Mr. Media Training

Guy walks into a bar. He sees a birther, a civil rights activist, a country singer, and a cabinet secretary.

Wait a minute. That would never happen. Where else could all of those people be spotted in the same place? Right here, on the month-end disasters list!

Here are the five worst video media disasters of October 2011: 

Hank Williams Jr Committed One of October's Worst Disasters

5. Hillary Clinton Spikes The Football

I know a lot of readers will disagree with me for this choice, but I found U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s on-camera reaction to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s death distasteful. Was Gaddafi a bad man? You bet. Am I sad that he’s dead? Not particularly. But I do believe that it diminishes us to, in the words of President Obama, “spike the football” by celebrating the death. Let’s do what we have to do, do it professionally, and let the actions speak for themselves.

4. Rick Perry Yuks It Up By Joining The Birthers

Nothing spells funny more than questioning the legitimacy of a duly-elected American president by dredging up discredited rumors about his citizenship status. Gov. Perry quickly walked back his comments, but his comments that it’s “fun” to tweak the President about his nation of birth aren’t helping to resuscitate his under-performing campaign.

3. Lawrence O’Donnell Attacks Herman Cain’s Civil Rights Record

If you’re black and old enough to have lived through the Civil Rights era, should you be attacked if you decided not to march? MSNBC Host Lawrence O’Donnell sure thinks so, and went after GOP candidate Herman Cain for choosing not to actively participate as a Civil Rights activist. Which raises another question: Why hasn’t Mr. O’Donnell asked white candidates about their choices during that era? (Fast forward to the 6:00 mark to see the fireworks.)

2. Herman Cain Blames The Jobless and The Poor 

Herman Cain may have been the victim of bad media behavior this month, but he didn’t help his cause by uttering the sound bite below about the unemployed and the poor. His introduction to the clip, “I don’t have the facts to back this up,” became a fun Internet meme thanks to Jon Stewart. (Another Cain clip, in which he tried to explain his position on abortion, didn’t help either).

1. Hank Williams, Jr. Compares President Obama to Adolf Hitler

Country singer Hank Williams, Jr. was fired up during an appearance on Fox and Friends. When reflecting on a golf match between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, Mr. Williams quipped, “It would be like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu.” The Fox hosts looked shocked and distanced themselves from his statement, and ESPN promptly dropped him as their Monday Night Football opening act. 

Bonus #1: Sean Penn Says Tea Party Wants to “Lynch” Obama 

Sigh.

Bonus #2: Herman Cain’s Awesome Ad

This is one of the nuttiest political ads I’ve ever seen. I’m not sure whether the best moment is the puff of smoke or the slow-mo smile – but either way, I can’t stop watching it.

Don’t miss a single media disaster! Like us on Facebook to follow the latest gaffes.

It’s hard to believe how much I hated your speech.

I hated your introduction. I hated the middle of your presentation. I hated your so-called conclusion. I hated the way you delivered your talk. And don’t even get me started on your PowerPoint slides.

As hard as it is to reduce all of the reasons I hated your speech down to just seven, I‘m going to try.

Here are seven reasons I hated your speech:

1. Your Introduction Failed to Interest Me: You opened your speech without doing anything to get me interested in your topic. You didn’t tell me what you were going to talk about. You didn’t tell me why the topic was relevant to my life. You could have started by sharing an interesting story or a surprising statistic. You didn’t. I quickly sensed it was going to be a looong day.

2. One Thought Ran Into The Next: You didn’t tell me where one thought ended and another began. You didn’t remember that speakers are supposed to provide clear transitions for their audiences – the verbal equivalent of chapter ends and chapter beginnings. You never said anything such as, “Now that we’ve talked about X, let’s talk about how that impacts Y.” And as a result, I couldn’t figure out where you were and where you were leading me.

3. You Loaded The Speech With Technical Detail: C’mon, now. Did you really need to dive that far down into the weeds? It’s a speech, not a scientific paper. I knew I was in trouble when I noticed your barely visible footnotes at the bottom of each slide. Why didn’t you just highlight your most important points, tell me why they’re relevant, and add some memorable supporting material?

