SURVIVING A MEDIA STORM DFO JULY, 1992.
"SURVIVING A MEDIA STORM" IS A STRICTLY NON-PROFIT PUBLICATION. THIS BOOKLET IS PRIVATELY PUBLISHED AND CIRCULATED WITHOUT COST, AND UNDER NO CONDITIONS WHATSOEVER IS IT TO BE SOLD.
The following is compiled from information that big business corporations have prepared for their own executives to help them survive a "Media Storm," not if but when it happens. Although this material was prepared for the use of big businesses, we pray that you can find helpful counsel for your situation should you be caught in a media storm. Included are a few specific examples of how the media works and how various organisations handled their problems, including where possible the somewhat technical vocabulary normally used in these situations. This material has been edited to make it more applicable and useful.
MEDIA POWER
Nowhere to Hide
Our modern World changes and can be changed quicker than at any time in history due to instant World communications. As a former editor for The New York Times puts it, "The fact is, very few of us can afford to disregard THE MEDIA. They are everywhere and they are interested in everything. Gone are the days when a prominent individual, company or a government agency could sidestep the media en route to a haven of anonymity. If there is bad news to tell, you can be sure that at least one enterprising reporter will not give up until the story is revealed. The challenge these days is not to run away from the media, but to know how best to face them and get your messages across."
"Media High" has swept the World in one form or another. The desire to affect the course of events--to have power and change policies--is an intoxicating toy that tempts many into tampering with the truth or roaming around ambushing, attacking and entrapping people.
"There is no place to hide," says the author of a book called, Image Wars, a guide to trying to make the best of a bad situation while living in a dog-eat-dog World full of troublemakers, regulators and legislators looking for things to attack and destroy through the power of the media. "Image Wars"--sounds a bit apocalyptic doesn't it? But really when you think about it, the forces that are often opposing someone are trying to destroy their good image and replace it with an evil image so they will be hated and rejected.
Typical news distortions include: Tabloid-like attacks; taking non-representative events and portraying them as "typical"; taking events out of context; giving a biased, unbalanced view of the event or situation; using scare headlines without any proof; making half-baked or frankly distorted statements and accusations backed up by questionable self-styled experts; implying all sorts of rumours of "wrongdoing." Finally they like to demand off-the-cuff, on-camera answers to sensitive issues that people do not like to discuss publicly, to portray your hesitancy as having something to hide.
Everything But the Truth
Surveys show that 75% of all people seriously doubt the accuracy of the media, and two thirds of all journalists say that their profession suffers a serious credibility problem. Janet Cooke of The Washington Post was awarded the 1981 Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing for her "true" story of a young black boy's drug addiction in Washington, D.C.--only to subsequently reveal that she made it all up, it was all fiction. She said she did it because she was under "pressure" to get a story. Competition among the media is fierce and each outlet wants a "unique" scoop, which creates an increasingly aggressive breed of news gatherers that, as we know, "create" a story if they can't find one, or go out and cause a crisis if they need some action. "Yellow journalism" (dishonest journalism) is typified by newspaper tycoon Randolph Hearst's rebuff to the artist he sent to Cuba to cover the then-nonexistent Spanish-American War at the end of the 1800s. When the artist cabled Hearst to say there was no war, Hearst replied, "You supply the pictures; I'll supply the war!"--And he did!
What Is "News"?
"News," for the record, is anything new, novel, related to famous persons, things directly important to a great number of people, involving conflict, involving mystery, considered confidential, pertaining to the future, funny, romantic or sexy.
Media Power in Hostile Hands
Reporters are the gatekeepers to much of the mass media resources and help determine who gets access and how they will be presented to the public. A wise man once said, "Avoid getting into an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel full." However, many television reporters, practice what is known as "confrontational journalism," or "investigative journalism," which means they take a basically hostile position to the person or about the topic being reported. Some reporters are just born that way and others get that way from years of pressure to perform, or from practice nailing people by sticking a microphone in their face and trying to catch them off guard while the cameras keep rolling.
In dealing with journalists, it helps to understand the jungle that a journalist lives in. It may be just another story, but it is their bread and butter and the more sensationalism they can whip up, the better their butter since that means more public interest, better ratings, promotions and more money. For the people who they terrorise, however, it can mean financial, political, social, personal ruin or at best an incredible struggle just to survive a media storm and its aftermath.
Media: The Mischief Maker's Toy
Professor Theodore Levitt, a Harvard Business School professor explains in his book, The Third Sector--New Tactics for a Responsible Society, why investigative reporters are the most successful in commanding media attention and "manipulating the media" for their own ends. He says that the tactic they use that works best is "the calculated reliance on staged, attention-getting publicity." These groups lean for their effectiveness "on the creation of instant TV visibility" for themselves and at the expense of their adversaries.
Explaining their mastery of this tactic, Levitt says:
"Like commercial advertisers, they show a clear, perhaps even intentional, tendency to overstate every case they make, to overdramatise every issue they discover. The tactics of exaggeration, in both word and deed, get attention, sharpen issues, and stir respectable officials and organisations into some sort of responsive action."
Does that sound familiar? And Professor Levitt wrote that almost 20 years ago when the World was not nearly as advanced in rapid communications and 24-hour news services. And since then, reporters are all the more willing to listen to anything that will make a "story." Bernard Rubin says in his book Big Business and the Mass Media that there are more people than ever out to give business and organisations a hard time: "Consumer groups, environmental groups, public action groups, social misfits, problem makers, radicals, protesters, hostile groups, and dissidents and zealots."
Coping with a Cobra
Public opinion affects the well-being of any organisation or individual, yet these days public opinion is largely controlled by the media--they have the power to make or break you. So what happens is a deadly dance with a cobra. If you dance well you get "good" media coverage and attract a crowd, if you dance poorly, the media cobra bites you and you must struggle for your life.
Politicians, business leaders, entertainers, you name it, have full time Public Relations people dancing around trying to win a few precious seconds of favourable news coverage. Books are written on how to catch the eye of some inundated editor. "Managing the Media" is just part of the price people have to pay if they want to be noticed at all.
No one likes to have too much critical attention focused on them or their organisation. Yet most big businesses just go ahead and assume that sooner or later something will go wrong and they will suddenly be in the center of a hurricane and have to face the press. It happens every day to thousands of people. The daily parade of "media" captives marching across the evening news should tell us that. Anyone who is anything knows that it's only a matter of time before it will happen to them.
A gas leak in Bhopal, some poison found in a Tylenol bottle, some money disappears, a nuclear plant goes out of control, waste materials surface a few hundred years too soon, someone in power says something off- colour to a female employee, and the press comes crashing in on every side.
The warlords of this World, business, banking and industry, have borrowed the term "Crisis Management" for troubled times that hit them.--And their motto is "Always Be Prepared"! Another big business buzz word is to be "proactive" rather than "reactive." What this means is, "Well, if we know it will happen some day, let's start preparing for it now, with lots of nice countermeasures and good tales about ourselves." They want to create a positive impression of their organisation before trouble hits. They believe if people are familiar with them and enough people understand and like them, then they have a better chance of getting their side of the story told when the dark day comes.
CRISIS MANAGEMENT & SURVIVAL STRATEGY
Let's have a look at some of the ideas and counsel these corporate giants give their trusted employees, and the measures they take to cope with the media in a crisis and how they prepare their "Crisis Communications," to help turn off the heat and try to put out the fires as soon as possible.
What to Do Before a Crisis Hits
Here are six basic rules of being ready for a crisis that companies recommend:
1. Always be prepared for a crisis!
You must be prepared for the crisis before it hits. Have some sort of a "crisis communications" plan in place before you get a crisis. The plan should be fluid and flexible enough to allow people using it to be able to respond swiftly to sudden changes and new developments in the crisis. Remember that early detection of possible trouble areas for you or your organisation is as necessary as a smoke-detector. Carefully monitoring issues, laws or trends that could affect your organisation can help you contain a problem or do a better job of "damage control" when trouble does hit. It should be someone's job to keep an eye on the "enemy" by all the means available to you.
Brainstorm all possible areas you could have problems in. This will help you (a) modify your immediate modus operandi to remove preventable damage or situations that you can be criticised for; (b) begin to think out answers to best case/worse case scenarios before the actual pressure of a crisis is on. After you anticipate the problems, each person involved can know what to do in various situations.
2. Appoint spokespersons.
Draw up a list of spokespersons. Keep the list as small as possible, since the more voices your organisation speaks with, the greater the chances that you will issue conflicting or confusing information. If your head office and operations are in different cities, make sure to designate an on-site spokesperson who can deal directly with the local media.
3. Train for interviews.
Ensure that all spokespersons get sufficient media training to handle sharp questions under highly stressful circumstances. Do not grant interviews when you don't know what you're talking about or don't have anyone to talk about the issues at hand intelligently. A skillful reporter will portray any reluctance or lack of answers as a manifestation of personal guilt or inadequacy.
