the way the media is structured and the deadlines that apply. So
what then do you do about misreporting?
There are three steps to consider in dealing with misreporting or misquoting:
1.
Firstly, ensure that you have been misreported or misquoted. As a
spokesperson, you are very close to the subject and to the information. That
means that you are usually not an objective audience. In fact, company and
organisation spokespersons are rarely totally happy with what the media
report. Yet when they complain to colleagues, their colleagues often reply, “I
thought it was great”.
Often company or organisation spokespersons feel that they have been
misreported when a story does not reflect the emphasis or angle which they
espoused. However, a journalist is under no obligation to report information
exactly the way you presented it. For instance, the media may change the
order of points you made or leave out some parts of what you said. They may
put a different slant or angle on the story. Provided that they do not
substantially alter the meaning of what you said, it does not constitute
misreporting.
In many instances, so-called misreporting will be a matter of personal
interpretation and conjecture. Because a degree of subjectivity is involved in all
media reporting, despite the efforts of journalists to be objective, there will
often be grey areas. You need to be sure that actual misreporting has occurred
before complaining.
116
2.
If you are convinced that your information has been misreported or you have
been misquoted, decide if the misreporting or misquoting is serious
enough to warrant redress. Initially, we all feel that media distortion is
heinous and want the culprit drawn and quartered. But you need to gain some
objectivity. So cool down by doing something else for a while, re-read the
article when you are calm and possibly talk to some colleagues about it. Often
you will be surprised to find that others have interpreted the article differently to
the way you did. We all decode information differently and because you
encoded the information in one form during the interview, you subconsciously
expect to see it exactly the way you presented it. But, of course, it will not be
exactly the way you encoded it as it has been processed by an independent
medium. Different does not necessarily mean inaccurate. And minor changes
may not matter.
If errors are of a minor nature or not likely to cause major damage, the best
advice is not to cry over spilled milk. Just as you cannot put milk back in the
bottle or carton, you cannot get information back from the audience. It has
already been sent and arguing with the media will not change that.
In deciding on whether any misreporting warrants redress, you need to reflect
on the options available to you. Understanding the means of redress available,
or the lack of effective redress, will help you make a decision on what to do
about misreporting. There are six main methods of dealing with misreporting as
follows:
Contacting the journalist
A first step can be calling the journalist to discuss the misreporting or misquote.
When contacting a journalist to discuss a problem, you should approach him or
her sensitively and diplomatically. As pointed out earlier, misreporting may not
have been the journalist’s fault. Being abusive or offensive may get the venom
off your chest, but it will be detrimental to your relations with the journalist.
117
You don’t have to grovel to journalists, but diplomacy and tact are important.
You should telephone the journalist concerned and say something like:
"Thanks for the coverage. However, I did want to raise with you a few points to
see whether I failed to explain them properly or whether you misunderstood
what I said.”
If the journalist acknowledges that the story was at odds with the information
you provided, you can ask whether there is something that can be done to
rectify the mistake. The journalist may be willing to do a follow-up article. Or
the journalist may advise you to write a letter to the editor.
Letter to the editor
You can write a letter to the editor of newspapers or magazines. Some TV
programs provide a segment for viewer feedback either by letter or video tape.
Generally, however, the space available for letters to the editor is small.
Traditional mass media can hardly claim to be interactive.
Even if your letter is used, many of the audience reading or seeing it will not
have seen the original article, and others who saw the original article will not
see your response. So, at best, letters to the editor offer partial redress.
In writing a letter to the editor, it is essential that you cool off and prepare a
brief, factual letter. Being rude, sarcastic or writing a long critical diatribe will
not win you any friends in the media. And research shows that most members
of the public have little sympathy for such approaches either. Your letter to the
editor will appear days or even a week or more after the initial article. So you
should write it as a standalone statement of the facts containing your ‘must
says’.
Retraction
A third avenue available to you to redress misreporting or misquoting is to seek
a retraction. However, there are few things you probably already know about
retractions which minimise their effectiveness. Retractions almost always
118
appear buried on the bottom of a page or somewhere towards the back of a
newspaper or magazine. An erroneous headlined report on page three is
typically corrected by a single-column retraction on page forty-three buried
between advertisements for kitchen renovations and impotency treatments.
The chances are that most people will never see a retraction even if you
succeed in getting the media to print one. Newspapers are reluctant to publish
retractions and radio and television rarely broadcast retractions at all.
As is the case with letters to the editor, many readers who see a retraction will
not have read the original article, so it will make little sense to them, and most
of those who read the original article will not see the retraction.
Media regulatory bodies
In a number of countries including the UK and Australia, the media have
established industry bodies to hear complaints and self-regulate. The British
Press Council has operated with some success and an Australian Press
Council was set up in 1976.
However, press councils are voluntary membership bodies which results in a
number of limitations on their effectiveness. For a start, some major
newspaper groups have refused to join their respective press councils.
Importantly, bodies such as the British and Australian Press Councils do not
have power to levy fines or institute legal actions against any member. The
power of press councils is restricted to public censure. Where a claim is
upheld, the result is publicised in newspapers which are members of the
council.
Before a press council will process a complaint, you must have formally
approached the medium concerned and pursued other forms of settlement to
your complaint. In other words, if you have exhausted all other steps to settling
your complaint, the Press Council offers a final 'court of appeal' - albeit a court
with limited powers.
119
Information on how to complain about newspapers or magazines is available
from the Australian Press Council as follows:
Australian Press Council
Suite 303, 149 Castlereagh Street
Sydney, NSW, 2000
Phone: (02) 261 1930
Fax: (02) 267 6826
Radio and television have established self-regulation bodies in a number of
countries. As well, there are a number of government regulatory authorities
overseeing electronic media.
In Australia, radio stations and networks attempt to self-regulate themselves
through the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters (FARB). The
Federation adopted Codes of Practice for news and current affairs programs in
1993. Complaints about radio news, current affairs or other programs can be
made to:
Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters (FARB)
Unit 10, Garden Mews, 82-86 Pacific Hwy
St Leonards, NSW, 2065
Phone: (02) 9906 5944
Fax: (02) 9906 5728
Television news and current affairs are covered under a Code of Practice
developed by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations
(FACTS), the industry’s self-regulatory body. This code, developed in 1993,
contains a long list of provisions designed to “present factual material
accurately and represent viewpoints fairly”. However, like many codes, the
FACTS Code of Practice gives TV network news and current affairs easy outs
by adding the words “having regard to the circumstances at the time of
preparing and broadcasting the program”. (Kelly, 1995, p. 361)
120
Wording such as this in media Codes of Practice means editors and journalists
can simply say the pressure of deadlines did not allow time to present
viewpoints fairly.