4. Your Delivery Was Sleep-Inducing: You had less energy than the geriatrics at the local senior home. A lot less. If you express so little passion about your topic, why should I care? Next time, try speaking about 15 percent louder. Trust me. You’ll feel like you’re yelling, but it won’t come across that way to the audience.

5. You Didn’t Tell Me What You Wanted: I somehow made it through your speech without nodding off. You even managed to make me care – just a tiny bit – about your topic. But then you ended the speech by limply muttering, “That’s all I have. Thank you.” But what should I do next? Visit a website? Sign a petition? Call my state senator? Subscribe to a newsletter? If you don’t tell me what you want, you’re going to make it tough for me to help you achieve your goals.

6. You Read From Your PowerPoint: If you were going to put everything on your slides, why did you even bother showing up? I wish you had just emailed me your PowerPoint presentation so I could have reviewed it at my convenience instead of rolling out of bed at 6:00 a.m. to make your talk on time (which, by the way, was scheduled for a ridiculously early hour). Next time you give a talk, remember that the PowerPoint is supposed to visually reinforce your most important points – not serve as your own crib notes. (Oh, and here are five other PowerPoint mistakes you made).

7. You Didn’t Manage the Question and Answer Period: By the time you gave your 12th five-minute answer to an audience question, I had to bolt for the bathroom. Your speech had already gone close to two hours by that point, and the little issue of the four cups of coffee I consumed to make it through your speech finally had to be addressed. I took advantage of my bathroom break. Since I had escaped your den of boredom, I decided to leave before you finished.

Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.

Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.

That old adage, most frequently attributed to writers H.L Mencken and Mark Twain, wisely advised spokespersons to avoid picking fights with the media. (In fact, the expression traces back to the mid-1960s, when former Indiana Congressman Charles Brownson quipped, “I never quarrel with a man who buys ink by the barrel.”)

Crisis communications texts have regurgitated that advice for decades. But is it still a good practice?

After all, when Rep. Brownson offered his guidance almost a half-century ago, spokespersons were more at the mercy of the press than they are today. Today, spokespersons can rebut false or defamatory charges using their own websites, blogs, and social media channels. So here’s the question of the week:

In the age of social media, is it a good idea to occasionally pick fights with the press? Does the expression “Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel” still apply?

Please leave your thoughts in the comment section below. I’ll highlight some of your answers in a new article next week. And please share this link with your networks to help ensure that we get a good diversity of answers.

Thanks for reading. I look forward to reading your thoughts!

I rarely write about media disasters involving sports figures. I suppose that after years of watching steroid scandals, vicious on-court fights and player strikes, I’ve come to expect little from professional athletes.

But this interview from late last week caught my eye, mostly because of the lessons it offers all of us who aren’t professional athletes.

The trouble started in last week’s Monday Night Football game, when New York Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis intercepted a pass intended for a Miami Dolphins player and returned it 100-yards for a touchdown. Replays of the interception showed that Mr. Revis might have committed a penalty for making contact with the receiver, but he got away without a penalty being called.

Darrelle Revis races toward end zone after controversial interception

Radio host Mike Francesa interviewed Mr. Revis late last week and relentlessly went after him for what he viewed as an uncalled penalty.

That’s where things got interesting. Fast forward to the 2:00 mark to hear part of the exchange – and stay tuned to the 5:00 mark to hear the surprising end to the interview.  

After the testy exchange, a Jets P.R. staff person named Jared interrupted the interview by picking up the phone and saying, “Darrelle, hang up.” He did. And that’s when this mostly non-newsworthy interview suddenly became a story.

What lessons should you learn about ending an interview early? 

1. It Always Makes The Story Bigger: Just ask Emily Miller, who, as a member of Secretary Colin Powell’s staff in 2004, infamously pulled the plug on an interview with Meet the Press Host Tim Russert.  

