Mr. Media Training

This is the fourth in a weekly series looking at possible 2012 presidential contenders. Click here to learn more about the series.

Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House, has been out of government for more than a decade.

Since resigning his office during an intraparty squabble in 1999, Mr. Gingrich has endeavored to rehabilitate his image through his work as a political consultant, pundit and author. His work as a political analyst for the Fox News Channel has kept him visible, and his penchant for making controversial statements has kept him in the news.

Although his larger-than-life persona can make him easy to underestimate at times, Mr. Gingrich possesses some gifts as a communicator.

In the below clip, Mr. Gingrich articulates a clear message repeatedly (“jobs!”), and his barely contained anger at the state of the nation is well-aligned to the national mood. As a former history professor who has sometimes had a tough time using everyday language, he does an impressive job of speaking the language of voters:

“I don’t think this President will control spending. I don’t think the Democrats in the House and Senate will control spending. So they want the right to run up the biggest credit card in history, more than any teenager in America, and then they turn around and tell the rest of us we have to pay for their credit card.”

He also uses a nice speaking technique (known as anaphora) by beginning five consecutive phrases with the word “with” to press his case that the current Administration is failing on a variety of counts. 

I’ll review his communications flaws and give him a grade after the clip.

It’s said that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior – and Mr. Gingrich’s track record suggests he is almost pathologically determined to stray off message and create unnecessary distractions.

Earlier this month, Mr. Gingrich earned the ire of fellow conservatives when he suggested that building a mosque in lower Manhattan would be equivalent to Nazis putting up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum. Last year, Mr. Gingrich branded Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a “racist.” And during the government shutdown he engineered in 1995, he told reporters that he forced the showdown in part because President Clinton made him sit in the back of Air Force One during an international trip.

If Mr. Gingrich can find a way to remain stubbornly on message (and can begin to exude some optimism), he can become a viable contender. But until he demonstrates he can do so, he is not likely to win a general election, even against an unpopular president.

GRADE: C-

To see the other candidates I’ve reviewed so far, click on their names: John Thune, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Gary Johnson, Jim DeMint, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama

As seen in Ben Smith’s column in The Politico.

President Obama wrapped up his 10-day Martha’s Vineyard vacation over the weekend, during which he played five rounds of golf.

Many conservative commentators criticized the President for his frequent golf outings, suggesting he should focus more on creating jobs than hitting the links. Are they right? Yes and no – but mostly yes.

First, the case for playing golf. President Obama has one of the most stressful jobs in the world, and since many studies show that people make poor decisions when subjected to long-term stress, it’s important for Mr. Obama to recharge on occasion. It is unquestionably better for the nation to have a president who makes decisions with a clear head rather than a stress-addled mind.

But optics matter.

Just ask former BP CEO Tony Hayward, who lost his job shortly after taking a day off during a massive oil spill to watch the yacht he co-owns compete in a race.

Or President George W. Bush, who was widely criticized for continuing to read My Pet Goat to a group of children for seven minutes after being notified of a domestic terrorist attack.

Or Sarah Palin, who became a national punch line for giving an interview about the joys of Thanksgiving while turkeys were slaughtered behind her.

President Obama is entitled to a relaxing game of golf on occasion, but it’s not smart politics. The presidency is as much a symbolic position as a substantive one, and Mr. Obama’s frequent golf outings feel out-of-synch with the recessionary times. Worse for the White House, they fuel a narrative that the President is out-of-touch with the struggles of everyday Americans.

President Obama would be wise to continue finding ways to reduce his stress load, whether through a private basketball game at the White House, a jog on a treadmill, or a game of chess. But he should recharge away from the cameras, and he should leave the golf course behind for a while.

Do you know which seven traits all eight presidential winners have had since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980? Click here to see our political series.

There’s a media trainer out there who tells a story about training a musician.

Every time the musician said, “We have a new album coming out on Tuesday,” the trainer would say, “Who’s ‘we?’ Do you think the audience can go to the record store and ask for the new record by ‘We?’ Say the name of your group so people can find your record!”

It’s a reasonable point. Many media trainers have long argued that spokespersons should replace personal pronouns, primarily “I’” and “we,” with their company’s name.

I disagree with that advice, and have always thought a few “I’s” and “we’s” were okay. A spokesperson who says something like, “Well, Starbucks Coffee believes that…” too many times risks sounding forced and inauthentic. And since that spokesperson will be identified by the reporter as a Starbucks representative anyway, it may be unnecessary.

A new Stanford University study called “Detecting Deceptive Discussions in Conference Calls” strengthens my position. According to The Huffington Post’s review of the study:

“Using phrases like “the team” and “the company” over “I” and “we” is one of a number of linguistic cues that an executive could be lying…executives who later revised their firm’s financial statements displayed distinct styles of speech in analyst calls, including language that ‘disassociates themselves from their subject matter.’”