Former journalist and author of Managing the Media, Graham Kelly, says that
even though FACTS will accept complaints about TV news and current affairs
and pass them on to the networks concerned, the TV networks and stations
are “far more frightened of the Australian Broadcasting Authority than any selfregulatory body and this would be the best organisation for disgruntled
interviewees to approach”. (Kelly, 1995, p. 359)
The Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) is the broadcasting regulator for
radio and television in Australia. As well as planning and allocating frequency
bandwidth for VHF and UHF television and AM and FM radio, the ABA has the
power to allocate, renew, suspend and cancel licences.
Like the Press Council, the ABA requires that complaints be firstly made to the
broadcaster directly. A person can complain to the ABA if a matter is not
resolved by the broadcaster, or the station or network fails to respond to a
written complaint within 60 days.
Within the ABA, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) is the
last resort for complaints concerning electronic media. The head office of the
ABA is as follows:
Australian Broadcasting Authority
Level 15, Darling Park
201 Sussex St
Sydney, NSW, 2000
Phone: (02) 334 7700
Fax: (02) 334 7799
Ombudsman
In the US, a number of major media groups have appointed an ombudsman to
hear complaints. Media ombudsmen operate totally independently of the editor
121
and have significant powers to order retractions or apologies. Many
ombudsman roles are performed by retired judges or lawyers, so they have a
sound understanding of issues such as copyright, defamation, damages and
fair comment.
Ombudsmen appointed by the media are not to be confused with governmentappointed positions such as the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman in
Australia, an independent panel of review for the telecommunications industry.
Many media academics and critics of the lack of accountability in the media
hold hope that ombudsman schemes offer one of the best avenues for
effective redress. However, very few media have appointed an ombudsman, so
this scheme does not offer an avenue to redress misreporting in most cases.
Journalists’ association/union
If a journalist has been guilty of serious misconduct such as dishonesty,
deliberately distorting the truth or offensive conduct (eg forcing entry to private
property), you can formally complain to the professional journalists’
association. Journalists in most countries are bound by a code of ethics and
can face disciplinary action for serious breaches.
In Australia, graded journalists are members of the Media and Entertainment
Arts Alliance (MEAA), formerly the Australian Journalists' Association (AJA).
The AJA, as it was then, developed a Code of Ethics in 1944, with revisions
made in 1984. It is worth reflecting on the AJA/MEAA Code of Ethics as it is
fairly typical of journalists’ codes of ethics worldwide:
Respect for the truth and the public’s right to information are overriding
principles for all journalists. In pursuance of these principles, journalists commit
themselves to ethical and professional standards. All members of the
Australian Journalists Association engaged in gathering, transmitting,
disseminating and commenting on news and information shall observe the
following Code of Ethics in their professional activities. They acknowledge the
122
jurisdiction of their professional colleagues in AJA judiciary committees to
adjudicate on issues connected with the Code.
1.
They shall report and interpret the news with scrupulous honesty by
striving to disclose all essential facts and by not suppressing relevant,
available facts or distorting by wrong or improper emphasis.
2.
They shall not place unnecessary emphasis on gender, race, sexual
preference, religious belief, marital status or physical or mental disability.
3.
In all circumstances, they shall respect all confidences received in the
course of their calling.
4.
They shall not allow personal interests to influence them in their
professional duties.
5.
They shall not allow their professional duties to be influenced by any
consideration, gift or advantage offered and, where appropriate, shall
disclose any such offer.
6.
They shall not allow advertising or commercial considerations to influence
them in their professional duties.
7.
They shall use fair and honest means to obtain news, films, tapes and
documents.
8.
They shall identify themselves, and their employers, before obtaining any
interview for publication or broadcast.
9.
They shall respect private grief and personal privacy and shall have the
right to resist compulsion to intrude on them.
10. They shall do their utmost to correct any published or broadcast
information found to be harmfully inaccurate. (Kelly, 1995, pp. 345-346)
But a word of warning before making a formal complaint to the MEAA - like any
profession, journalists stick together. If you make a formal complaint, make
sure you have the facts straight and hard evidence to back up your claim.
Complaints to a journalists’ association or to a press council usually take many
months - yet another limitation on their effectiveness as a strategy for dealing
with misreporting. Pursuing complaints will take up a lot of your time and will
123
not enhance your relations with the media. So careful consideration is
essential before taking such steps.
3.
The third strategy for dealing with misreporting or misquoting, and the one
which I strongly recommend, is to proactively manage media relations and
interviews to prevent misreporting before it happens, or at least minimise
the extent.
Prevention is generally regarded as better than cure. In the case of media
misreporting, the post-event treatments outlined in the preceding pages are
generally so ineffective that a preventative approach is the only real solution.
There are a number of steps you can take to minimise the chances of your
comments being misreported and misquoted. A number of these have been
outlined in Chapters Two and Three.
In Chapter Two, “The basic ingredients of media interviews and relationships”,
we saw that the media need information that is brief and simple. The likelihood
of misreporting is increased by providing the media with too much material or
complex information that has to be extensively edited and simplified. Accuracy
is enhanced if you provide journalists with brief statements and brief written
support materials that require minimal editing. This reduces the opportunity for
misreporting. Similarly, keeping your statements and information simple
obviates the need for the journalist or a sub-editor to try to simplify it which may
result in over-simplification or errors of interpretation.
You should also take care in talking to journalists during interviews. The seven
tools outlined in Chapter Three provide a number of techniques which
substantially reduce misreporting. Re-read these again as they are vitally
important in handling media interviews.
Preparing your ‘must says’ for interviews, expressing these as short standalone
statements that do not have to be rewritten by reporters, and reiterating them
124
several times will dramatically reduce the opportunities for misreporting and
misquoting.
As well, understanding the ground rules which apply to ‘off the record’ and nonattributable information, embargoes and other aspects of media operations will
further reduce the causes of misreporting.
In summary, a proactive strategy to addressing misreporting focuses on
eliminating the causes, rather than treating symptoms. It accepts that,
sometimes, spokespersons inadvertently cause or contribute to misreporting
themselves. You cannot control what journalists or editors do with your
information, but you can control how you present it. Focusing on better ways of
presenting your information and using techniques such as built-in redundancy
will make misreporting a rare event rather than a regular problem that plagues
your relationship with the media.
Over-exposure
Conservative individuals and organisations often express concern about potential
over-exposure in the media. Many people do not seek the limelight. Leadership is
thrust upon them. When you appear a number of times in the media, people will
start noticing your high profile and may comment on it. Sometimes this is done in
admiration. On other occasions, it will be motivated by jealously.
Don’t let your colleagues or your enemies be the judge of your media performance.