2. It Gives Credence To The Charges Made Against You: If you weren’t guilty of whatever you were being accused of, why look so defensive and cut off the interview early? Mr. Revis could have laughed off the charges or said, “Mike, we’ve covered that ground and disagree. What else do you want to talk about?” Instead, his defensive reply suggested he knew he got away with a penalty.  

3. The Host Usually Looks Better, The Guest and P.R. Representative Usually Look Worse: The host usually comes out looking like the victim of an overly-aggressive P.R. person, while the guest and P.R. person almost always diminish themselves by abruptly ending the interview. That’s even more true in this case, since Mr. Revis was doing a decent-enough job at handling himself on-the-air before being cut off by his media minder.

A grateful h/t to John Barnett, who tweets at @jocmbarnett.

When most people think of monotone speakers, they think of snore-inducing presenters who speak in never-ending drones. The word “monotone” usually evokes images of a flat speaker, someone akin to Ben Stein’s memorable teacher in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. 

But monotone doesn’t mean “flat.” According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, monotone means, “a succession of syllables, words, or sentences in one unvaried key or pitch.”

Boring speakers aren’t the only ones who suffer from monotone deliveries. Energetic speakers suffer from them too.

This speaker is at risk for the energetic monotone

Many of our trainees possess a wonderfully engaging energy when they speak. But too many of them fail to alter their vocal delivery much during their talks, leading to what I call an “energetic monotone.”

To be sure, an energetic monotone is better than a boring one. But monotone is monotone, and both kinds lead to audience fatigue.

So what should you do if you’re a naturally energetic speaker?

Think of your energy as being rated on a ten scale. If you tend to hover around an eight or a nine throughout most of your presentation, you can help emphasize key points by suddenly slowing down and dipping down to a five. Breaking the pattern will help regain the audience’s attention and will signal that you’re saying something important.

If you didn’t get the Ben Stein reference, the clip is below.

I tweet. Do you? If so, please follow me at @MrMediaTraining for daily tips to help you improve your presentations and media interviews.

Many of our media training clients wonder whether it’s ever appropriate to respond to unfair press by attacking the media. Generally speaking, attacking the media is a risky communications strategy with (at least) as many potential downsides as upsides.

But every rule has its exception, and there are indeed times when attacking the media pays impressive dividends.

Earlier this month, The Miami Herald published a riveting story about an ongoing battle between Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Univision, the nation’s most-watched Spanish-language news outlet.

Back in July, Univision ran an investigative piece about Marco Rubio’s brother-in-law, who was arrested for being a bit player in a cocaine and marijuana ring.  I can see why that might be newsworthy, especially if the Senator exerted some influence over the case. But here’s the problem: The incident occurred in 1987 when Marco Rubio was 16-years-old, and his brother-in-law was released from prison more than a decade ago. So much for being newsworthy.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio

Even worse, Univision reportedly agreed to spike or soften the piece – if Mr. Rubio agreed to an interview on a high-profile program. He refused to participate, and Univision ran the story. (Univision officially denies that account, but some network insiders confirm its accuracy.) 

As a result, several of Sen. Rubio’s fellow Republicans are threatening to boycott a possible January presidential debate hosted by Univision unless the network’s news president apologizes and resigns.

On paper, Mr. Rubio’s aggressive stance against Univision seems treacherous. After all, the Cuban-American Senator could use the support of a highly-rated Spanish-speaking television network that reaches and influences many of his Florida constituents. But his decision is actually quite astute, and serves as a good example for when it’s appropriate to attack the media. 

Here are five reasons Senator Rubio is right to pursue this approach:

1. The Attacks on Him Appear Personal: Univision appeared to use the decades-old arrest of Mr. Rubio’s brother-in-law as a pretext to attack the Senator’s politics. As an example, Mr. Rubio opposes the DREAM Act, which puts him at odds with pro-immigration orthodoxy. If the piece wasn’t intended as a personal broadside, it’s hard to understand what compelling news value influenced their decision to run the piece.

2. Univision Behaved Badly: By reportedly offering a quid pro quo, Univision set itself up as a bad actor. The public doesn’t like bad media behavior – just ask Sen. John Kerry, who successfully attacked the Drudge Report for a false report about alleged adultery shortly before the 2004 election, or Gov. George W. Bush, whose decades-old DUI arrest was reported just days before the 2000 election.

