Mr. Media Training

When I worked as a media relations officer several years ago, an old boss of mine used to walk around the office grumbling that “journalists are miserable people leading miserable lives.” (She usually said that after a reporter turned down one of her story ideas.)

That’s an over-statement, of course, but she was on to something. Reporters face more pressures than ever before, and it’s no wonder that many of them are exhausted, overly-stressed, unresponsive, and curt.

This article will look at five reasons reporters lead “miserable” lives – and what you can do to make their lives easier.

1. They Have No Time:  Journalists have never faced more bruising deadlines. Newspaper reporters who once had to write one story per day now have to update the story for their paper’s website continually. Their broadcast counterparts now have to produce separate web-only versions of their radio and television segments throughout the day and promote them via social media.

How You Can Help: Respond to their requests quickly, get them the information they need well before their deadlines, and speak in media-friendly sound bites that don’t require a translator.

2. They’re Doing The Job of Three People: Many reporters are doing the jobs of two or three people, since odds are that their news organizations have laid off several of their colleagues.

How You Can Help: Many journalists appreciate it if you perform some of the tasks one of their fired colleagues once did. In an age of fewer graphic editors and staff photographers, for example, you can help by sending high-quality charts, photos, and videos that require little editing.

3. They Have No Space: Journalists regularly have to edit complicated stories down to 200 words or two minutes. This has always been true, but the trend toward even shorter pieces is continuing to accelerate.

How You Can Help: Don’t drown reporters with pages of “helpful” background information if they’re on a tight deadline. Prioritize the information instead. Provide them with only the most important information they need to file the story, and make sure it answers the who, what, when, where, why, and how.

4. They Have to Be Profitable: Many journalists get into the business thinking they’re providing a critical public service. They often do, but they also have to tell stories that attract an audience, allowing their news organizations to maintain or raise their advertising rates. Even “pure” journalists have to get their hands dirty – former ABC News Ted Koppel used to say that Nightline covered the O.J. Simpson case (which generated strong ratings) so it could cover more important international stories (which did not).

How You Can Help: Conflict sells. If your story has some built-in controversy, don’t be afraid to offer a strongly-worded sound bite (as long as doing so is a strategic choice that helps accomplish your media goals). 

5. They Don’t Make Any Money: Why do journalists lead miserable lives? Because they have to put up with all of the challenges described above – and get paid poorly for their efforts. Sure, Matt Lauer makes a cool $16 million per year. But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median annual wages of reporters and correspondents were $34,850 in May 2008.

How You Can Help: Offer them a cash bribe. I’m kidding, of course. Instead, recognize the pressures they operate under – and do everything you can to be a helpful source.

Related: Five Reasons The Reporter Didn’t Quote You

Related: Eight Ground Rules When Working With Reporters

I’ve never had a formal comments policy on my blog.

But since launching the blog just over a year ago, I’ve received numerous off-topic, nasty and profane comments, and have wrestled with the best way to manage comments. 

On one hand, I believe in free speech and don’t like being a censor. On the other hand, I want this blog to retain a civility that too many other blogs lack.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article about White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. It was a tough piece, but it was intended to focus on his shortcomings as a media communicator – not to serve as a personal attack or a referendum on the Obama Administration. But after my post received coverage on several conservative blogs, some readers used it as an excuse to write some obnoxious or ugly stuff.

Here’s a sample:

“He also looks like a weasel…”

“…you’re talking about the same pap Barry has been regurgitating for the last 2 1/2 years.” (from a reader referring to President Obama using a pejorative term)

“It is delightful to watch someone less competent than Dear Leader trying to explain Dear Leaders’s mistakes…” (another reader speaking about Obama using a pejorative term)

These comments are only the latest. Here are a few others that have appeared on the blog over the past year:

“so let me understand your org Media training is teaching people to spin?? YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! You Know that this is just not right yet you don’t care!!”

“You sir, are a spin doctor and assertions to the contrary are fooling no one but yourself. The misconception is yours. Denial of obvious facts only damage your credibility, so why not just embrace it? Hey, at least he didn’t say your were Minister of Propaganda, for which Media Training Consultant is just a frilly euphemism.”

“If you’re going to give advice as media ‘experts’, shouldn’t you at least provide your videos with decent audio? Sounds like you are recording off the camera microphone. That’s unprofessional.”