Am I suggesting you should never say your company’s name or use phrases such as “our team” since they could be seen as an attempt to disassociate yourself from your firm’s behavior? No. It’s okay to keep those words in your media repertoire.

But do feel free to sprinkle in a few “I’s” or “we’s” along the way, and ignore any advice that tells you to kill personal pronouns altogether during media interviews.

You’ve been invited to go on Meet the Press, and you’ve labored for days with your communications team to develop the right message.

If you’re Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), your message is about the economy – specifically, his view that the Obama Administration has not successfully navigated the country through the recession.

Mr. McConnell, like any spokesperson with a message, wants to articulate it as often as possible.

And David Gregory, like any good journalist, wants to “make news” by steering the spokesperson off message.

So when Mr. Gregory asked Mr. McConnell for his views on President Obama’s faith, McConnell used the word “faith” as his keyword and employed the “keyword bridge” to steer the conversation back to his message.

MR. GREGORY:  Let me move on to something that seems to be related to this and has gotten a lot of attention this week, and this is the poll about the president’s own faith from the Pew Research Center.  Eighteen percent of those polled believe that the president is a Muslim.  Among Republicans, this is striking, 31 percent believe he’s a Muslim.  Of course, he’s not.  Why do you think these views prevail?

SEN. McCONNELL:  Well, look, I think the faith that most Americans are questioning is the president’s faith in the government to generate jobs. We’ve had an 18-month effort here on the part of this administration to prime the pump, borrow money, spend money hiring new federal government employees, sending money down to states so they don’t have to lay off state employees. People are looking around and saying, “Where’s the job?”

By answering the question in such a manner, he was able to remain firmly anchored to his economic message without wading into the topic of the President’s religion.

At this point, you might be wondering if the keyword bridge is a bit too slick – a dodge that doesn’t truly answer the question. In fact, David Gregory began his follow-up by telling Mr. McConnell that his answer was “certainly a side step to this particular question.”

But despite its obvious flaws, the keyword bridge is a nice tool to put in your media arsenal. Employed sparingly by a deft spokesperson with a friendly interviewer, the keyword bridge allows you to remain on message without wading into unnecessary distractions.

Note: Immediately after the answer excerpted above, Mr. McConnell stoked a major controversy when he said he takes the President “at his word” that he’s not a Muslim instead of stating unequivocally that he personally believes the President is a Christian. This article doesn’t deal with that  portion of the interview; rather, it is intended to focus solely on the passage above, which highlights his use of the keyword bridge.

Many media trainers offer their clients this straightforward tip for interacting with journalists: “Return a reporter’s call before his deadline.”

It’s terrible advice.

Let’s say a reporter calls you at 9 a.m. He tells you he’s working on a story about your organization for tomorrow’s paper and needs a quote by 4 p.m. today.

If you return his call at 3:50 p.m., he’s likely already written most of the story. In fact, 95 percent of his story is probably completed, and he’ll just drop your quote into the article to make sure you were represented in the piece.

But you’ve done absolutely nothing to help shape his story angle, increase his understanding of your issues, or refer him to your allies (and less vehement opponents) for their comments. As a result, the story will be comprised of the reporter’s perspective and that of everyone else he’s spoken to – and your quote will have minimal impact.

Instead, tell the reporter you’ll call him back by 10 a.m. Since he knows he’ll get a comment from you early in the day, he won’t feel as compelled to scramble for alternate sources.

Spend that hour drafting a few talking points, and support them with compelling stories and statistics. You may even have have time to develop a sound bite that summarizes your main point in a memorable phrase.

Calling him back by 10 a.m means you’ve probably reached him before he’s written the article’s first word, which gives you a terrific opportunity to help shape his perspective and influence his final story into one that more fully represents your viewpoints.

Returning his call early in the day may also change the questions the reporter asks other sources later in the day. He’ll ask them to react to your quotes, meaning they’re talking about your issues through your perspective, not theirs.

Finally, returning the reporter’s call early allows you to offer a follow-up phone call later in the day to react to what he learned throughout his reporting. Many journalists will take you up on that, meaning you get two bites at the apple instead of one inconsequential nibble.

Here’s the correct advice: “Return a reporter’s call as quickly as possible after his original call, well before his deadline.”

This is the third in a weekly series looking at possible 2012 presidential contenders. Click here to learn more about the series.

On paper, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour fits an obvious archetype: Overweight southerner who once worked as a tobacco lobbyist.

Off paper, though, Gov. Barbour is an accomplished politician who served successfully as chairman of the Republican National Committee and who currently heads the Republican Governors Association.