4. Set up good lines of communication.
Set up lines of communication with each department or division to ensure that you are informed immediately of any crisis. Set up an emergency communication tree--tell all people involved exactly what to do and who to call if such and such happens. Some of the best companies have about a 1 & 1/2 minute lag from the time trouble hits till a responsible executive knows about it. Some companies don't like to call it "crisis management" in case it scares the employees, but no one is fooled when it is called "handling potentially embarrassing situations."
5. Know who and how to inform quickly.
Prepare a list of all those inside and outside the company who should be informed when a crisis occurs. This list would obviously include your senior management who you would likely contact directly. Companies not only concern themselves with what people outside the company think, they also are concerned with the reaction of their own employees. Others on the list might include your outside legal counsel, relevant supporters and partners, etc. Most big companies have complete mailing lists, fax numbers, etc., all ready to use for rapid communication in time of crisis. They even try to decide ahead of time what information to give each group working for them (their "communication team" or "communication network"). A pyramidical arrangement works well where each person, as soon as he is informed of a problem, will swing into action and inform specific other persons as soon as a crisis hits.
6. Set up rules about talking to media.
Issue strict and clear instructions about how to handle enquiries to department heads and other key employees who are likely to be contacted by the media. In most cases this would be simply to refer media calls to the designated spokespersons. Don't feed the controversy by giving hasty or mixed signals and statements.
What to Do When a Crisis Hits
Here are six suggested things to do when trouble starts:
1. Size up the situation.
The first thing to do once a crisis occurs is to meet with senior management to evaluate how the crisis might affect your organisation and agree on the overriding tone you will take in handling media enquiries. Try not to react before you get your information all in. Shooting first and asking questions later could end up with you wounding yourself. Brainstorming ideas ahead of time individually or in a committee helps identify and isolate the crisis so you can begin to attack the problem systematically. It often helps to put things on paper, so you can see the possible choices.
Ben Franklin used to draw a line down the center of a sheet of paper, and on one side of the line he listed the positive sides to the question, and the negatives were listed on the opposite side. He then tallied the score and made his decisions accordingly.
Another idea is to draw a "tree" where each new set of branches are all the various consequences you can think of that may result from your decision. "If I do this then the following might be said or happen, and if that happens then this or that could happen." Try to figure out the chain reaction of events or possible consequences of your action a few steps ahead but don't worry about trying to anticipate any sort of domino effect too far ahead. The main thing is to try to take as much as you can into account and anticipate possible moves the media or others might try to use on you so you don't get caught too off guard or get taken by surprise by some shock tactic they may come up with. They may save a mean one for last.
2. Keep everyone posted.
Brief any spokespersons who were not at the senior management media strategy meeting. Keep everyone up on developments.
3. Prepare a statement.
As soon as you get a handle on the crisis, issue a statement that clarifies the nature and dimensions of the crisis and outlines what you are doing about it. The longer you take to react effectively the greater the damage sometimes. Decide what audience you want to reach with your message, then decide what you want them to know about the situation. Decide the key points you want to be publicised. Try to keep it simple.--No more than three main messages that you want to get across to your audience in general, and perhaps a few messages targeted for special audi-ences. For example, "We are checking into these accusations" or, "This is an isolated case," etc. Your public pronouncements should not try to shirk responsibility, but they should, whenever justified by the facts, demonstrate that you are doing everything possible to protect your employees, customers, the general public, the environment or whatever else may be threatened.
The rule of thumb is to be concise, use pithy comments, speak distinctly and with credibility, and that will likely get used. The media looks for what they call a "sound bite," something meaty and short that they can use in a news or visual clip. State your position in very positive terms. Clearly define what your organisation's goals and objectives are that the public can relate to and that will further your organisation's goals. Prepare and gather together any material that you will give the media ahead of time.
4. Decide on your media and give them a contact.
Decide on what method you will use to communicate: Press releases, letters, press conferences, one-to-one interviews, etc. Then decide what media (TV, newspaper, radio, etc.) that you want to carry your message. Make sure the media know who the spokespersons are and where to reach them, and that the spokespersons remain there. Arrange for media interviews, if appropriate.
5. Try to get your story out.
If the crisis is ongoing, issue a news release whenever a significant development occurs. Otherwise reporters, trying to advance the story at each successive deadline, will tend to go to unauthorised, and perhaps ill-informed or ill-intentioned, sources. Be sure to prepare your spokesperson for media interviews.
6. Keep employees informed and weather the storm.
Distribute any statements you make to the media also to your own staff, since it is always better for employees to hear what's happening from you directly than to learn about it from the media where it may be distorted. Once you have contacted the media and given your side of the story, evaluate the media coverage they give you. Business PR experts say that ninety percent of the time there is no point in more exposure and granting more interviews once you have made your statement and said what you have to say. Further communication attempts could make their impression worse and may not be worth the effort. If the media is very hostile it may be better to just weather the storm than to keep talking to them. So learn when to change tactics if one is not working or only stirring up more trouble.
MANAGING THE MEDIA
Assuming that you will have to or "want" to meet with the media, especially if they are after you already, here are a few possible reasons why it may be a good idea:
* There is more of a chance to create a positive image rather than just seem to be reacting.
* There is a better chance of controlling the message.
* There is a 100 percent greater chance of correcting misinformation than if you don't talk with the media.
* Not meeting with the media sometimes makes you look guilty, not in control of the situation or contemptuous.
"Good" Example: 1982 Tylenol Crisis in USA: Handling the Crisis!
After poisoned pills were found in a few bottles of Tylenol, a popular form of pain reliever, there was enormous media coverage. Executives at Johnson & Johnson quickly got control of the message and had one-on-one interviews, and the message they conveyed was: "We're victims, too. We're doing everything we can to cooperate with the authorities, but we do definitely know that the tampering was not done by an employee. When the product left the company, it was all right."
A Bad Example: Bhopal Crisis in India, 1984: Poison Gas Affects Thousands!
Union Carbide Management held several press conferences about the Bhopal disaster, and almost all of them conveyed the appearance of a "reactive" company, rather than a "proactive" one. They were just shouting matches and the executives looked shaken. The term "reactive" here means being put on the defensive and only doing good because they were being forced to try to clean up their act because of pressure on them.
The image of a "reactive" company is that of a usually crooked company that tries to get away with all they can but now, having been caught in the act, they are scrambling to cover up and hide the truth and just don't know what to do under the spotlight, all of which the System takes as a sure sign of guilt.
"Proactive" here seems close in meaning to "go on the attack," stay very positive and appear calm, collected, understanding and in control of the situation. Your approach to the media should put you in the best light and make you appear calm and having it all under control.
Pre-Battle Preparations
If you want a story or a counter-story, prepare all your work before you call the media or the editor or whoever you have chosen to contact. Be confident when you talk, as they don't like anything shaky sounding. Walk in the media's shoes--i.e. realise time is money and you are not their 100% but just another item on a long never ending list. Having it "together" gets you more attention.
If you want a story published, do send it to more than one reporter. People who are trying to get a paper to take a story know how to "pitch" their approach. They study the editor's style, beat, deadlines, background, interests, experience, information needed. The System hires people specially good at getting through to editors because they know just what "pitch" or "slant" to take to turn his key.
Here is a six-point plan followed by large organisations trying to get media attention.
1. Establish your news peg. Your "story" and your "news peg" may be one and the same. But they may be different. A "news peg" is the "bait" that you use to get their interest, your "story" is the message that you want to get across.
2. Write a news release based on your news peg. The key to success in arranging interviews is to come up with the right peg in the first place. Give the journalist a reason for interviewing you.
3. Assemble a Media Information Kit, containing the news release, background information on your organisation, a biographical sketch and photograph of the person seeking the interview, and a covering letter to editors explaining the significance of the person and what he has to say and inviting interviews.
4. Anticipate how many interviews you might have, and set aside sufficient time for them.
5. Distribute the Media Information Kit to your selected media list so it arrives about a week before you want the interviews.
6. After the media have had the kits for a couple of days, follow-up with phone calls to editors or reporters to arrange the interviews. Many people find this hard to do, and it is hard if you don't know how. Fortunately, learning how is not that difficult. Just follow this procedure:
Identify yourself and explain briefly why you're calling. If the person received your Media Information Kit, ask if he or she would like an interview. If not, don't argue. Simply say something like, "If you change your mind, or if you have any questions about the material, please give me a call." And then hang up.
If the editor or reporter says your material never arrived--which may, in fact, be a cover-up for the fact that it was thrown out--offer to send another package by courier right away. Then you close the conversation with something like, "If you decide you want an interview or have any questions about the material, please give me a call."