Those are just the ones I’ve posted. I’ve also received much more profane comments that I’ve chosen not to post. Those brave comments typically come from anonymous posters.

But until now, I’ve never had a specific policy regarding comments on the blog. As I’ve wrestled with what my policy would be, I kept coming back to this thought:

There are a lot of jerks in the world, and I don’t need to pay for the privilege of giving them yet another platform to spread their angry rants.

So here’s the new blog commenting policy:

NO JERKS ALLOWED.

I will gladly accept comments from people who disagree with my perspective, challenge my facts, and rip apart my conclusions. I will take comments from people who think media training is a dishonest profession, from people who think I’m not qualified to make certain judgments, and from people who accuse me of bias.

But I’m done posting ad hominem attacks, off-topic comments, comments that refer to elected officials (or others) in pejorative terms, comments that are unnecessarily antagonistic, comments that don’t relate to the topic of the article, and other comments that come across with more hostility than substance.

I’ll continue to post anonymous comments, as long as they meet the above standards. And I retain the right to violate my own rules if posting a nasty comment casts some sunlight on an ugly point-of-view.

There is no shortage of websites and news channels that profit from hostile and angry debate. No matter how many times I’m accused of censorship, I’m not going to allow this blog to join their ranks.

No jerks allowed.

What do you think? How have you managed nasty comments on your own blog? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

Related: 12 Things I Learned In My First Year As a Blogger

Related: My 10 Favorite Blog Posts Of All Time

Is it stupid for reporters to do live shots while standing in middle of a hurricane?

If you watched any Hurricane Irene coverage, you couldn’t avoid seeing dozens of reporters trying to keep their balance while hurricane-force winds tried to knock them down.

Are they doing a public service, or is it an arrogant conceit that unnecessarily risks the safety of reporters and their crews?

Chris Lawrence of CNN during Hurricane Irene. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, appearing on CNN, told Wolf Blitzer, 'Tell Chris to get the hell out of that water.'

When I posed this question on my Facebook page, one commenter asked: “…do you stay out of a war zone or a protest that could turn ugly, too?”

She’s right that reporters have to occasionally risk danger to get the story. But I’d argue that this dangerous journalistic hurricane chasing is less about news value and more about showmanship. Dramatic images fuel higher ratings, and daring reporters receive professional kudos for their “bravery.” Getting blown down by heavy winds, drenched by angry waves, or struck by flying debris has become a de rigueur rite of passage for weather reporters.

Plus, are they really protecting the public by showing them just how dangerous the storm is in person? Doesn’t it stand to reason that viewers might think, “Well, if it’s safe enough for that guy to stand out there…”

Just how dangerous is this type of coverage? In this video, Julie Martin of The Weather Channel slams into an SUV after being hit by a wind gust during 2008’s Hurricane Dolly:

And in this one, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough risks being hit by flying debris during 2004’s Hurricane Jeanne:

When Dan Rather became the first reporter to cover a live hurricane in 1961, it made sense to broadcast from the storm’s center. The public hadn’t seen that shot before, it broke new journalistic ground, and it added to the story. But five decades of these shots have diminished their impact – and their news value.

News organizations will inevitably continue this dangerous practice until the moment a reporter gets seriously injured or killed – at which point they’ll predictably dial it back. In an era when live cams can tell the story well enough during the actual storm, it’ll be a preventable and largely pointless tragedy.

What do you think? Is this type of weather reporting brave and necessary or just plain reckless? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

Related: The Five Worst Video Media Disasters of July 

Related: The Ten Worst Video Media Disasters of 2010

A few years ago, I accompanied one of our clients to CNN’s Washington, DC bureau for a live interview on Lou Dobbs Tonight. Since I had worked at that bureau for a couple of years in the late 1990s and knew it well, I was able to tell her exactly what she could expect.

But it turned out I was totally wrong. In the years since I’d left, CNN had built a new “studio,” which was nothing more than a converted coat closet. My client had to sit on a stool in that tiny, closet-sized booth, and had to speak to a camera operated by a technician hundreds of miles away.

Television is a strange medium. This post will help strip away some of television’s mystery by arming you with seven logistical and technical details you’ll need to know to succeed in your next television interview.