Let the audience decide. How will you know what the audience thinks? The media
will tell you - either explicitly or implicitly by not wanting to interview you any more.
Keeping their audience happy is the media’s bread and butter. If they keep coming
back to interview you time and again, you can be confident that they are getting
good feedback and that you are not over-exposed.
If what you have to say is not of interest and relevant to the audience, one interview
constitutes over-exposure. But if you have interesting, relevant things to say, there is
125
no such thing as over-exposure. The success or otherwise of media exposure is to
do with quality, not quantity.
The ground rules explained in this chapter equip you with knowledge of the rules of
the game to deal with the media on a more even footing. Understanding how the
media operate as explained in Chapter One; being aware of the basic ingredients of
media interviews and relationships discussed in Chapter Two; using the seven tools
provided in Chapter Three; and knowing the ground rules outlined in this chapter
provide the core of media skills needed to deal successfully with newspapers and
magazines, radio and television news and current affairs.
It is suggested that you re-read these key chapters several times to absorb the tips
and techniques. There is a lot to take in. You will also need practice to apply what
you have learned. You can do this in real interviews, or in training scenarios with
colleagues or public relations advisers.
The following chapters provide additional information for further expanding your
knowledge of the media and enhancing your relationships with journalists and
editors.
126
5.
Building relationships with editors and
journalists
__________________________________________________________________
This handbook has extensively discussed doing interviews with journalists and
examined the dynamics of the media interview. While some interviews may be with
journalists who are total strangers, interviews often take place within a wider context
of a relationship with journalists and editors. The outcomes of interviews can be far
more productive and interviews are often less adversarial when a positive
relationship has been developed between interviewees and the media.
You should not assume that personal contacts with journalists will absolve you from
scrutiny or critical media comment if these are deserved. But knowing the journalists
you deal with and having a professional relationship can greatly boost your exposure
and the quality of coverage in the media.
There is considerable misunderstanding over how media relations are developed.
Some believe that a few good lunches and plenty of liquor will make journalists your
friends for life. While there are some journalists willing to trade their integrity for a
bottle or two of Chardonnay or tickets to the grand final, most are professionals and
hospitality and entertainment will not alter the stories they write.
Booze and blurb don't work
127
A journalist colleague tells the story of his days writing a boating column when a
certain manufacturer delivered a gleaming new model powerboat for testing with an
ice chest full of booze, a new four-wheel-drive tow vehicle and an attractive model in
an almost non-existent bikini for “photographic purposes”. Did that influence my
colleague? It sure did. He took two days off to take the boat on an extended test and
came back with a beautiful tan. He then wrote the most scathing column about the
manufacturer because of faults in the product.
There are two lessons in this. Firstly, if there is no substance to your story, no
amount of publicity blurb and soft sell is going to gain media support. The second
lesson from this story is that bribery seldom works with the media. Sending gifts or
plying journalists with booze is not likely to improve your chances of good coverage.
In fact, it will often work to your disadvantage as journalists will wonder what you are
trying to cover up. Alternatively, they will be so hung over that they will write rotten
stories anyway.
There is a time and place for entertainment. But there is a lot more to building
relationships with journalists than a big expense account. This chapter examines
some of the ways that positive relationships can be developed with key journalists
and editors.
Mutual respect
As discussed in Chapter One, your attitude towards the media will shape your
relationships. A climate of distrust and disrespect will erode any attempt to build
relationships with journalists and editors with whom you need to deal.
Respect does not mean you have to love journalists and admire everything they do.
We can respect people even when we disagree with them and even when they
believe in different things or follow different principles.
128
At times journalists will test your patience. Sometimes they will infuriate you. At least
occasionally they will do things wrong and embarrass you, or worse. But then, is
there anyone at your workplace who doesn’t make mistakes?
You should expect journalists to respect you. Equally, you have to respect them.
Even if you do not agree with journalists or editors at times, respect their views and
what they do. Understand their role. Even empathise with the challenges they face
at times and you will find the basis for relationships with journalists and editors that
go beyond occasional brief interviews. Mutual respect is the foundation of all
relationships.
On a more specific level, there are a number of things you can do to foster
relationships with journalists and editors. Consider the following.
Backgrounding and briefing
Companies and organisations tend to call journalists only when they want something
reported. The rest of the time they avoid them. This gives journalists and editors
limited opportunities to get to know your industry, your organisation and the issues
which concern you.
Many interviewees expect journalists to be fully familiar with the subject when the
arrive for interviews. Some treat journalists with disdain if they are ignorant of the
finer points of a topic. If you have read through this handbook carefully, you will
know that it is impossible for most journalists to know all about your specific
interests. Even specialist journalists need updating and briefing on new
technologies, methods and developments.
Instead of contacting journalists and editors only when you want something, try
calling them occasionally and offering to help them by briefing them on industry
developments, new trends or some emerging issue. Some companies and
organisations earn considerable goodwill from the media by holding briefings in their
respective industries. Quite often the companies and organisations concerned do
129
not expect any media coverage. They provide an opportunity for journalists to gain
background information. In the long run, this will help the media report accurately
and thoroughly.
For instance, leading computer companies not only invite the media to an event
when they have a new product to announce. Many of the most successful
technology leaders such as IBM, Microsoft, Compaq and Sun host media briefings.
These can range from a formal presentation with slides and briefing notes to an
informal chat over lunch. Boardroom lunches are popular with some media, provided
they are not held close to deadlines, as they allow journalists to get inside the
company or organisation and talk with CEOs and senior executives at greater length
than interviews permit.
Interviews and news focus on the foreground - the major announcements, releases,
openings, closures, restructurings, activities and events which happen. But
understanding of the foreground often requires a knowledge of the background. You
can help the media understand issues, and help yourself gain more accurate and
comprehensive media coverage, by backgrounding key journalists and editors
regularly.
When you invite the media for a backgrounding or briefing event, make the nature of
the function clear up front. Let them know if there is no major announcement or
news story and that it is a backgrounding session or briefing. That way, they will not
come with false expectations of getting a hot news story.
Many journalists will welcome backgrounding and briefing opportunities and they will
appreciate your consideration to them in providing the time and access to your CEO
or specialist staff.
Backgrounding can be done in person or by telephone before an interview to
facilitate and set the scene for the interview. Public relations staff spend a good deal
of their time backgrounding journalists so that they are briefed on the basics when
130
they arrive for an interview. If a journalist does not seem to know a lot about a
subject, ask if he or she would like some background before doing the interview.
Printed publications can also be a useful source of background for the media.
Consider distributing reports and newsletters to the media as these will provide
valuable background to fill in the gaps in journalists’ and editors’ knowledge. Videos
can sometimes be useful also, but most media don’t enjoy corporate videos full of
public relations and advertising hype.