Preparing for an Interview
Studies have shown that making a public presentation is, for humanity as a whole, more stressful than marriage, divorce, getting fired or paying taxes. And giving a media interview is, arguably, the most stressful form of public presentation.
Why? You've talked to people before, but when a reporter stands between you and your audience, leaving your words and thoughts vulnerable to distortion, the stakes are higher. "Image communication" is stronger than facts, how people perceive the situation can be more damaging than reality, so you are under a lot of pressure to make a good impression.
Two things you must remember when talking to the media is (a) don't inflict verbal wounds on yourself by saying too much, appearing glib, or being unnecessarily open about things you should not comment on, and (b) avoid stepping into the traps set for you. Further on in this article, we will outline some of the ways people handle reporters' trick questions and techniques.
1. Define what you want to say.
Identify the one, two, or at most, three key points that you want to make in the interview. Keep it plain and simple. These key points are the reason you went to all the trouble to get the interview in the first place, so they'd better be the points you end up making; otherwise why bother?
2. Anticipate questions.
Prepare a "crib sheet" containing the questions you anticipate the reporter will ask and the answers you would like to give. The crib sheet is a kind of script. Its purpose is to make each question you might be asked work to your advantage. You do this by using each question as an opportunity to make at least one of your main points and maintaining control over the interview.
3. Have a "bear pit" session.
Try to make time to rehearse the interview. Arrange a "bear pit" or "bear baiting" session, in which several members of your company or association assault the interviewee with as many nasty questions as they can think of, questions that reporters will probably ask. Use the crib sheet as a guide in the bear pit session, and use the session to revise the sheet.
Proper training and preparation can help you overcome some of your media fears, but that's not to say you won't be nervous. Even the most accomplished and successful actors get stage fright, but they ride on top of it and parade confidently onto the stage or before the camera. A little nervousness helps get your adrenalin flowing, and your body and mind mobilised and on alert.
Playing Russian roulette with a loaded television camera can be very hazardous to your health. You would be wise to get all the counsel you can to teach you how to play in the media's arena and help defuse and maybe unload the camera to where it is safe to handle. When you get good at it, you will be able to take control of the camera and point it at some other more advantageous target.
You can safely assume that your interviewer will be much more comfortable and confident under the hot television lights than you will be. That puts you at a bit of a disadvantage even before your interview begins.
Honing (sharpening) your crisis communications skills will add another arrow or two to your quiver but it will not, however, give you quite the same firepower as a hostile interviewer might have. In order to even things out a bit, many executives have a practice interview under simulated but realistic broadcast conditions, where they put them through a real-life interview which is videotaped. Then they play it back and analyse the performance. This is to help the person become more comfortable when it is essential that they communicate with the public and the media.
4. Study your opponent.
Do your homework and try to find out all you can about the reporter or interviewer you will be up against. Watch their show, read their articles. See how they work and learn their style. Assume that you are with a leopard and not a lamb. Learn your interviewer's first name and use it early in the conversation. This lets the audience think you are calm and confident, especially when they are getting hostile with you and addressing you as "Mr." or "Ms." Don't rise to the bait, but don't overuse their name to where you sound patronising.
5. Select your battle terrain if you can.
Ensure that the setting projects the appropriate image of your organisation. If you're giving an interview on your organisation's careful use of money, don't steer the reporter and camera crew to a fancy room with wood panelling. A modest office or normal room would be appropriate. Don't provide any visual evidence or credence to the negative about you.
If the interview is in your office, don't clutter your desk with papers in an attempt to look busy. You'll only succeed in looking disorganised. And be sure to hide any sensitive or confidential papers. The eye of the camera sees all.
Decide which approach is best and then decide how best to present your information: By phone, through the mail, or in person.
In media-heavy crises, there is a natural tendency to call a press conference. Be careful. While it is true that a picture is worth a thousand words, the real question is which thousand: Chaos or calmness? There are other ways to reach the media besides calling a press conference where you run the risk of hecklers.
It takes a very skilled communicator to be on the receiving end of a barrage of media questions and to be able to control a press conference, especially a "hostile" one.
One-on-one interviews can be much better and show you more calm and in control of the situation than open press conferences where it can just become a chaotic shouting match for the whole World to see.
If you're a guest on a television talk show and you don't like the questions, it's considered bad form to get up and walk off the set, whereas you can end a press conference or an interview much more easily.
6. Exercise your "rights".
There are certain "rights" that most people that interview others somewhat recognise:
* You have a right to set some ground rules before the interview, such as where and how long it will be.
* You have a right to select the topics to be covered.
* You have the right to change the subject or give a short answer and bridge to a related topic.
* You have the right to ask questions yourself.
How to Give a Telephone Interview
For telephone interviews, keep your crib sheet in front of you for constant reference, but do not sound as though you are reading from a prepared text. This will come with practice, although it helps if the answers on the crib sheet are written in a colloquial style.
You don't want the reporter to know that you've got a crib sheet and you most emphatically do not want the reporter to see it. Let the reporter think of the nasty questions on his own, don't lend a helping hand.
You're more restricted in live interviews, since you can't be seen reading from your crib sheet. You can refer to it, if it is held discreetly in your view only--say in a binder--but do not use it during interviews that are being photographed, filmed or videotaped.
How to Give a Newspaper Interview
Preparing the content of an interview should be pretty much the same for print, radio or television interviews. You get your message down pat and figure out how to express it briefly in response to any type of question. Try to give the reporter things you know they will be tempted to use, facts and good quotes. But there are significant differences in how your message should be delivered to print, radio and TV reporters.
The print reporter may wish to record the interview, but the audio tape is usually used only as backup. The primary source material for the eventual article will generally come from the reporter's written notes. If it's not in the notes, it might never see the light of print. So, when you give print interviews, help the reporter get your message fully and accurately by slowing down or pausing when you see the reporter hurriedly scribbling notes on the pad.
Most conscientious reporters will come to the interview with questions already written down. You'll find that throughout the interview, the reporter will take time to leaf through his or her pad to check whether this or that question has been asked or answered. The resulting silence can be deafening and unnerving. Don't worry. Just sit calmly and quietly while the reporter does his or her thing. Don't feel compelled to fill that void of silence with meaningless, and thus potentially harmful, chatter.
You should also resist a similar urge that may strike you at the end of answers, when you've stopped talking, but the reporter has not yet stopped jotting down your remarks. Learn to live with that silence, too. The relatively leisurely pace and informality of print interviews gives you welcomed latitude. You can pause briefly during an answer to look up a pertinent fact or two. And you can break a tense moment by offering the reporter another cup of coffee or by temporarily diverting the conversation to an innocuous topic.
Print interviews bring you close to the reporter, but keep you distant from the reader. What's going to be paraded before the public is neither your direct image nor your actual voice. Aside from any still photographs that may accompany the article, the story will be a verbal portrait painted by the reporter, largely on the basis of the reporter's first-hand impressions gathered during the interview.
You should, therefore, use the interview to demonstrate the salient aspects of your personality. You can be witty or dry, jovial or somber, introspective or extroverted. You'll have anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour or more to show yourself in various poses. These poses, however, should be real. You should not try to create a false image, to appear to be something that you're not, no matter how appealing that image may be to you. Your principal objective in developing a rapport with the reporter is to establish your credibility. Your goal is to ensure that the reporter believes and respects what you say during the interview. Only then will your remarks be reported accurately, comprehensively and credibly.
What makes this process so different from broadcast interviews is that you are in dialogue with the print reporter. Your actions and responses as perceived and interpreted by the reporter will dictate how you are portrayed in the newspaper or magazine article.
How to Survive a TV Interview
TV interviews are a "dangerous animal" that you might be well advised not to enter the cage with unless you know you must. Written "press releases" or working from prepared questions is usually a much safer approach.
TV (and radio) interviews are more formal than newspaper interviews, in part because you must remain physically immobile. You can't wander about the room or even sway back and forth in your chair when you're before the camera or microphone. But more significantly, with radio or television, you're playing not to a single person--the reporter--with whom you develop an active dialogue. You're playing directly to the thousands of listeners and viewers. And with them, instead of engaging in a dialogue, you're giving a monologue. The radio or TV reporter doesn't intervene as much as the print reporter between you and the public. The print reporter may say that you hesitated when giving the answer, that you appeared either nervous or self-assured, that you smiled sarcastically or frowned with genuine concern. But the television viewers will see these things for themselves.
At the same time, you are not in direct conversation with the audience. Unlike the print reporter with whom you can establish rapport during an interview, the radio or TV audience does not formulate the question, ask it, evaluate your verbal or nonverbal reaction and then form an impression or make a judgement and ask a follow-up question, thus giving you the opportunity to expand on your answers or clarify a point.
When it comes to radio and TV, you're on a one-way street; the audience merely eavesdrops on an edited portion of a conversation you had with the reporter. The audience hears the questions, evaluates your responses, but gives no feedback.