1. Makeup: Most major networks and some larger local stations provide a makeup artist. Ask in advance whether you will have access to one, but bring your own makeup and hair products just to be safe. If you won’t have access to an artist, this makeup guide will help.

2. Microphones and Ear Pieces: You will often wear a lapel microphone during your interview. The wires should be hidden – women can run the cord beneath their tops, and men should tape the cord to the back of their tie. Make sure the microphone isn’t brushing up against clothing or jewelry, which will make you sound muffled. You may also be fitted with an ear piece, also known as an IFB. Test the audio before your interview begins and tell the crew immediately if the volume isn’t quite right.

3. Turn The Monitor Off: Television monitors often show a feed that is delayed by a fraction of a second. That can be extremely distracting, so ask the crew to turn off the studio monitors. This article explains more about the downsides of monitors.

4. Split Screen: In some formats, you will appear on-camera even when you’re not speaking. “Split screen” shots show you and at least one other person at the same time, and “reaction” shots show your reaction to another guest’s comments. Act as if you’re always on, and be careful not to wipe your face, adjust your hair, or fix your outfit during your segment.

5. Nodding: It’s normal to nod when listening to someone else, but that nodding can send the wrong message if you disagree with the premise of someone’s question or comment. Listen attentively, but don’t nod along with an incorrect premise.

6. Props: We’ve all seen that television guest who holds up a piece of paper or newspaper article during a television appearance. It’s usually a bad idea. Few people know how to position an item properly for cameras to pick it up, so it usually ends up distracting the audience. If you want to show something during your interview, talk to the producer first. The producer can help the crew prepare for the shot in advance.

7. Stay Where You Are: Avoid the temptation to flee your chair the moment your segment ends. Maintain your pose for a few seconds and stay seated until a member of the crew tells you you’re clear.

Do you want to become a better public speaker and media spokesperson? Follow our tweets to  follow the latest! We’re at @MrMediaTraining or www.Twitter.com/MrMediaTraining.

Related: How to Dress For A Television Appearance

Related: Nine Things Inexperienced Media Spokespersons Need to Know

Ever since the Iowa State Fair earlier this month, we’ve been assaulted by graphic photos showing presidential candidates eating food on a stick.

Yes, that once-every-four-years ritual of politicians eating fried butter on a stick and fried Twinkies on a stick has come around again, and with it comes the inevitable photos of politicians sticking a giant Phallus into their mouths.

Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry. Photo Credit: IowaPolitics.com

Republican Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann. Photo Credit: Toby Harnden, The Telegraph

I recognize that this article may seem like a cheap excuse to run sordid photos. But there’s a serious point here: If politicians give the media excuses to run unflattering photos, they will.

It’s a tough decision for these politicians. On one hand, they don’t want to star in these shots. But on the other hand, the “food on a stick” culture is an integral part of state fairs. If they reject these silly food offerings, will the locals take it out on them at the voting booth?

Even if the answer is yes, I would do everything possible to avoid these shots – pass food off to an aide, have an aide “accidentally” stand in front of the cameras, or simply avoid those booths altogether.

Those photos, as embarrassing as they may be, aren’t likely to seriously hurt a candidate – but campaigns have been similarly sloppy at managing photo ops in past years. 

In 2004, John Kerry learned a tough lesson when he allowed this photo to be snapped during his tour of NASA, which led to weeks of ridicule.

More infamously, there was this picture of 1988’s eventual Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis. The photo of Mr. Dukakis wearing an over-sized helmet in a tank may look innocuous now – but at the time, it reinforced the narrative that he was too weak to lead. He got walloped by George H.W. Bush that November.

I regularly see PR pros, politicians, and executives focusing intensively on their talking points and speeches, but never giving a moment’s thought to the visuals. They should. A bad photo can be all it takes to undermine their message – or destroy their career.

Related: Why There’s No Such Thing as a “Personal” Twitter or Facebook Account 

Related: Vegan Mag Misleads Readers With Meat Photos

What’s the best way to handle hecklers?

Should you give them a forum to express their views, or is it better to embarrass them by mocking their ideas in front of the crowd?

As these videos of Mitt Romney and President Obama show, both approaches can work. Although the two men differed in tone, both employed a similar tactic: they offered the floor to their hecklers before re-claiming the floor. That’s a smart approach that helps neutralize opponents who would otherwise continue shouting during their speeches.