3. This Story Is Easy to Understand: Stories with greater complexity (for example, about complicated financial dealings) can be tougher for the public to understand (consider the complexity of Bill Clinton’s Whitewater scandal vs. his Lewinsky scandal). This story’s broad outlines are immediately clear to the public, making it easy for even people paying little attention to comprehend quickly.

4. He Is Leveraging Competing Media: Competing news organizations love little more than attacking the bad behavior of their competitors. The Miami Herald is far from alone in running this story – among others, The Wall Street Journal recently took the Senator’s side, allowing Mr. Rubio to get more ink from other media organizations about how his family was wronged.

5. His Counter-Attacks Will Diminish Univision’s Impact: As a political strategy, Mr. Rubio’s counter-attack will allow him to blunt the effect of any future Univision stories about his immigration policies. Even if the stories are fair and accurate, many viewers will question the network’s motives, reducing the impact of the news pieces.

What do you think? When is it appropriate to attack the media? Do you agree that Senator Rubio was justified in this case? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

The Western Republican Presidential Debate found seven GOP candidates in rare form, rhetorical guns a’blazin’ as they attacked one another without mercy. 

Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann attacked Herman Cain. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum attacked Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry looked like they might come to blows. And as he does so well, Ron Paul attacked legislators who vote for things.

Oh, and the crowd cheered for putting an electric fence on the border with Mexico. It’s an interesting election season, folks. 

Here are tonight’s grades, in order of best to worst:

Photo Credit: Getty Images

THE TOP TIER

HERMAN CAIN (1st Place, Grade: B+)

Mr. Cain’s “9-9-9” plan dominated the early portion of tonight’s debate, demonstrating that he is still having an impact on this race. Mr. Cain’s plan is vulnerable to attack, and I suspect he won’t be able to defend it successfully much longer. But he deflected his competitor’s attacks well tonight, and came away from the exchange (mostly) unscathed. On the whole, Mr. Cain continues to improve as a debater, knows how to deliver an applause line, and intuitively understands how to connect with conservative voters.

Mr. Cain had a couple of off-notes when he risked looking like an undisciplined flip flopper. He backed away from a comment he made earlier in the day about negotiating with terrorists, and again when he claimed he didn’t support TARP in 2008.

RICK SANTORUM (2nd Place, tie, Grade: B)

Sen. Santorum had a (mostly) good night, but lost a lot of points when he interrupted Mitt Romney for a solid 15 seconds, then said, “sorry, you’re out of time.” The audience booed him, and he looked like a bad sport.

That moment aside, he had one of his better performances. Mr. Santorum did a nice job of answering a question about his views on Latinos by praising their faith and commitment to family. He effectively attacked Gov. Perry regarding his previous support for TARP. He also scored some points against Mitt Romney on health care.

Since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980, the more charismatic candidate has won every presidential election. Mr. Santorum conveys moral certitude, but lacks the sunny optimism that wins elections. Still, if he’s aiming directly for his narrow Evangelical base in Iowa, he had a good night.

RICK PERRY (3rd Place, Grade: B-)

Rick Perry came to play tonight. He was tough, steely, aggressive and nasty – and he demonstrated a (somewhat) better command of facts tonight.

At times, he overshot and verged on caricature – but this version of Rick Perry is much more likely to win the nomination than the one who showed up to the last three debates.

He passionately delivered an energy-centric jobs plan that would, he claimed, create 1.2 million jobs. He fought against the idea of building a fence along the entire border, instead making the case for an alternative solution.

Mr. Perry was effective when he attacked Mitt Romney for hiring an illegal immigrant – at least he was effective the first time he used the attack. When he tried to resurrect the attack minutes later, he stretched too far and earned boos from the crowd. When Mr. Romney accused Mr. Perry of attacking him because he’s had a tough few debates, Mr. Perry looked piiiiiisssed.