Of course, the radio or television reporter can slant a story every bit as well as the print reporter. After all, the reporter can try to set the tone of the interview not only by the questions that he or she asks but also in how they are asked. And the reporter will write and tape an introductory and closing narrative (which will or will not be used at the discretion of the producer or news editor). So developing a constructive rapport with the broadcast reporter is as important as developing a good rapport with the print reporter. It's just that you don't have as much scope and opportunity in a broadcast interview situation. With the print journalist, you've got virtually the entire interview. With the broadcast journalist, you've got just a few minutes before and after the taping to discuss the interview, to provide any detailed background information and to generate any needed goodwill.
And, of course, you can, and should, use those five or ten minutes of chatter with the reporter before and after a radio or TV interview to establish your character and credibility, and hope that a favourable impression will predispose the reporter to your side of the story being told.
ENTERING THE TELEVISION ARENA
Grooming Your Gladiator
The first impressions are often the strongest and most lasting. Not only will they linger in the face of subsequent denials, but they may cast doubt on the credibility of the denial and the person or organisation issuing it.
The impression you make on a reporter may colour the story that eventually emerges. How you act, the tone of your voice, the clothing you wear and the setting of the interview are, therefore, important in every interview situation. But these take on added importance in television interviews, where you are creating an impression not just with the reporter, but with the thousands, perhaps millions, of people who will see you when the story is aired.
Executives take special care to look and act their best for the media. To ensure that your appearance before the camera will project a positive image and enhance your credibility, here are the guidelines they suggest:
Clothes Make the Man
What you wear reflects on what your are. Your clothing, like your demeanour, can heighten or diminish your credibility. Neatness and cleanliness are essential. It is difficult to regard someone who wears wrinkled trousers or skirts, has ring around the collar and frayed lapels as authoritative, knowledgeable and truthful--with the possible exception of certain academic stereotypes whose reputation for knowledge and honesty is too often offset by an image of impracticality and absent-mindedness.
Avoid flashy colours and strong, complex patterns. Not only does this type of clothing convey an image of the unscrupulous used-car salesman, it can be highly distracting on the TV screen.
You see a lot of executives being interviewed in shirt-sleeves. The idea is to make the person appear to be a friendly, hard-working person of the people. And it probably works, in some cases.
But it will not work if you don't feel comfortable without a jacket on. If you're going to feel self-conscious in your shirt-sleeves, then for heaven's sake wear a jacket. Whatever the assumed benefits of the cultivated informal look might be, they will be more than offset by your involuntary display of discomfort.
Second, your attire should reflect the role in which the interview is casting you. Each occupation or trade has its own uniform. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, writers, graphic artists--all have identifiable styles of clothing. So, if you're a doctor, wearing a white examination coat is not only appropriate, but effective. Likewise, a designer can get away with wearing a sweater and open shirt, while such informality might tend to diminish the stature, and thus the credibility, of the Chairman of the Board.
But a lot may depend on circumstances, which brings us to a third point--that your style of dress should be appropriate to the nature of the interview and where it's taking place. It may prove advantageous, for example, to be in your shirt-sleeves when answering media questions in your office or plant about your organisation's plans to cut costs and improve productivity. This is the time to emphasise your willingness, both literally and figuratively, to roll up your sleeves and get down to some really hard work. But such informality would not be appropriate, say, at a news conference. A business suit is the proper attire for both men and women at such a function, and therefore becomes the proper attire for interviews given at that function.
Some experts say that the key to looking your best is "simplicity," Wear dark colours since they are "more authoritative." Your attire should be balanced so that they don't draw undue attention and take away from what you are saying. Other rules are:
DO:
men
* Wear a solid light blue shirt.
* Wear a dark-coloured suit (blue or gray).
women
* Wear a solid light blue blouse or woman's shirt.
* Wear a dark-coloured suit or blazer.
DON'T:
* Wear eyeglasses that are photosensitive, the type that turn dark in the sun. Under the TV lights they will make you look like a mafioso.
men
* Wear striped shirts (they "dance" on camera).
* Wear white shirts (they glare).
* Wear jeweled tie tacks (they reflect light).
* Wear gold chains or clunky ID bracelets.
* Wear wild-coloured neckties.
women
* Wear sparkling, glittering jewelry or noisy bracelets.
* Wear large earrings.
* Wear ruffles, narrow skirts or deep necklines--or anything else that makes you sit awkwardly and is distracting.
Body Language Counts
Your demeanour should be open, comfortable and relaxed, with the degree of seriousness appropriate to the topic. Your facial expressions and your body language will speak louder than your words. Sit stiffly, and you'll erect a barrier that will block communication between you and your audience. Fidget, and you'll appear nervous and evasive. Look jovial when discussing misfortune, and you'll appear to be cruel and insensitive. Remain tight-lipped and stern in the face of humour, and you'll look like an unfriendly stuffed-shirt. But show interest in the interviewer, and you'll appear to be sincere. Treat the interviewer with respect, and you will earn the respect of your audience. Give your eyes, eyebrows and mouth freedom--to show concern when concern is warranted, surprise when surprise is warranted, contemplation when contemplation is warranted--and your audience will regard you as honest, thoughtful and sympathetic.
If you don't know the most appropriate emotion to show in response to a particular interview or question, cultivate a neutral, but pleasing, facial expression. Ingrid Bergman was once asked how she managed to portray such an intense range of feelings that always seemed appropriate to the situations confronting her characters. She said she sometimes did not fully understand the situation or know exactly how she should act in it, in which case she would merely look blank--in essence, showing no emotion--and the people watching the film would ascribe to her character what they, themselves, were feeling. Each person watching your interview on television will attribute to you the feelings or attitude that he or she, individually, believes you ought to have.
If you're seated at a desk, lean slightly forward with your back straight, your forearms resting on the table and your hands clasped. This will make you appear to be outgoing, communicative and confident without being arrogant. This pose will also prevent you from rocking, swaying or gesticulating.
If you're sitting in a stool or chair with no desk or table in front of you, cross your legs, with clasped hands resting on your lap. Crossing your legs accomplishes two purposes. First, it's a modest pose; sitting with your legs spread is unattractive, for both men and women. Second, crossing your legs forces you to sit up, and it gives your body a sharper, more angular and thus, more interesting appearance.
If you're standing, relax, but don't slouch or hunch your shoulders. You'll probably catch the best pose by keeping your feet about six inches apart with one foot slightly ahead of the other. What to do with your arms and hands can be a problem. You don't want them dangling limply at your side, yet you don't want to flail them about, either. Moving your arms and hands too much will make you look aggressive and irrational.
Your best bet may be to put one hand in your trouser or closest pocket, with the other arm held at your side or slightly bent at the elbow. (Of course, customs vary from country to country. In Japan, for example, this would be considered impolite.)Then you can occasionally rotate the wrist of your free arm or flick the fingers of that hand to emphasise a point. These minimal movements will project confidence, but not aggressiveness or arrogance. If you place a hand in your pocket, keep it still. Don't create an annoying diversion by rattling your change. Alternatively, you may hold both hands in front of your body, with one hand held over the other.
Minimise your movements. Because your face and torso will fill up most of the TV screen, any movement you make will be greatly exaggerated. Most of us punctuate our speech with numerous conscious or unconscious movements. We rock back and forth in our chair, sway from side to side, turn our head or let our eyes wander across the room, and if we're standing, jingle the change in our trouser pocket. Your hands can be especially troublesome. Keep them away from your face. Hands flying across the screen are an annoying distraction, and certain hand movements, such as covering your mouth, rubbing your nose or pulling your ear, will cast doubt upon your trustworthiness and erode your credibility. Become aware of any of these nervous habits you may have, then keep them under control during television interviews.
The next challenge is to do this without appearing to be tense and stiff. Let your body relax; loosen the muscles in your arms, shoulders and face. And then raise an eyebrow, furrow your brow, crack a smile or cock your head to emphasise a point. The idea is not to be utterly immobile; it is to be economical in your movements.
Here are some rules from the experts:
DO:
* Sit up straight (but not stiffly, which makes you seem too dogmatic).
* Keep your feet on the ground.
* Keep your hands in your lap (or on the arms of the chair if they are low ones) when you are listening or being asked a question.
* Lean forward slightly, using your hands for emphasis, when you want to get a point across.
DON'T:
* Slouch or sink into the furniture.
* Spread your legs apart.
* Wave your arms wildly.
* Swivel incessantly if you are in a swivel chair.
* Strike an overly familiar or casual pose.
* Don't squirm and fidget.
Don't Fear Their Faces
For the most part they say you should look at the interviewer, not the camera. You, of course, would look at the camera if you were just giving a statement but in interview situations it is better to look at the interviewer and the other people involved. In most interview situations, the television audience is a third party, a kind of eavesdropper on a conversation between two other people, in much the same way that the theatre-goer is listening in on the action taking place on stage. As the interviewee, your credibility derives from your interaction with the interviewer. Looking directly at the reporter during the session makes you appear honest and sincere.