It’s worth noting that both men were speaking to friendly crowds – an important point that worked in their favor.

This first video, from earlier this month, shows Mitt Romney sparring with protesters concerned about Social Security and Medicare cuts:

After initially trying to shout down the protesters, Mr. Romney changes his tactic when he appears to realize that the scene could get ugly if he doesn’t offer them the floor (note the heated response of his campaign supporter in the crowd). After he allows one protester to make his statement, Mr. Romney takes back the floor by saying:

“The way this is going to work is that you get to ask your question and I get to give my answer. If you don’t like my answer, you can vote for someone else.”

By taking back the floor in that manner, Mr. Romney signals that the dialogue is closed and that he isn’t open to further interruptions. When the protester continues questioning him, Mr. Romney tells him “you’ve had your turn,” turns his body away from the heckler by 90 degrees, and says “next question,” which finally quiets the protester.

In the second video, taken during the 2008 general election, then-Senator Barack Obama is heckled for his alleged lack of support for the black community.

Mr. Obama pledges to give the protesters the floor later in the meeting, which silences the protesters for the time being. As promised, he gives one of the hecklers the floor later in the rally. When the protester finishes asking his question, the crowd starts turning against him. Mr. Obama gains control of the crowd by saying:

“Hold on a second, everybody, I want everybody to be respectful. That’s why we’re having a Town Hall Meeting. This is democracy at work. And he asked a legitimate question, so I want to give him an answer.”

Mr. Obama could have allowed his friendly crowd to turn on the heckler, but he refused to take the easy path and requested instead that they offer him their respect. In so doing, he made everybody – including himself – look magnanimous.

Actually, there’s a third approach, used by Ronald Reagan the day before he was elected President:

With a simple “awww, shut up,” Mr. Reagan silenced his critics and earned wildly supportive applause.

Unless you’re blessed with Mr. Reagan’s sense of showmanship, the Romney and Obama approaches are probably your best bet.

Do you enjoy these types of public speaking and media interviewing tips? Then get them delivered to your inbox! Sign up for our email list by entering your name on the upper right hand corner of the blog.

Related: Five Types of Political Humor – The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Related: Answering Questions From an Angry Audience

President Obama and his family left late last week for a 10-day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard.

Since then, Mr. Obama’s critics have blasted him for vacationing during an economic meltdown. And his poll numbers – down to 39 percent in a recent Gallup poll – suggest that he can’t afford the bad optics of having fun in the sun while a large percentage of his constituents continue to struggle to find work.

So here’s the question: Should President Obama cut his vacation short as his critics suggest, or is he entitled to some rare precious time with his wife and young daughters while Congress is out-of-session?

President Obama with daughters Sasha and Malia on an earlier vacation to Martha's Vineyard

THE ARGUMENT: YES, HE SHOULD GO ON VACATION

1. Historically Speaking, He Hasn’t Vacationed That Much: President Obama has vacationed significantly less than President Bush did up to this point in his presidency. According to CBS News reporter Mark Knoller, Mr. Bush had vacationed for 225 days up to this point in his tenure, while Mr. Obama has been away just 70 days.

2. Style Over Substance: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney rightly pointed out that presidents are never really on vacation. Even when clearing brush in Crawford, President Bush received daily briefings and was available to conduct presidential business. Same is true for President Obama. Canceling his vacation might look good, but it would accomplish substantively little.

3. Vacations Allow For Healthier Decisions: Vacations aren’t only an excuse to blow off work. They’re also psychologically proven to help people make better decisions. According to the Baltimore Sun:

“Being on a vacation that relieves stress allows people to regain their ability to do well on tasks that require them to focus their attention. A 2009 PNAS study in rats provides clues for the mechanism behind this: Researchers found that stress causes parts of brain cells in the medial prefrontal cortex to shrink, impairing their ability to do well on an attention task. But after four weeks of stress-free living, the rats’ cells returned to normal.”

4. Even Presidents Need Family Time: The President and First Lady have two young daughters. The Obama family deserves time together, and those two beautiful children deserve an opportunity to enjoy some rare time with Mom and Dad.