In summary, backgrounding and briefing of journalists and editors will benefit both
you and the media and can be done by:
•
Special functions such as scheduled briefings or boardroom lunches;
•
Personally backgrounding a journalist before an interview;
•
Telephone contact;
•
Providing written publications such as reports or newsletters.
Invitations
Inviting journalists and editors to your office for background briefings has already
been mentioned. In addition, there are a range of functions to which the media can
be invited as part of building relationships.
Some companies and organisations invite the media to attend their conferences or
major seminars. Occasional boardroom lunches are also welcomed by some
journalists as opportunities to meet your board or senior members of staff. But don’t
overdo lunches. Once a quarter or even every six months is usually enough.
The media particularly appreciate being invited to meet with visiting VIPs or experts
from overseas. Such meetings provide journalists and editors with opportunities
which they usually cannot arrange on their own. You may gain a media story from
such a meeting. But the value of the invitation and media contact will extend far
beyond the one story.
131
Occasionally, you should also invite the media to social activities. While working with
Microsoft in Australia for a number of years, my public relations firm organised an
annual Christmas party for the media. This was comprised a lunch at a relaxed
venue and the function was made interesting by presenting the Microsoft Media
Awards. These were humorous awards made for journalistic faux pas and
idiosyncrasies rather than serious reporting. The media took the awards in good fun
and enjoyed the occasions.
Singapore Airlines holds an annual Chinese New Year celebration and the media
are invited along with several hundred airline and travel industry guests to an
enjoyable evening.
If your company or organisation is involved in sponsorship of major sporting events,
arts or theatre, you could invite key journalists and editors to be your guests at least
once a year. Along with customers, staff, shareholders, distributors and dealers,
media are important target audiences. We spend most of the time thinking of the
media as channels for communication. But don’t forget they are a target audience
as well with which you need to communicate and build goodwill. Inviting the media to
interesting and enjoyable events and activities, rather than simply calling them when
you want something, is part of building relationships.
Tours and visits
Tours and visits of facilities such as factories, manufacturing plants and overseas
offices are also welcomed by the media where these are relevant to the industry or
field they cover. Leading personal computer companies such as IBM, Compaq and
Toshiba regularly take journalists to their head offices and manufacturing facilities in
the US and Japan respectively.
Construction companies often take journalists to inspect their sites. One major
mining company flew journalists into the Australian inland to visit a massive opencut coal mine and inspect its restoration of earlier mine sites. Often seeing is
132
believing. It is difficult for the media to report on what you are doing if they have
never seen it or don’t fully understand it.
You need to be aware, however, that some media have strict rules on what
journalists can accept in terms of free trips, accommodation, meals and other
‘freebies’. Some will not allow their reporters to accept free trips, called ‘junkets’ in
the trade, as they feel they unduly bias them towards writing positive stories for the
organiser. Others allow journalists to accept invitations for tours or visits, but make a
clear proviso that favourable media coverage is not guaranteed as a result.
Airlines and travel companies provide extensive travel for journalists and editors.
Generally this is justifiable as travel writers cannot be expected to review
destinations that they have never visited. Where the line between sponsored
research and bribery exists, no one is quite sure. It is one which you should
approach cautiously. Provided that there is a genuine research or interview
component, tours and visits are a legitimate and effective public relations tool for
building media relationships. Like many things in life, it is only when they are
overdone that problems arise.
Entertainment
The same general rules apply for entertainment. Like all of us, journalists and
editors appreciate entertainment. But they also recall the line: “There is no such
thing as a free lunch”. When you take journalists or editors to lunch, dinner, a
sporting event or the theatre, they know that you are hoping for something in return.
They are not naive.
But they expect and these situations demand subtlety. The social rules governing
entertainment for the media are similar to those applying to entertainment in the
business and political world. When you buy a business associate or political figure
lunch, you know that a meal and perhaps a bottle of wine create a conducive
environment for discussion. But it does not mean that you will win a deal or obtain
133
favourable legislation. Nor do lunch or tickets to the grand final mean you will
receive favourable media treatment.
You should occasionally entertain important journalists and editors, but treat
entertainment of media contacts the same as you do for other important contacts.
Look upon being a host as part of building relationships, not an exchange for
services. This approach will make you a gracious host. Keep entertaining to a
reasonable level and don’t make your hospitality too lavish. A simple lunch or
occasional invitation to a function will be sufficient to show a human side of your
company or organisation which is part of building harmonious and trusting
relationships with the media.
Saying thank you
Sometimes just saying “thank you” is enough. Surprisingly, many companies and
organisations seldom if ever thank the media for good coverage or attending an
event. When something is wrongly reported, organisations are usually quick off the
mark. Too often, the only time we contact the media is to ask for something or to
complain.
I once called a journalist and said: “I just wanted to say thank you for your article.”
There was a long silence. After what seemed like an eternity the journalist
responded: “And?”
“And nothing. I just wanted to say thank you,” I replied. Again there was a long
silence before, finally, the journalist burst out laughing. In a relieved tone he said
that he was waiting for a complaint. “No one ever calls to say thank you. You just
caught me by surprise,” he said.
134
6.
Media research: knowing more about
the media
_________________________________________________________________
The more you learn about the media, the more comfortable you will feel doing media
interviews and the more successful you will be in communicating your point of view
effectively. An investment of time in expanding your knowledge of the media will pay
dividends throughout your career.
In particular, you need to have up to date information and intelligence not only on
your subject, but on the media’s interest in and previous reporting of the subject.
Too often spokespersons agree to media interviews with very little idea of the
journalist’s interests, the audience of his or her medium, the style of the medium, or
what other spokespersons have told the media on the subject recently. One
experienced media spokesperson describes this approach as being “Daniel in the
lion’s den” and remarks that you will probably need divine intervention to survive.
Your understanding of the media can be developed in a number of ways. The first is
by reading, listening to and watching the media. If you talk to the media or are
planning to do so, make sure you have read the publications concerned, listened to
the radio programs and watched the TV programs. Giving an interview to a medium
that you have not read, heard or seen before is like giving a speech in a dark room
to an unknown audience.
135
If you are to be interviewed on day-time programs or early evening news that you do
not have the chance to see or hear directly, ask one of your staff to arrange for
audio or video tapes so you can familiarise yourself with recent programs.
Spokespersons who have not done their homework say things which are not
relevant to the audience, repeat information which has been reported in a previous
program or edition and come across as out of touch with the audience. Don’t be like
the spokesperson who was telephoned by a journalist who said he was from the
Wellington Times. The spokesperson immediately launched into an enthusiastic
description of the importance of trade with New Zealand, particularly in agricultural
produce. After five minutes or so, a bemused journalist from the small inland
Australian town of Wellington, dependent on agricultural exports for its livelihood,
politely informed him that the interview wasn’t what he was looking for.