The exception to this rule is the long-distance interview of the kind where the person asking the questions is sitting in a studio and the person answering them may be miles away in another city, appearing only on a studio monitor. In this situation, the interviewer and the television viewer have the same perspective of the interviewee, and to look at the interviewer is to look into the camera. You do not, however, want to stare into the camera and end up looking like a fixated robot lacking true judgement or intelligence. To give your appearance some vitality and interest, periodically change the position of your head slightly and make minimal shifts in the point at which your eyes are focusing. By minimal, I mean something as small as from one rim of the camera lens to the other.
The experts offer the following rules and advice:
DO:
* Smile. Take a deep breath, but unobtrusively, before you answer a question. This lets you "gather up" your smile. It is especially important to smile if your interviewer seems hostile. This will reduce the intensity they want to build up and you look less on the defensive if you are smiling.
* Look your interviewer in the eye most of the time.
* When appropriate or required, look straight at the camera's eye. The camera is on when the red light above the lens is on, but some shows use several cameras.
* Look a fellow panelist in the eye if you are talking to him or her.
* Make eye-contact changes from one place to another smoothly. You can pause to appear to ponder, then make eye-contact again.
* Behave as if the camera and sound system are always turned on.
* Keep your enthusiasm in balance, in other words, do not "perform" when being interviewed. Remain credible.
DON'T:
* Look at the monitor screen.
* Look into the distance when someone is talking. Watch them.
* Let your eyes wander or dart back and forth between the interviewer and the camera. This makes people think you are bored or not really there.
* Don't squint. Studio lights and the reflectors brought into your office for television interviews can be harsh. Get used to them and don't show your discomfort. Rapidly blinking your eyes or squinting to lessen the sting of the lights will only reflect badly on you, making you look squeamish and evasive.
* Don't do anything (fidget, make faces, or pick your nose) that you do not want seen at home by thousands of people.
Never Let Your Guard Down
The interview begins with the first words of greeting, so stick as closely to your script as possible. The reporter's questions may not get published but what you say will. "Off the record" doesn't exist. You can safely assume that everything you say to the media is very much on the record. An interview is everything you say to a reporter under any circumstances even when you think you are off camera. There is no such thing as a "friendly little chat" with a reporter. A reporter is a reporter every waking moment of his life. Do not let your guard down when they relax and seem "off duty." There is no such thing as "off-the-cuff" remarks to reporters, it's a "no holds barred" business. Everything you say to a reporter constitutes an interview and don't ever forget it. Assume that they are unprincipled sensationalists who want to nail you to the cross and you may not be far from wrong. Even if they are not, their livelihood depends on them getting a story from you and getting it fast.
Try to Set the Pace and Tone
You, not the reporter, should set the pace and tone of the interview. Keep your mind on your purpose for being there--to create good will and to persuade the public. Be sure to talk so everyone can understand what you are saying and make your words count. You've got to establish a positive rapport with the mass radio and TV audience in every answer you give during the interview, and no answer should be longer than 15 or 20 seconds, since that is likely the longest that any single broadcast portion of the interview will be. So the content and style of each answer you give assume paramount importance. Speak personally as much as possible and avoid sounding like an organisation.
Take a Tip from the Politicians
If you are on the defensive in an interview remember the four classical defenses of politicians:
1. I didn't do it.
2. I did it, but I had a very good reason. (Explain.)
3. I did it. I'm sorry. I was wrong and I've learned from my mistake.
4. Whoever says I did such a thing is a low-down, good-for-nothing bum. (Try to have a few facts to back you up.)
Learn to Say what YOU Please
People remember your answer, not the question you were asked. Why is this important to know? Because if you don't like the question that is asked, feel free to do what the President of the United States often does: Change the question. Or, more precisely, give the answer you want to give, and don't pay too much attention to the question. To see how a politician plays this game have someone tape-record a conference and then play you just the answers. See if you can deduce the questions that were asked. Simply take the question, reshape it to your own particular liking, and give the answer that best serves your purposes.
There are certain pat phrases that are used to turn a question around, such as:
"That's an interesting question, but before trying to answer that question, I feel the people need to know. . . . "
"Of course, that's one way to look at it, but it may be helpful to first examine the situation this way. . . . "
"Usually when I'm asked a question on that subject, people want to know. . . . "
Get Your Message in Often
Pitch your reply to reach the right people. It's simple wisdom to know who you want to speak to and the message you want to convey.
Whether you are initiating coverage of your positive achievements or trying to minimise damage from potentially harmful stories, knowing how to tell your story to hold media attention is very important. And whenever you answer a question, be sure to work your main message into the response. At all times, whether responding to a negative question or merely reshaping a question, always know what your most important point is, and lead with that. This is especially important for broadcast responses where the electronic media are looking for a good 30-second "sound bite." If you give a statistic, try to always relate it to something the viewer can understand.
Whatever means you finally use to answer the question, try to work yourself around to putting forth your controlled message. It is a safe bet that the morning papers will say, "Smith [that's you] said such and such"; and not "Smith said such and such, even though he was asked thus and thus."
It's what you say that counts. And in crisis communications, what you say and how you say it are essential tools to effective overall crisis management.
Learn How to Say Nothing Nicely
Corporate leaders have "discovered that the best defense against a bad press and a critical public is a good and continuing offense. Never utter the words `no comment.'" That shows your contempt for the public, not the media--at least that's how it will show up. If you have nothing to say, say so and say why. ("That's the first I've heard about it. I'd like to check into it before responding.") If there is nothing you can say, say so and say why. ("As you know, that matter is currently in litigation, and while I certainly feel confident that we will win the suit, our lawyers have advised me not to discuss it.") But "no comment" is virtually considered an admission of either wrongdoing, ignorance, or arrogance.
There are some interviewees who practice the art of "stonewalling," which means many things to many people. Here, however, the word is used to describe someone who constantly stalls the media by saying neither yea nor nay; by neither confirming nor denying. Stonewalling seldom keeps the bad news out and in a crisis there are too many other angry or indignant people eager for a chance to take your place and air their views. You might be successful at that, but just remember the media will get a good story about you with or without your help. With your help, you have a better chance of controlling the message. Without your help, the story that is finally aired or printed may be not only damaging to you or your company, but also inaccurate. Had you exercised some control over the story by controlling the message, at least you would have had a better chance of minimising the damage.
How to Handle Those Tricky Questions
Skilled interviewers use many tricks to put you on the spot. The three most used trick question types are: A loaded introduction or preface to the question, the either/or damned if you do/damned if you don't question, the "pregnant" pause or silent pressure trick (see following: "Don't Let Silence Pressure You").
Watch out for loaded questions. Avoid falling into the trap of answering a negatively worded question, whether you are in a news conference or a one-on-one interview.
Whenever you respond to a negative question, you are on the defensive, and you are being reactive. Conversely, a positively worded question allows you to be proactive, more in control, more able to communicate the message you want to communicate.
Be cautious of red-flag questions that begin:
Isn't it true that . . . ?
Aren't you really saying . . . ?
How do you respond to . . . ?
Are you aware of . . . ?
Since you cannot simply ignore the question, before responding, turn the negatively worded question into a positively worded question of your choosing. Take time to think about what you are going to say, don't play it by ear. Of course, when you are on the air during an interview or news conference, you do not want to have "dead air" between the time a question is posed and the time you respond. (Though it is fine to have silence while waiting for a question.) So do as politicians do--have your own pat responses ready to use when you need to kill a few seconds. Gaining time to hone a response, is one reason why politicians often begin to answer a question with a pat phrase; it gives them an extra beat or two: "That's a good question," "I'm glad you asked me that," "If I understand your question correctly what you are asking me is . . . " and so on. Kennedy would say, "Let me say this about that." Nixon said, "Let me be perfectly clear." Reagan said, "Well, there you go again." These are examples of how skilled politicians stall for a moment or two while forging their response.
When someone forces an "either/or" choice on you, both of which puts you in hot water, denounce both options and present your own alternative.
Don't Let Silence Pressure You
Don't be embarrassed into saying something you might regret merely to fill up a real or imagined void in the interview. It's the reporter's job to ask the questions. When you've answered them to your satisfaction, stop speaking. A reporter may often purposely create a hiatus (a pause) to goad you into saying more than you really intended. If this happens, even during a live radio or TV interview, just sit calmly and patiently, with a pleasant expression on your face. Any subsequent silence will embarrass the reporter, not you. And in a few seconds, the reporter will be flustered and looking for something to say, not you.
How Open Should You Be?