Martha's Vineyard, Photo Credit: Quinn Dombrowski

THE ARGUMENT: NO, HE SHOULDN’T GO ON VACATION

1. Going on Vacation Is Politically Tone-Deaf: Going on an extended vacation in a playground for the wealthy is politically tone-deaf. The real unemployment rate is now at about 16 percent; one in six American workers is out of work. The American people rightly want the sense that their President is doing everything possible to get them back to work, and his vacation is undercutting his pledge “not to rest” until people get back to work

2. The Vacation Will Provide Bad Optics: For ten days, Americans will see stories on the evening news about plummeting stock markets and faltering foreign economies juxtaposed with stories showing the President eating ice cream on the beach in shorts. It looks bad, almost as out-of-synch as former BP CEO Tony Hayward attending a yacht race while tar balls rushed onto Florida’s shorelines.

3. The Vacation Undercuts His Main Loyalty: The President’s main loyalty during his time in office is to his country, not his family. When he decided to run for office, he knew it would come at a tremendous personal cost. Not being able to vacation for 10 days with his family during a crisis is a sacrifice presidents just have to make.

MY CONCLUSION 

I agree with every argument that the President is justified to go on vacation.

But in the end, I side with his critics. I don’t side with them for the same reasons – I believe many of his critics are motivated more by politics than sincere belief – but despite that, I find myself reaching the same conclusion.

President Obama could have chosen a different vacation. For example, he could have gone to Camp David with his family for a week, away from the reporters and photo ops that will follow his every move in Martha’s Vineyard. Or he could have visited a city with a struggling economy for a few days – an abandoned steel town, a decayed urban city like Detroit, or Nevada, the state with the nation’s highest unemployment rate.  His visit would have provided a short-term economic boost, and could have sent a surge of tourism to places that badly need it.

Canceling his longer vacation would, indeed, be style over substance. But style is a key component of effective leadership, and facts aren’t always enough to compensate for perception. For a President already widely regarded as distant and aloof, this vacation reinforces an existing narrative.

My criticism isn’t based in partisanship. I started this blog after President Bush’s tenure had ended, but my criticism would have extended to him as well, for the same reasons. Clearing brush on a Crawford farm looked bad as American troops died almost daily in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Today’s presidency, magnified in the fishbowl of a 24/7 media culture, requires leaders to be ever-mindful of optics. The optics look bad here, and President Obama will likely pay a political price.

What do you think? Should the President go on vacation regardless of polls, or is the timing distasteful? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below.

Related: Ten Years After 9/11, President George W. Bush is Still Wrong

Related: The 21 Most Essential Media Training Links

She’s not a witch, but she sure is fiery.

Christine O’Donnell, the failed 2010 Delaware Republican Senate candidate, sat down with CNN’s Piers Morgan last night to discuss her new book. But she objected to some of his questions, ultimately walking off the set in middle of the interview.

Ms. O’Donnell showed her complete cluelessness when she protested Mr. Morgan’s rather ordinary questions by heatedly asking him:

“Well, don’t you thing as a host, if I say this is what I want to talk about, that’s what we should address?”

To which Piers Morgan rightly replied, “Not really, no.” Ms. O’Donnell didn’t like that answer, so she walked off the set.

According to Ms, O’Donnell’s faulty logic, this is how news interviews should work:

Anchor: “Joining us now, O.J. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, did you kill your wife?”

O.J. Simpson: “You know, I’d really prefer talking about my golf game.”

Anchor: “Oh, sure! So, how’s your short game these days?”

Host: “And now joining us, Anthony Weiner. So, what were you thinking when you sent out those tweets of you in your tighty whities?”

Anthony Weiner: “Can we talk about last night’s Curb Your Enthusiasm instead?"

Host: “Of course! That Larry David is quite a rascal, isn’t he?”

It’s baffling why Ms. O’Donnell reacted so strongly to such an ordinary interview. If Ms. O’Donnell had ever watched Piers Morgan Tonight, she should have been able to predict these questions in advance with relative ease.

And her Piers walk off wasn’t an isolated incident – earlier today, she hung up on two Utah radio talk show hosts who were also tough (but fair) in their questioning.

I’ve yet to see a guest look good after storming off a television set. At first, I wondered whether she might have done it on purpose to try to create a controversy and sell more books. But her reaction looks genuine, and she’s yet to convince me she’s that clever.

Related: The Five Worst Media Disasters of July

Related: Christine O’Donnell’s “I Am Not a Witch” Ad