Mr. Barbour’s effectiveness as a speaker comes from his authenticity. He comes across as amiable, folksy, and credible. He is a master of staying on message (“jobs!”), but in a genuine manner that doesn’t feel canned.

Gov. Barbour effectively uses everyday language, including colloquialisms such as "they’re whistling past the graveyard" and "you can’t spend yourself rich.”

In the clip below, Mr. Barbour passes when given an opportunity to bash two political rivals (President Obama and Sarah Palin, a possible 2012 primary opponent). By doing so, he helps ensure that the next day’s newspapers run a quote about his policy positions, not a controversial quip about other politicians.

I’ll review his weaknesses and grade Gov. Barbour’s performance as a media communicator after the clip.

Mr. Barbour has only a few points for concern:

1. He did a good job of articulating Republican orthodoxy, but will have to articulate a clear vision for the nation. Focusing on jobs is a good first step, but he said little in this interview about how he would actually create them.

2. He should watch his reaction (listening) shots, during which he makes a few odd facial expressions.

3. Though it’s largely out of his control, his strong southern accent may prove to be an obstacle for voters in other parts of the country. He will inevitably be portrayed as a “good ‘ol boy” by late night comics, and will need to defang his critics with a humorous quip that puts the issue to rest for voters.

Those are small criticisms. According to the seven things all eight winning presidents have had since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980, Mr. Barbour should be viewed as a credible candidate with a real shot at winning a general election.

GRADE: A-

To see the other candidates I’ve reviewed so far, click on their names: John Thune, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Gary Johnson, Jim DeMint, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama

Babies are the newest terror threat.

Debbie Riddle, Republican member of the Texas House of Representatives, claims that pregnant women are coming into the country as tourists, having babies, and then going back home with “…the nefarious purpose of turning them into little terrorists who will then come back to the U.S. and do us harm.”

She discussed her claim on CNN with Anderson Cooper earlier this month, and did fine in the interview until she was asked for proof. Then she unraveled.

After the clip, I’ll review what went wrong and how she could have saved herself.

Here are three reasons Ms. Riddle failed the interview:

1. She Lost Control: When under fire, spokespersons need to demonstrate their competence by remaining in control. Watch Ms. Riddle’s vocal tone and body language at the beginning of the interview. She was calm, collected, and in control. Contrast that with her appearance 9:40 into the interview, when she flails her arms, uses overly-emphatic gestures, and looks angry.

2. She Got Defensive: When pressed for evidence, Ms. Riddle tried several different answers, finally blaming the producers: “[The producers] did not tell me that you were going to grill me for specific information that I was not ready to give to you tonight. They did not tell me that, sir.”

3. She Bombed the Pre-Interview: Ms. Riddle admits she told CNN’s producers about terror babies in the “preliminary” (pre-interview). It never occurred to her that they might ask her about it during the actual interview? She likely could have eliminated “terror babies” as a topic altogether by telling the producers that her main focus was on broader immigration issues.

So what should Ms. Riddle have done? When Anderson Cooper asked her for evidence the first time, she could have said: “You know, Anderson, our office does have evidence. Unfortunately, I don’t have it with me tonight. I’ll get the information to you by tomorrow night’s broadcast so you can share our evidence with your viewers. But this is actually part of a much larger issue…”

What do you think? What should Ms. Riddle have said? Please leave a comment below.

Imagine a small media training session featuring top-level executives, possibly scientists or academics. It’s the first mock interviewing round early in the morning. The first executive is up. The camera’s red light comes on. The questions start flying.

The executive is flat. No energy, no passion, no reason to pay attention. The interview ends. I ask him why he was flat.

“Well, I don’t want to come across as too dramatic, or I’m afraid I’ll risk my credibility,” he’ll probably say.

Hundreds of trainees in our media training workshops have told me exactly that – that they don’t want to display a lot of energy during their media interviews because they want to “maintain their credibility.”

They’re focusing on the wrong thing. A “flat” trainee will not be heard, will not inspire confidence, and will not break through the clutter of the 3,000 messages the average American is exposed to each day. And when they say they want to maintain their credibility, they usually mean the credibility of their boring peers, not the general audience.

Here’s a media truth: Just by being on television (or on radio, or in the newspaper), the audience automatically views you with credibility.

You’ll get an automatic additional dose of credibility when the journalist identifies you as an expert and you’re identified on the bottom of the screen.

Now that you’ve automatically been deemed credible, all you have to focus on is clear, passionate communication. Think of the energy you bring to your personal conversations regarding subjects you are passionate about (e.g. a ludicrous company policy, a sports team, your daughter’s straight-A report card). Bring that same level of energy to your media interview – and you’ll be perceived as both credible and effective.