Media databases
If you deal with the media regularly, you should invest in or obtain access to a
database of media contacts. There are a number of media databases in most
markets, available in printed manual form, on disk, or on-line via a computer
terminal. On-line media databases tend to provide the most up-to-date and accurate
list of journalists and editors with their contact details.
An accurate media database will be help you get journalists and editors names right
and will provide you with vital information on the media such as area of coverage
and circulation or audience.
Media monitoring
Keeping track of media reporting can be assisted by subscribing to a media
monitoring agency. Media monitoring companies supply press clippings and
transcripts or tapes of electronic media news, current affairs, as well as talk-back
and chat programs.
136
Many companies and organisations circulate daily, weekly or monthly press
clippings. If you talk to the media, make sure clippings are circulated regularly. Also
don’t only buy clippings which mention your company or organisation. Use media
monitoring to keep track of key issues, competitors, trends and special areas of
interest. Media monitoring can be used as a strategic intelligence tool as well as for
evaluation purposes to measure the effectiveness of your own media relations and
public relations.
However, media monitoring provides quantitative research only. Press clippings and
transcripts tell you what has been published and broadcast when and where. But
they tell you little or nothing about which target audiences were reached, whether
coverage contained your messages, or whether coverage was mostly favourable or
unfavourable.
Media Content Analysis
In the past decade, a number of specialist research companies have been
established providing media content analysis. Analysis of media content has been a
field of active research for many years, but it has been mostly confined to academic
institutions because of the complexity involved and time taken to carry out detailed
qualitative analysis of media content.
Now, however, there are a number of research companies using sophisticated
computer software to provide media content analysis as a strategic and evaluative
research tool and these services are available in all major markets such as the US,
UK, most European countries, Japan, Australia and Asia Pacific. Media content
analysis can provide new insights into the media.
While press clippings and electronic media transcripts provide a quantitative report
of media coverage, they have a number of serious limitations, including:
•
Positive, negative and neutral coverage are mixed together;
137
•
Coverage is clipped from obscure and minor media as well as major influential
publications and programs;
•
Coverage with only passing mention is included where the client organisation
may only occupy a small proportion of stories;
•
A client may gain substantial media coverage, but it may not contain the
organisation's key messages or the desired positioning;
•
After a few months, clippings become a mountain of paper with no easy
information retrieval or analysis method. Senior management does not have
time to read piles of press clippings in detail, if at all.
Some PR consultancies and departments seek to justify themselves by presenting a
pile of press clippings which contains many stories with only passing mention of the
client, stories from obscure or minor media of no importance to the organisation,
and even negative coverage. However, as Craig Aronoff and other media and public
relations academics point out, “Volume is not equal to results”. (Aronoff, 1983, p.
188)
Media coverage and comment is a vast under-utilised body of data in most
organisations. John Naisbitt demonstrated in his popular book, Megatrends, that
media content analysis can provide valuable insights into what is likely to be on the
public agenda in the future. (Cutlip, Center and Broom, 1985, p. 215)
Different methods of media content analysis are used by different research
companies. One of the leading research companies specialising in this area is
CARMA International which developed the CARMA system - Computer Aided
Research and Media Analysis. CARMA International was founded in Washington
DC in 1984 and now operates in the US, UK, Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and
Asia-Pacific.
138
Rather than simply clipping media coverage and presenting the raw data to a client
or employer, media content analysis systems such as CARMA establish a database
into which various information is entered. Usually, the full content of stories is not
scanned although, with CD-ROM technology, large amounts of data can be stored in
electronic form for fast retrieval. Utilising database technology, media content
analysis can record key information about media coverage such as:
•
The title of each story;
•
The media it appeared in;
•
The type of media (international, national, financial, trade, etc);
•
Date of publication or broadcast;
•
Size (in paragraphs or words);
•
Position in the publication or program (front page or down the back);
•
Author's by-line;
•
The major sources quoted or reported;
•
Key issues or topics discussed;
•
Key messages contained.
By rating each article or item on these criteria, an overall favourability rating can be
determined. Favourability is not the same thing as positive or negative which are
highly subjective terms. Favourability determined by a media content analysis
system measures an article in terms of whether it helped achieve the organisation’s
objectives.
CARMA articles are rated on a 0 - 100 scale where 50 is neutral. Articles which rate
highly (ie above 50) are typically those which:
•
Are in a key medium which reaches the organisation’s target audience;
•
Are on an issue which is important to the organisation;
•
Contain the organisation’s key messages; and
139
•
Are reasonably prominent and well-positioned.
Media content analysis can:
•
Identify whether an organisation is getting its messages into the media;
•
Identify major issues in the media;
•
Identify which media are covering what;
•
Identify which journalists are covering what issues to allow more specific
targeting;
•
Measure whether certain issues are receiving increasing or decreasing
coverage;
•
Break down coverage by trade press, national media, business media, etc;
•
Break down coverage by region such as a State analysis to see how certain
areas are performing;
•
Carry out competitor analyses to identify what competitors are saying and
doing and what people are saying about them;
•
Identify the leading sources quoted in the media on key topics;
•
Produce trend lines of coverage over time to objectively show if the quantity
and quality of coverage is improving or declining.
Figure 4 provides a sample of a media content analysis graph reporting on leading
issues in the media of concern to a mobile phone company and the relevant
favourability of each one.
FIGURE 4.
140
LEADING ISSUES
by volume & favourability
Rating
Volume
Figure 4. Sample of CARMA media content analysis
Media content analysis provides detailed, valuable information to management for
evaluation and strategic planning purposes. Content analysis can be used to
develop an in-depth understanding of media interests, leading issues, trends in
reporting, major sources quoted by the media and the favourability of the media
towards a company or organisation overall and on specific issues.
Other well-established media content analysis research services include those
offered by the Delahaye Group and PressTrac in the US and the InfoPress Impact
system and Precis in the UK. A number of other general research companies also
offer media content analysis.
Some media monitoring agencies have begun to offer content analysis as an
adjunct to their monitoring services, but many of these use very basic methodology
and provide simplistic assessments of positive, negative or neutral. Methodology is
important in any research, so you should carefully check out media research
services before commissioning work in this area.
Understanding the media is a broad subject that warrants greater focus in
management education and training as well as in school curricula. Comments from
the media and research indicate that many managers and executives know little
141
about the media. And too few are competent and confident in handling the principal
interface between the media and organisations - the interview.
By its very nature, this handbook has skimmed over important issues. The aim of
this book is to provide a brief, practical guide covering the essential points about
dealing with the media. Hopefully, it has whetted your appetite to learn more about
the media and practise media interview skills.