You shouldn't appear to be worming out of the unpleasantries of life, especially when meeting them head on is not only part of your legal responsibility, but can also make you appear honest, concerned and courageous. That does not mean, however, that you should rush to display your dirty linen. Many negative things will occur to or within your organisation that may be of interest to the media, but which you are under no moral or legal obligation to divulge.
Whether you find yourself in a one-on-one interview or at a press conference, facing friendly media or hostile, honesty is always an issue. Their job is to probe and even try to expose any dishonesty, your job is to turn the tide. So watch your p's & q's. Be as frank as you can but you don't have to say anything that could hurt you or others. Keep your answers short so they can't be edited too much and have the meaning change.
If you don't know the answer to a question, say so. Say, " I don't know but I will try to find out." But keep in mind that you still may be able to use that question to make one of your primary points.
Learn how to say "no." Not every question must be answered. If a reporter requests confidential information, let him know you can't reply on that point, directly but politely, and if possible, use the question as an opportunity to make one of your key points. "I'm sorry I can't disclose that information but . . . ." Reporters have the right to ask and you have the right to not answer if you like.
Keep Your Cool
Try not to lose your temper during an interview. Control your emotions. It is good to anticipate what questions might be asked and have someone grill you on the answers. Try not to become too intense or make it obvious that you resent the questions. Don't succumb to a display of bad temper.
In broadcast interviews in either a studio or perhaps your office you may run across a few particularly tricky or "hostile" reporters or interviewers. If an interviewer continually interrupts and does not give you any chance at all to respond, you should be firm in insisting that you be allowed to answer. Of course, this type of interviewing technique is probably the interviewer's style, and you should have known that before you agreed to go on the show. It is wise to do your homework if you can about the person who will be interviewing you, or at least study the show's format, before sitting down to an interview with them, so you at least will have a notion of what you're up against.
Some interviewers will intentionally ask convoluted questions, or multiple questions in one breath, to try to confuse or fluster you. Be patient; let the interviewer finish; and then begin your response by saying, "You've asked several questions, which I'll be glad to answer. Let me begin with your main point . . . . " Then you determine what the main point is.
Don't allow an interviewer to put words into your mouth. If he or she says, "What you mean to say is such and such" (and assuming that that is not what you intended to say), respond by saying, "No; that is not what I said, nor what I meant to say. What I said was . . . . "
If an interviewer continually interrupts you, don't be thrown. The more he or she talks, the more time you have to hone your response further.
You should not necessarily rush to condemn an interviewer who interrupts you. Especially when you are on radio or television, you should never begin your response before the interviewer has finished asking the question. This gives you more time to prepare your response.
And while the question is being asked, avoid at all costs the temptation to pepper your own silence by saying "Uh-huhs," to your questioner. This, though somewhat acceptable in everyday conversation, is taboo during a broadcast interview. Your utter-ances of understanding during the question make it difficult for the listener to follow the dialogue.
Watch Out for Humour
Some people say that you can use "self-effacing humour" or "self-deprecating jest" to show your audience that you are secure enough to be able to laugh at yourself. Self-effacing humour bridges the status gap. Use it wisely, though, since it may be out of place or make you look glib and not serious enough about a serious situation. Most people say WATCH OUT when the interview seems to be going well and things seem relaxed, do not give in to being flippant or making some funny remark.--In a large audience humour is bound to offend someone.
Moral Posturing--How to Be the Good Guy
"Moral posturing" is the art of coming across like one of the good guys and not the villain in a crisis. Of course the best moral defense is when your stand is the right one and you are convinced of it. Then you can show some righteous indignation at being falsely accused or in trouble because of some misunderstanding or mischief on someone else's part. The exact "moral posture" depends on you and the situation. It can range from defending your organisation to defending yourself as a person as you take on a moral role: Innocent victim, underdog, harassed by Big Brother, concerned citizen, David facing Goliath, average Joe family man, prophet of doom, friend of the downtrodden, whatever.
Example of moral posturing:
* You are a "doer" in society but you get little recognition because you do not seek out public praise and publicity. And now this has happened.
* You are a moral agent for good and that makes the bad side upset and they try to get even with you for it.
* You are a hard worker trying to better society and improve Mankind but some people are jealous of your accomplishments and want to discredit you.
* You are a small organisation that is poor and can't afford big public relations departments to promote its cause. So rich corrupt individuals who don't like what you do for people try to stop you any way they can.
Be sure your posture is good so it will hold up under this heavy load they are trying to put on you.
HOW TO HANDLE A MEDIA STAKE-OUT
Stake-outs are a product of the TV era and are usually aimed at high-ranking officials who are at the center of a controversy. There can be "residential" or "office" stake-outs, in which reporters or camera men virtually camp out outside your residence or office, in order to catch you for questions, photos, or to observe your comings and goings. It is the residential one that is the most bothersome because the press harass and invade the privacy of people at their homes who are already under great stress.
Here are tips from those who have gone through a stake-out:
1. When you leave your house you will have to face the media gathered in front of your home. Smile as you say, "I have nothing to add." Be neither flippant nor carefree, just calm and cheerful (even though you don't feel that way).
2. If the stake-out crew make a mess of your lawn with food and beverages and other trash, ask them politely to remove it and to stay off of your lawn. If the problem persists, have your lawyer call the editors or managers of the offending media. Trespassing is still illegal.
3. To keep your children or other members of your family from being harassed, it is best to move them temporarily to another home or hotel.
4. Even stake-out crews have to sleep, so, if you can get by on a little sleep yourself, come home at midnight and leave early in the morning. The chances of encountering them are less.
A note in passing: Remember that photographers, not reporters, are the most desperate players in a roughhouse with the media. They insist on being first in line and will often shove, kick and gouge their way to the front, trying to displace reporters and other photographers who may already occupy that coveted position. A reporter can arrive late and reconstruct events from interviews; a photographer cannot.
What that means for you is that in any stake-out or speech or time of being taken into custody, it is the photographer who will be the most aggressive with you as evidenced by how people on the news sometimes hide their faces during those times; or conversely, take advantage of the "photo opportunity" and deliberately smile real big or be certain to not give them anything but a victory face to publish. If they don't like you, they publish the worst pictures they can get of you, so try to keep them from getting any "ugly mood" pictures. The "statement" you make with your face carries a lot of weight, so try to not put on any expressions you don't want published.
WHAT TO DO WHEN THE MEDIA GET IT WRONG
Despite your best efforts, news accounts will contain errors that put your organisation in a bad light.
The error or distortion can be from poor reporting or editing. Or the story may have been written without the reporter ever having contacted you. The errors of fact or emphasis may have been the result of an honest misunderstanding by the reporters or editors working on the story, the unconscious expression of bias or a manifestation of deliberate manipulation of the truth.
In any event, do your swearing and indignant desk-pounding in the privacy of your office. Ranting and raving to the reporter or editor won't help you, and neither will inaction spawned by a belief that you are powerless to right the wrongs perpetrated by the media. Brooding over the shortcomings of the media will do nothing towards getting the media to publish or broadcast positive items about you.
Take it as an opportunity to get favourable coverage by the offending publication. Being the victim of media wrongdoing puts you in the driver's seat. You can negotiate a remedy as you insist that you have your story told correctly or claim space in the publication to tell your story yourself.
Be sure you have a legitimate gripe and have nothing further to lose by a second round.
Prior to taking any action on an inaccurate or unfavourable story, however, make sure you carefully analyse what was really wrong with it.
Were any facts wrong? If so, make sure you have the correct information and can verify it.
Were the facts contained in the story correct, but the overall impression inaccurate because other relevant facts were omitted? If so, get those missing facts, show their relevance and be able to explain clearly and simply how the impression given by the story was wrong.
Did certain words used by the reporter convey an unfair impression? Some words are emotionally charged or carry pejorative connotations. If so, be able to prove your case. Descriptive terms such as "oily", "shifty" or "grasping" clearly convey a negative impression, and if they were used you would certainly have a grievance, possibly even grounds for a libel action. But you're more likely to see descriptions that are unflattering rather than libelous, such as "rotund", "unkempt" or "haggard." The question is, are these descriptions accurate and, if accurate, was it appropriate to use them?
If, for any of these reasons, a story about you or your organisation creates a false and harmful impression, you should take action. But beware of a major pitfall. A story may be harmful to you, but be neither inaccurate nor biased.
What Are Your Options?
If you've analysed a negative story about you and feel you have a legitimate gripe, the next step is to decide how the error should be rectified to your best advantage.
You have several options:
1. No response.
2. A letter to the writer of the story.
3. A letter to the editor, not for publication.
4. A letter to the editor, for publication.
5. A counter-interview with another journalist or another publication.
6. A formal demand for published correction.
7. A lawsuit.
The most common are either to get the publication to print a correction or clarification or to write a letter to the editor. There are other, less commonly used, avenues open to you.
One is to write a guest column for the "op-ed" page of the paper, if it has one. This is a page, usually opposite the editorial page (thus the name "op-ed" or "opposite-editorial" or as some call it, "opinion-editorial"), that is reserved for outside commentators. Another possible course of action is to help them see the other side of the story so they can do another article that would present your story in a better balanced and more enlightened way.
And if the published or broadcast errors about you or your organisation are so widespread and harmful that you feel these tools--correction, letter to the editor, op-ed page article or follow-up story by a single publication--would make too little an impression, you may be able to launch a media program of your own: Issuing a news release, calling a news conference, arranging media interviews or appearing on talk shows to set the record straight about erroneous media coverage, provided the issue is of sufficient public interest.
As a last resort, you could make a complaint to your local press organisation, if there is one, or bring a civil suit against the publication, its senior editors and the reporters and copy-editors who worked on the story.
Setting the Record Straight in the Print Media
So how do you go about it? If a newspaper or magazine published an incorrect identification or description of a key individual in your organisation or of a product or service provided by your organisation, or if it disseminated false information that might have a material effect on the fortunes of the company, then you may want the record set straight.
It's especially important to do that with the print media because in the future other reporters will likely refer to the original news item when researching their own stories. An incorrect fact or assertion is thus likely to be repeated time and time again. So insist on a correction or clarification.
Correction and Clarification
If a story is unbalanced, incomplete or biased, a correction or clarification may not be the most effective remedy. Corrections and clarifications are brief, in most cases no longer than a single paragraph, and this will rarely be enough space to set the record straight on a story whose very structure was invalid. (A clarification is very much like a correction, except that in a clarification, the publication is saying only that the information it published was unclear, not incorrect.)
A correction or clarification would merely say that such-and-such article did not mention that you . . . blah, blah. That may be fine, as far as it goes. But by using the other remedies available to you, you could greatly enhance the opportunities for getting substantial, positive exposure and thereby bring your organisation that much closer to achieving its overall communications objectives.
Whatever your grievance, don't immediately go over the reporter's head to the editor, news director or publisher. Call the reporter first and calmly explain what was wrong with the story. The reporter will do one of four things:
1. Admit he made a mistake and ask whether you want a correction printed.
2. Agree that there was an error that he would like to rectify in a follow-up story.
3. Agree that the story may not have been entirely accurate or balanced, but maintain that no follow-up or correction is warranted.
4. Dispute that the story was erroneous or distorted.
If you resolve the issue with the reporter, then that's the end of it. If you can't agree on a solution with the reporter, however, then you may want to take the matter up with the reporter's editor to argue for a correction or you may simply want to write a letter to the editor.
For all practical purposes, daily news-papers run on a 24-hour cycle. So even if there was an urgent need to get something corrected at the earliest opportunity, you would have several hours to analyse the situation and prepare your response. Then you would have to wait until the next day before the situation was rectified. In most cases, you would actually have considerably more time, often as much as two or three days, depending on the type of remedy you're seeking--in preparing your response. Then you might have to wait another day or two before anything appeared in print.
A correction should be published the next day, if possible. A letter to the editor or an op-ed page article can wait longer. The basic reason is that a correction is brief. There is virtually no opportunity in the four, five or six lines of a correction to provide the readers with background material to jog their memory about the original story. Being substantially longer, letters to the editor and commentaries give you ample opportunity to develop a line of thought and provide information that can really stand independently from the original story.
Whatever you decide, tell the reporter what your intentions are. If you are going to call the reporter's editor to complain and ask for a correction or clarification, say so. The reporter will respect your directness and fairness.
If you do decide to call the editor, confine your remarks to the merits of the story, not the merits of the reporter. Attacking the reporter will merely put the editor on the defensive. Chances are, if your case is valid, the editor will be accommodating. If not, a letter to the editor may be your best option.
Letters to the Editor
You can write a letter to the editor that is not for publication. Tell the editor that you are not trying to embarrass the publication but that you just want to be sure that future accuracy is assured and do not carry erroneous references or information about you or your organisation. Ask the editor to give a copy of your letter to the writer of the story, if it is bylined, or a copy of the letter to publication's ombudsman if they have one. The writer will not like this and will be more cautious in future.
Letters for publication go on the letters page and that can be a good forum for your views, so don't be afraid to use it. Keep calm, cool down and stick to the facts. Keep the letter short. Rarely will a newspaper publish a letter that runs more than 300 words, 200 words is best.
The tone of the letter can be firm, and you should point out the specific shortcomings of the article, citing possible factual errors, distortions or sloppy research. But the letter should not be personal or vindictive. You may indict the reporter for not calling you to check out a fact, but don't call the reporter stupid or incompetent.
Remember, you're not out to get the reporter, you're out to correct a harmful impression given of your organisation. You're out to make friends, not enemies. So don't vent your spleen. You'll appear petulant, foolish or immature. If you represent a large company, you'll seem like a bully, too. A well-balanced letter to the editor is an effective communications tool and will be appreciated, just as you appreciate a well-balanced news article about your company.
Last Resorts
If the newspaper does not publish your letter, or if your letter is so heavily edited that the points you wanted to raise are obscured, you could take your grievance to a press organisation. And if that route fails and you believe the error was libelous or otherwise threatened the well-being of your organisation, you can always call your lawyer for advice on possible legal action.
Recognising an Opportunity
Keep uppermost in mind that an error of fact, a palpable bias, a lack of balance or a significant omission in a news story can serve as an opportunity, not only to set the record straight, but also to repeat important information or reinforce attitudes and perceptions.
Setting the Record Straight on Radio and Television
Erroneous, biased or unbalanced coverage is a problem with the broadcast as well as with the print media. The opportunities that these occurrences present and the procedures you should follow in dealing with them are similar. There are, however, important differences that will affect what you should do, how you should do it and when you should do it.
The fundamental difference between the print and broadcast media involves space and time.
"Space" is an interesting concept. With the print media, space has a nice, easy-to-grasp, two-dimensional quality--it's the physical area taken up by words on a page. With the broadcast media, words are not expressed spatially. Words do not occupy a physical area, they occupy time.
This difference affects the way people absorb news from the various media and the way those media present the news. Because a newspaper is a physical entity you, the reader, can pick and choose what you want to read and when you want to read it.
The broadcast media don't work that way. If you don't like what's on the air at that particular moment, you can't flip to another news item. You can flip to another station or switch the set off, but the original station will have lost you. The broadcast media have to hold the attention of their audience with much greater tenacity than do the print media. Consequently, they have much less latitude in their selection of the news items they cover and how they cover them. To hold audience attention, each radio or television news item must have broader appeal than the individual news items published in the daily newspaper.
The broadcast media are also bound by time. Assuming the newscaster speaks at the rate of 125 words per minute, there's room for only 1,875 words in each five-minute broadcast. That's equivalent to about four average-length newspaper stories, which for a major daily represents no more than about five per cent of the news hole. Newspapers have a lot more space than radio or TV stations have time.
The time and space constraints under which the broadcast media operate will influence all of your dealings with them, especially when it comes to correcting news stories about you or your organisation.
Some remedies that you can try to get from TV and Radio are:
1. Immediate retraction and correction using the program's announcer.
2. A retraction and correction in the next news cast that would use new information in "an equal or better profile" than in the original broadcast.
3. A retraction and correction broadcast the following day in the same "hour cast" as the original story in hopes of reaching the same audience that was misled.
4. An editorial in the complainant's own voice "(the radio version of a letter to the editor) . . . an option where there is a continuing disagreement, but no litigation contemplated."
5. A station-initiated apology.
6. An apology delivered by the station at the initiation of a complainant who has discussed the situation with the news director or station manager.
Several combinations of the above six points may be employed pending a conversation between the news director/station manager and the complainant. You should choose the remedy that will best enable you to get across the points you want to make to the publics you want to reach. Unlike the print media, radio and television often give the subjects of a news story the opportunity to speak for themselves, without the intervention of reporters or editors to "cut and paste" interviews.
Summary and Supplementary Notes
Many people have bad experiences when dealing with the media. They have been misquoted or quoted out of context, they've been hounded for stories they want to forget, they've seen reporters or editors distort or sensationalise seemingly straightforward events, there is much antagonism, suspicion and distrust. When the media get too mean-mouthed, nobody wants to talk to them any more, and they lose their informed sources and have to start digging for dirt among the ill-informed outsiders, disgruntled employees, headline seekers and a host of others whose lack of accurate or comprehensive information is sadly made worse by their personal compulsion to offend and besmirch. The end result is inaccurate and misleading journalism leading a misinformed and ill-equipped public. Issues are not understood and everyone loses as a result of the poor decision-making position the media has put people into by misrepresenting the truth.
You want people to have a good feeling about you, that you contribute to the betterment of society, are a good citizen, play an active role in community affairs, treat your people well and value principles of fairness and honesty, or whatever virtue you want to point out about your organisation. Any business or organisation needs to communicate this to the public to engender good will. The main motives people have for becoming involved with the media are:
* To protect their image and to ensure that people perceive them the way they want to be perceived.