If you feel you need further advice and practice, consider a one day or two-day
intensive media training workshop. Such courses are regularly advertised; you can
seek the advice of a public relations consultancy; or contact the Public Relations
Institute or association in your city or state.
The ‘new media’
While it is not within the scope of this handbook, no book on the media today is
complete without some mention of the ‘new media’. Only someone who has been in
a coma for the past five years could be unaware of the rapid development of new
communications technology which is dramatically changing the way people send
and receive information.
The ‘new media’ are not about to put newspapers, magazines, radio and television
out of business. But new channels of communication are becoming increasingly
popular and offering alternatives alongside traditional media. In some cases, you will
need to consider these ‘new media’.
‘New media’ include:
•
Cable TV using fibre optic cables offering greater ‘bandwidth’ which can
transfer up to 500 channels of information ranging from videos and games to
computer data. Much of this bandwidth will be taken up by pay TV channels
covering a wide range of topics and areas of interest;
142
•
New specialised broadcast channels. In a number of countries,
communications regulatory authorities are considering reallocating VHF and
UHF frequency spectrum for specialist channels such as community
information or health services. These offer new opportunities for some
companies and organisations;
•
Specialist narrowcast channels. For instance, Bloombergs began by offering
financial information through computer terminals connected to modems, but
has expanded its services to include video and audio interviews which are
narrowcast via cable TV channels. Bloombergs is an example of a new
narrowcast channel which reaches important target audiences;
•
Multimedia presentations on diskette or, increasingly, CD-ROM. Multimedia
can include text, graphs and charts, photographs, video clips and sound, so
you may be interviewed for a multimedia program that will be ‘screened’
through computer networks. Welcome to the future;
•
The Internet - the vast network of computer networks that has wound itself
around the globe linking millions of people. Technically, the Internet is the
largest medium in the world, although there are only rudimentary methods of
measuring how many people are connected and accessing information at any
one time. The Internet offers communication through:
-
Electronic mail;
-
Newsgroups which are electronic discussion groups in which anyone can
broadcast their views and opinions; and
-
The World Wide Web which is an area of the Internet that supports high
quality graphics, video and sound, leading to it becoming a popular
‘channel’ for electronic publishing and advertising;
•
Commercial on-line services such as CompuServe, the Microsoft Network
and America On Line which offer a range of specialist information services to
subscribers.
143
Some of these ‘new media’ have audiences far larger than many newspapers,
magazines and radio and TV networks. They also publish extensive information
every day - possibly about your company or organisation or your field of interest. For
instance, when McDonalds was engaged in issues management over environmental
complaints in the US and its decision to take legal action against two unemployed
people in the UK (referred to as the McLibel case), the Corporation faced wide bad
publicity. Management monitored press, radio and television and responded to
media reports and inquiries. However, at the same time, thousands of unedited
messages were posted in newsgroups on the Internet, reaching a worldwide
audience of hundreds of thousands or even millions. In addition, a home page was
created on the World Wide Web called McSpotlight which was dedicated to antiMcDonalds information and propaganda. For McDonalds, the term media was
redefined.
Another example of how the ‘new media’ are revolutionising media communication
is the release of financial results by international corporations. Before the
proliferation of the Internet and commercial on-line networks, companies could
release their financial results in New York, London or Tokyo and fax them to their
subsidiary offices for release locally. If time zones meant that head office
announced results on a Sunday Sydney time, no one worried too much. The fax
would be picked up Monday morning and released to the media in Sydney by
Monday afternoon. But, by then, the media would have received the information
through wire services such as Reuters and used someone else’s comments.
Today, financial results are posted on electronic networks within minutes of their
announcement. In fact, some companies are learning to use the ‘new media’ for
their advantage. In announcing its worldwide financial results in 1996, UK mobile
communications giant, Vodafone, advised its offices in 13 countries of the day and
hour Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) that it would post the results on its World Wide
Web home page. The company’s offices around the world were able to
simultaneously pull the results down from the Web and make their own comments
for local media consumption.
144
The media are changing. Some say that the development of electronic networks
such as the Internet are as significant as the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press
and will change the face of the media forever.
One specialist application of the ‘new media’ directly relevant to the subject of this
handbook is the e-interview. This is where a journalist and a spokesperson conduct
an interview partly or entirely via e-mail.
While urgent news stories will require an immediate response, longer lead-time
feature articles can be based on a journalist sending questions via e-mail to a busy
executive and the executive replying when he or she has time. In today's
pressurised work environment, neither journalists nor senior executives have time to
talk face to face in many cases. Apart from news conferences, most interviews are
done on the telephone where the executive has little time to think about his or her
responses and where the journalist has no written record of statements other than
notes. Furthermore, some senior executives are virtually unavailable even on the
phone during office working hours, locked in meetings and guarded by protective
PAs and executive assistants.
Many ‘new age’ executives communicate extensively by e-mail and reply to e-mails
at night or on weekends, in airport lounges or hotel rooms while travelling. They find
this quiet time better for thinking about what they want to say. If a journalist wants
considered responses to questions and has sufficient lead-time, an e-interview can
be a very effective strategy as it lets the executive choose the time for ‘talking’ to the
journalist and it provides the journalist with a written statement which should ensure
greater accuracy. There is even a theory that e-mail responses are better quality
answers because we sit and think more about a written response than we do for
verbal responses.
Of course, executives need to be computer literate and willing to give out their email address. But e-interviews are already being used by some senior executives
and they are gaining increasing media exposure as a result.
145
These are just some examples of the ‘new media’ which management needs to
adapt to and learn to work with. The basic principles described in this handbook
apply to all interviews and will work just as well in writing e-mail responses to a
journalist as they will in talking to a newspaper reporter. What these new
communication channels mean is that the media are more pervasive than ever.
Media networks are international and deadlines are measured more in seconds than
hours or days. More than ever, managers and executives need to understand and
be able to effectively interface with the media. Marshall McLuhan’s ‘global village’
has at last arrived.
146
CHECKLIST FOR DOING
MEDIA INTERVIEWS
Before the Interview
Even before the interview begins there are things you should do and know:
•
Why is the interview being done? What does the interviewer want? What
particular points will he or she focus on?
•
Is the interview 'live' or pre-recorded for later broadcast? Live means there is
no editing. What you say is what they see and hear.
•
How long will the interview be? It is no use rambling for two minutes if the
interviewer wants only 30 seconds.
•
Who is the audience? Knowing your audience will help you phrase answers
in terms they understand and relate to.
•
Are you the right person to be interviewed? Do you have a sound grasp of the
subject? If not, there may be someone else in your company or organisation
better equipped to do the interview.
•
If you have time before an interview, give yourself time to ‘psyche up’. Don't
feel that you have to engage in polite banter while the crew or reporter is
setting up. If you want to ‘psyche up’ sit quietly and do that.
•
Distil the main points you want to make. Work out an order of priority of
points you must say and points you would like to say if time is available. Ill-
prepared interviews are often cut off before the interviewee has made his or
her main point.
•
Make notes if you like. These can be used during a radio interview - but don't
sound like you are reading. For television, don’t use notes.
•
For a television interview, check your appearance. Is your hair combed, tie
straight, is there fluff on your jacket? It sounds obvious, but even senior
executives have learned the hard way how television can accentuate even
small things.
•
Don’t try to work out what all the questions are going to be before the
interview. Few interviewers will tell you exactly what they are going to ask
anyway. Usually they will give you a general idea of what they will ask. But an
interviewer wants spontaneity. You run the risk of either having the interview
sound rehearsed (which is fatal for your credibility), or being thrown off the
track if the interviewer suddenly changes his or her mind and throws in an
unannounced question. Mentally prepare, but don’t rehearse.
During the Interview
•
Don’t give a “no comment” response. ‘Bridge’ to what you can say - your
‘must says’ as explained in this handbook.
•
Say you don’t know if you don’t know. Never try to bluff your way through.
•
Don’t look at the camera. Look at the interviewer.
•
Don’t use the interviewer's name ..."Well John, the answer to that is ...". You
are talking to the program audience, not John.
148
•
Don’t wear glasses unless you have to. They can reflect powerful television
lights or bounce sunlight. Never wear sunglasses. You will look like a drugtaking rock star or Mafia.
•
Beware of nervous habits. Everyone has nervous habits, such as head
scratching when in thought, ear pulling, nose rubbing, etc. These are
distracting on television. Swivelling in your chair is another pitfall to avoid on
both radio and television if you are seated during an interview. Swivelling can
cause you to bob in and out of shot on television and it can alter your voice
level by varying the distance to the microphone on radio. The chair may also
squeak.
•
GIVE SHORT AND SHARP ANSWERS. Radio and television do not have
time for lengthy explanations. Go straight to the main points you want to
make. It is a mistake to believe that giving one long answer without a breath
will encourage the media to use all of your interview. Electronic editing will cut
you off - even in mid sentence - and it may not be the editing point you want.
Worse still, if you make it too hard, the media just won't use your interview.
Remember the average radio or television interview is anywhere between 10
and 40 seconds - one to five sentences long. You should practice giving 15 or
30 second ‘grabs’ to get your main points across in this time.
A golden rule for answering questions on radio and television is
ENCAPSULATE, ENCAPSULATE, ENCAPSULATE. What the audience
wants to know is “What does it all mean?” Use linking phrases to help you if
you like, such as “What it boils down to is ...”.
•
Use common everyday words which are readily understood by your
audience. Don’t use abbreviations unless you have first used the full title.
And don't use jargon or technical terms that can be simplified.
149
•
Relate your points to your audience. “What this means to the person in the
street is ...”. Point out the effects on consumers, local businesses, the
community, workers, etc. You might believe that opening your new plant is
the greatest thing since sliced bread. But what does it mean to Joe and Jill
Average?
•
Add emphasis and enthusiasm to your media personality, but don’t overact.
Be natural.
•
Don’t be evasive. It will only make the interviewer press you all the more. If
you are asked a question and you really want to make another point, answer
the question briefly first, then ‘bridge’ to make your point. “But there's another
key point which should be made here ...”.
•
Don’t be intimidated by the interviewer. The interviewer needs you as much
as you need him or her. You are the expert. You have the knowledge or
comments that the media want. Refer back to what was said in the chapter
on the media about establishing mutual trust and respect.
•
All the main dos and don’ts can be summed up as:
-
Be sincere
-
Be confident and competent
-
Be friendly (but not grinning like a Cheshire cat)
-
Be human (avoid cold arrogance or affectations)
-
Appear considerate in your viewpoints
-
Avoid jargon
-
Don’t ramble. Make your point as briefly as possible.
After the Interview
•
Television crews will usually want to do ‘two shots’ or ‘reverses’, also referred
to in the trade as ‘noddies’. These are different perspectives which they may
150
intercut in the interview to add interest (eg a reverse shot of the interviewer
asking the question, or soundless shots of the two of you talking over which
the introduction can be laid is what is called ‘voice-over’). Even though ‘two
shots’ are soundless, be aware that your facial expressions could be used. If
you are seen grinning during an introduction which announces falling
unemployment you will look stupid.
•
Don’t try to pressure the interviewer into using certain answers or not using
others. You may politely suggest that you thought your second or third
answer made the main point. But ‘coming the heavy’ will not be appreciated
and probably will be counter-productive.
•
Don’t phone up and complain to the interviewer or news editor if the interview
is not used. Remember what was said about the competitive nature of news.
Also it is possible that the interview never went to air simply because it wasn't
good enough. Understanding the media, preparing for an interview properly
such as suggested in this checklist, and perhaps even getting some
professional training, will greatly enhance your chances of having interviews
used. And it will also enhance your chances of the media coming back,
because the media gravitate to known sources who are good ‘talent’.
151
MEDIA TERMS & DEFINITIONS
The following is a short list of terms which you may encounter in dealing with the
media and public relations practices:
AP
Associated Press (a major international news service)
AAP
Australian Associated Press (a major news service in Australia)
actuality
Audio recording of natural sound such as traffic, protesters
shouting, etc
angle
The approach or perspective of a story
Autocue
A brand name for a teleprompter, also called a ‘Porta Prompt’.