* To keep the confidence of those they need on their side.
* To attract new people to their organisation or company.
* To win the acceptance and support of others.
* To prevent public policy from forming that could affect their organisation and its members.
Here then is a brief summary of some of the main points covered in the article, "How to Survive a Media Storm."
MEDIA POWER
* The media is hard to avoid, they can be "hostile" in their pursuit of a story and they can be used by people who don't like you to stir up trouble.
* Journalism has become confrontational and not always honest.
* The media can be used by trouble makers to turn the heat up on your organisation.
* Modern organisations need to stay on the media's good side.
WHAT MAKES A STORY NEWSWORTHY
* Relevance. Will the story have an impact on the daily lives of the people you are trying to reach?
* Timeliness. Does the story deal with a major issue of the day or relate to a major holiday, event or person?
* Human interest. Does the story touch on an emotion or experience shared by most people?
* Entertainment value. Is the story funny or does it stimulate curiosity, imagination or passion?
* Controversy. The more outrageous or bitter the controversy, the more people want to see, hear and read about it.
CRISIS MANAGEMENT & SURVIVAL STRATEGY
Decide on how you will respond to negative publicity or if it is worth it.
WHAT TO DO BEFORE YOU HAVE A CRISIS
1. Prepare for a crisis ahead of time. Chose a PR team and team leader and prepare and distribute a "crisis communications" plan. Early detection of possible trouble areas is very important.
2. Appoint a spokesperson(s) to talk to the media. You may need to make a list of possible spokespersons at each location that the media may come to.
3. Train your spokespersons on how to give media interviews.
4. Set up good lines for internal communications to ensure you are informed immediately when a crisis occurs.
5. Prepare a list of inside and outside people to inform during a crisis.
6. Make rules and ensure everyone knows where to direct media enquiries.
WHAT TO DO WHEN A CRISIS OCCURS
1. Size up the situation. Meet with senior management to determine the stance to take with the media and what your key messages will be.
2. Keep everyone posted. Brief designated spokespersons.
3. If you decide to make a public statement, prepare it and give staff and other key people copies. State your position in positive terms. Don't feed the controversy by giving mixed or contradictory statements. Explain your goals and situation in terms the public can relate to and that you want to be publicised. Decide who mainly you want to reach with your message.
4. Decide on what media to use (TV, newspaper, radio, etc.) and what means you will communicate your message: Press releases, letters, press conferences, interview, etc. Contact the media and give them a spokesperson's name or number. Prepare or gather the material you will give the media ahead of time. Arrange for media interviews, if appropriate.
5. Try to get your side of the story out. Issue periodic statements or hold periodic media briefings or news conferences, if crisis is ongoing.
6. Keep everyone informed and weather the storm once you have communicated. Evaluate the media coverage you get and decide if further communication would be wise or make matters worse.
MANAGING THE MEDIA
HOW TO PREPARE AHEAD & THEN CONTACT THE MEDIA FOR AN INTERVIEW
1. Decide on a "news peg" to catch their interest.
2. Write a news release based on your eye catching "news peg."
3. Put together a Media Information Kit containing your news release, etc.
4. Anticipate how many interviews you may have and schedule for them.
5. Send out the Media Information Kit to the media, timing it to arrive about a week before you want the interviews.
6. Follow up with phone calls to editors and reporters to see if they got your Media Kit and try to arrange for an interview.
POSSIBLE CONTENTS OF A MEDIA INFORMATION KIT
1. A news release is the basic form of virtually all media communications.
2. Texts of speeches or other documents, such as briefs, submissions or presentations upon which the news release is based.
3. "Fact sheets" giving relevant background to the issue or development you're publicising.
4. A brochure that describes your company, agency or association.
5. Biographical sketch of the key people mentioned in your release.
6. Cover letter to editors and reporters, inviting them to a news conference or interview.
7. It must be newsworthy.
8. Write the lead paragraph: Incorporate as many of the five Ws--Who, What, When, Where and Why--as possible. Attribute any assertions or announcements in the lead to a person or organisation.
9. Back up the lead with supporting statements.
10. Sprinkle the release liberally with quotes.
11. Ensure there are no loose ends or logical inconsistencies.
12. Check to see that you've included all the important points you want made.
HOW TO GIVE INTERVIEWS
HOW TO PREPARE FOR AN INTERVIEW
1. Define what you want to say. Identify two or three key organisational goals you intend to advance through the interview.
2. Anticipate what questions or topics they will cover. Prepare a "crib sheet" containing the questions you anticipate you'll be asked and the way they should be answered.
3. Have a practice session. Rehearse the interview in "bear-pit" sessions, revising the "crib sheet," as required.
4. Study your interviewer's articles or shows.
5. Choose where you will give the interview if possible.
6. Know ways of controlling the direction of the interview. Exercise your "rights."
HOW TO GIVE A TELEPHONE INTERVIEW
* Use a set of "crib notes" written much as you would talk.
HOW TO GIVE A NEWSPAPER INTERVIEW
* Give the reporter time to make notes.
* Don't talk while he or she is writing. Use the time to pray through your answers.
* Make as good an impression as you can.
HOW TO SURVIVE A TV INTERVIEW
1. Nothing is "off the record." Everything you say can be published or broadcast.
2. Remember the main points that you want to make, and reiterate them whenever possible; conversely, avoid belabouring irrelevant points.
3. Be familiar with your "crib sheet," (refer to them during a telephone interview) but never sound as though you are reading from a text. It is harder to hide your notes on TV.
4. If you don't know the answer to a question say so--and get back to the reporter later with the answer.
5. If the reporter requests confidential information that you do not want to give, say so directly, but politely.
6. When you've said your piece, stop talking, and wait for the next question.
7. Your demeanour should be open, comfortable and relaxed, with the degree of seriousness appropriate to the topic.
8. Dress appropriately and neatly. Avoid flashy colours and strong, complex patterns. Clothing should be clean and unwrinkled. If the interview is in your office, you may want to be in your shirtsleeves to project an honest, friendly and hard-working image, but keep your collar buttoned up and your tie properly knotted. If the interview is outside your office, wear the clothing appropriate to the surroundings.
9. Look at the interviewer, not the camera.
10. Don't squint from possibly harsh TV lights--it'll make you look evasive.
11. Minimise movements--your face and torso will fill up most of the TV screen and any body movements will appear greatly exaggerated.
12. If you're seated at a desk, lean slightly forward with your back straight, your forearms resting on the table and your hands clasped.
13. If you're sitting in a stool or chair with no desk or table in front of you, cross your legs, with clasped hands resting on your lap.
14. If you're standing, relax, but don't slouch, keeping your feet about six inches apart, with one foot slightly ahead of the other. You may put one hand in your trouser pocket with the other arm hanging at your side or slightly bent at the elbow. Or you may have your arms in front of your body, with one hand hooking over the back of the other.
15. Hide any sensitive or confidential papers from the all seeing eye of the camera.
16. Ensure that the setting projects the appropriate image of your organisation.
17. Don't let your guard down.
18. Try to set the pace and tone if you can.
19. Learn the four ways politicians answer: I didn't . . . . ; I did but . . . . ; I did, sorry . . . . ; Who said I did?
20. No matter what the question, the answer you give should further your point.
21. Keep repeating your main message every chance you get.
22. Don't say, "No comment." Learn how to say nothing nicely.
23. Learn how to handle trick questions and remember they save the mean question for last.
24. Don't let the interviewer's silence pressure you into saying too much.
25. Be as honest as you can but learn how to say "no" when they go too far.
26. Keep your cool. Try not to lose your temper.
27. Don't let the interviewer put words in your mouth.
28. Generally avoid humour as it can weaken your position.
29. Identify your self and your organisation with the good.
30. Smile!
HOW TO HANDLE A MEDIA STAKE-OUT
1. Keep smiling as you pass them. If you have nothing to say, just say, "I have nothing to add." Don't be flippant. Stay calm and cheerful.
2. Insist that your rights be respected and your property is not overrun.
3. Move your family out.
4. Come and go very early and very late in the day to avoid confrontation.
WHAT TO DO WHEN THE MEDIA GET IT WRONG
1. Get angry in private. Don't rant and rave to the reporter or editor.
2. Carefully analyse what was wrong with the story.
3. Call the reporter to discuss errors in the story and your proposed remedy:
* Clarification or correction.
* Letter to the Editor.
* Get new article published.
* Write op-ed page article under your byline.
* Complaint to the Press Council.
* Legal action.
4. If the situation warrants, call the reporter's editor, but inform the reporter first.
5. Initiate your own media event by issuing a news release or calling a news conference.
6. Attack the story, not the reporter.
[end]