This is a system which uses a clear glass screen from which a
newsreader or speaker can read a script which is sent from a
computer terminal out of sight of the audience and cameras
background
Term for general information supplied to support a news
announcement such as history, profiles of executives, product
lists, etc
beat
See 'round'
beat up
Slang term for wildly exaggerated or sensationalised story
Betacam
Currently the most popular format of video tape for television
recording. A quarter-inch tape, Betacam replaces the older
half-inch BVU format previously used
bite
A short section of an interview often just a few seconds long,
usually a dramatic part used for news headlines or promos. In
radio, these are referred to as ‘sound bites’. Not to be
confused with bytes
blurb
A slang term for glossy propaganda
boom
A long pole used by sound recordists to suspend a microphone
above a speaker without being in the line of sight of an
audience or camera
152
break
To first cover a story
by-line
Author's name on a story
caption
Short text beneath a photograph describing its contents
chief of staff
Senior executive in the media who assigns reporters to stories
of the day
classifieds
Small, single column advertisements in a newspaper or
magazine
copy
General media term for text of a story or stories
copytaker
Person who takes down dictated stories from reporters in the
field
cut
Media term for editing to shorten a story. Also to terminate a
video shot
cutaways
Short segments of footage shot by TV crews after an interview
has concluded. These include ‘noddies’ (shots of the journalist
silently nodding) and ‘reverses’ (shots of the journalist asking a
question) for use in editing. These shots can be interspersed
with an interview to avoid ‘jump cuts’ (edits of an interview
which do not follow smoothly)
cuttings/clips
News stories cut from a newspaper or magazine
deadline
The time by which stories must be filed
display
Multi-column advertisements usually with photographs and/or
graphics
editor
The senior executive in charge of editorial content of a
publication
editorial
Refers to the story content of the media (as opposed to
advertising). Also used as a specific term for the main opinion
column of a publication, often written by the editor
embargo
A time-date line on a story restricting its publication or
broadcast before the specified time
file
Media term for submitting a story to the editor or news desk
filler
A short story to fill a gap
good TV
Television term for action and dramatic sequences preferred
by TV stations and audiences
153
good talent
TV term for an interviewee who performs well (what every
interviewee should seek to become)
grab
A short quote or segment of an interview which can be easily
grabbed by an editor for news
handout
Media term for news releases and statements issued by
organisations and public relations staff
house style
The style of a particular publication or station (eg whether to
use Mr and Ms or just names)
intro
The opening paragraph of a story (also called the lead)
journalist
A professional writer who writes for the media
lead
Same as intro
leader
The opinion column of a newspaper or magazine (same as
editorial)
live
Going to air in real time, as opposed to pre-recorded.
Interviewees should also ask whether they are live or prerecorded
media release
Statement prepared and issued to the media
mike
Colloquial media term for microphone
new angle
A new or fresh approach to an old story
news release
Same as media release
news conference
A meeting called to issue a statement and answer media
questions on a particular subject or issue, usually called by a
company or organisation for a major announcement
news editor
Senior media executive who controls news
news director
Same as news editor. TV and radio usually use the term news
director
off the record
information given to a journalist not for publication
'noddies'
Slang term used in television for reverse shots of the journalist
during which he or she is seen nodding while the interviewee
talks. These are shot after an interview is completed to
facilitate editing
par
Abbreviation for paragraph, widely used in the media
154
press release
Same as news release or media release, but note that radio
and television are not press, so news release or media release
are preferred terms for statements to the media
press conference
Same as news conference (but note advice on using the term
'press')
press statement
Same as press release, news release, media release
proprietor
The owner of a publication or network
PRO
Abbreviation for Public Relations Officer
puff
Same as blurb. A derogatory term for rhetoric in news releases
purple prose
Term for ponderous or exaggerated writing
quotes
Media term for quotation marks and the words enclosed within
round
A subject area to which a journalist is assigned (eg. finance,
courts, defence, shipping, agriculture, etc). Also called a 'beat'
in some markets
roundsman
A reporter who is assigned to a particular 'round' such as
politics, crime, shipping, agriculture, etc. (Roundsperson does
not seem to have caught on in the media)
run, get a
Media term for having a story published
scoop
To beat other competing media to press or broadcast
sound bites
See ‘bite’
source
The provider of information for a story
story
Media term for all news and feature articles
studio
Recording room. In radio stations, these are often small
booths, while TV studios can be large sound stages in
warehouse size buildings
sub-editor
A senior journalist who edits copy for errors, style, length and
adds headlines ready for the typesetting or composing room.
This is now mostly done electronically on computer terminals
talent
Media term for the interviewee. See 'good talent'
teaser
An appetite-whetter for a story such as a few facts to get
attention
throw
Media term for a cross from one journalist to another such as a
presenter to a reporter in the field
155
two-shots
Same as 'noddies'
wild sound
Same as ‘actuality’
wind-up
A signal to finish
wire service
Electronic news services such as AAP, Reuters, UPI, Agence
France, etc.
156
Bibliography
Allen, Richard, ‘How to handle the media’ in “The Qantas Club”, May, 1996, p.8.
Barr, Trevor, Reflections of Reality, Rigby, 1977.
Baskin, Otis and Aronoff, Craig, Public Relations - The Profession and The Practice
(3rd edition), Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1983.
Blohowiak, Donald, W., No Comment: An Executive’s Essential Guide to the News
Media, Praeger, New York, 1987.
Cameron, Jim, ‘Making the most of your media interviews’, “PR & Marketing Forum”
on CompuServe, 1995.
Colquhoun, Des, ‘Vivid Proof of the power of the Press’ in “The Advertiser”,
Adelaide, September 22, 1983.
CSIRO in “The Weekend Australian”, Sydney, 12-13 November, 1994.
Cutlip, Scott M., Center, Allen H. and Broom, Glen M., Effective Public Relations,
6th Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc. New York, 1985.
Doogue, John, The Writer and the Law, Deakin University, Geelong, 1981.
Hallan, Laila, ‘Going over the Top with Overheads’ in Marketing, Sydney, May 1993,
pp. 41-42.
Hohenberg, John, The Professional Journalist, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
York, 1973.
157
Howard, John, ‘The High Cost of Gobbledygook’ in SBC News, Sydney, December
1987.
Kelly, Graham, Managing the Media, Kelly Communications, Melbourne, 1995.
King, Peter M., and Roberts, Michael, ‘Educational Radio Production Techniques’ in
“Educational Broadcasting International”, 1973.
Kirby, Justice Michael in “The Australian”, Sydney, 28 September, 1994
Macnamara, Jim, Public Relations Handbook for Managers & Executives,
Information Australia, Melbourne, 1984.
Macnamara, Jim, Effective Marketing Communication and Promotion, Information
Australia, Melbourne, 1988.
McQuail, Denis, 'The Influence and Effects of Mass Media' in Curran, James, Mass
Communication and Society, Open University Press, 1977.
McQuail, Denis, ‘The Influence and Effects of Mass Media’ in Deakin University
Reader", Journalism II, Geelong, 1984.
Merrill, John C., and Lowenstein, Ralph L, Media Messages and Men, David McKay,
NY, 1971, p 149.
Nelson, Michael, ‘Evaluative Journalism: A New Synthesis’ in “The Virginia Quarterly
Review”, University of Virginia, 1982.
On Air, Deakin University, 1983.
Rutzou, Dennis, ‘Random Thoughts’ in “Public Relations in Australia”, Vol. 2, No. 5,
October, l983.
158
Sawer, Geoffrey, A Guide to Australian Law for Journalists, Authors and Publishers,
Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1968.
Siebert, Fred S., Four Theories of the Press, University of Illinois Press, 1979.
Simons, Howard and Califano, Joseph A., The Media and Business, Vintage Books,
Random House, New York, 1979.
The Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, 1970, Bantam
Books, New York.
159