Still, awkward syntax and over-stretching aside, Mr. Perry asserted himself tonight as a candidate who plans to be in the race for a while. Pundits are already writing that he tried too hard and failed tonight – but his approach will likely appeal to many base voters, and I suspect his poll numbers will bounce a bit in the next few days. 

MIDDLE OF THE PACK

MITT ROMNEY (4th Place, tie, Grade: C+)

Mitt Romney was more aggressive tonight than he’s been thus far. The Nevada crowd seemed to love his aggressive tone, but his tone won’t play as well in people’s living rooms. The condescending tone he used against his competitors brought out some of his most unlikeable qualities.

When Gov. Perry interrupted him, for example, Gov. Romney placed his hand on Rick Perry’s shoulder during a particularly heated moment. I can’t remember a moment at a debate when two candidates looked so close to coming to blows. He later patronized Rick Perry, scolding: “You have a problem with allowing someone to finish speaking, and I suggest that if you want to become President Of The United States, you have to let both people speak.”

When Sen. Santorum interrupted him, Gov. Romney channeled Ross Perot, shouting “May I finish? May I finish?”

Although Mr. Romney was solid during the second half of the debate, his aggressive responses showed that he still views Mr. Perry as a threat – despite the Texas governor’s dramatically declining poll numbers. It’s a fine line between tough and grating, and Mr. Romney was on the wrong side of that line tonight.

RON PAUL (4th Place, tie, Grade: C+)

As happens often, Rep. Paul found himself alone a few times tonight. For example, he pointed out that President Reagan negotiated with terrorists.

He offered a solid reply regarding storing nuclear waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as it related to states rights, and his opponents found rare agreement with his position.

This was generally a good debate for Dr. Paul, but his performance did little to change the dynamic of the race. He’s trailing badly in all national polls (he’s fared better in a few, mostly useless, straw polls), and tonight will not fundamentally re-set his place in the race.

MICHELE BACHMANN (4th Place, tie, Grade: C+)

Rep. Bachmann had a relatively good night – but like Dr. Paul, she did nothing to fundamentally re-set her place in this race. She had one particularly strong moment when she looked into the camera and appealed directly to women and mothers whose houses are threatened by foreclosure. She also demonstrated her knowledge of foreign affairs tonight.

None of that will matter. Her star has fallen, and she did nothing tonight to help herself earn a second act.

Update: A few readers rightly pointed out a Bachmann gaffe I missed: During one answer, she seemed to forget that Libya is in Africa.

TRAILING THE FIELD

NEWT GINGRICH (7th Place, Grade: C)

For most of tonight’s debate, Mr. Gingrich was a non-presence. He delivered a few winning applause lines, but he’s at his most effective when he shows his softer and more humorous side along with his more bellicose one. He failed to do so tonight.

As a media and presentation trainer, I appreciate strong language – so phrases such as “suicidally stupid” appeal to me. But his pedantic, finger-pointing, and angry responses won’t win him many new votes. Not one of his stronger performances.

Do you agree or disagree with my analysis? Please leave your opinion in the comment section below, but remember the blog’s comment policy – no ad hominem attacks or pejorative name-calling will be posted.

Related: October 11, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: September 22, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: September 12, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: September 7, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: August 11, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: June 13, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

Related: May 5, 2011 Republican Debate Scorecard

This article is part of an occasional series of articles looking at the contenders for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination.

Herman Cain, the former Chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, has suddenly (and unexpectedly) surged to the top of the polls for the Republican presidential nomination.

It’s easy to see why so many voters have taken to Mr. Cain. He’s spent the past months delivering a message that is well-aligned to the nation’s discontent, and he possesses the real-life business experience many voters crave.

Since the beginning of the 24/7 media age in 1980, there have been eight presidential elections. The winners of all eight have had the same seven winning traits. Mr. Cain has many of them, but does he have enough?

Photo Credit Gage Skidmore

The video below, from earlier this month on ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour, helps answer that question.

In this interview, Mr. Cain did a nice job of navigating back to his message, even when his interviewer’s questions weren’t particularly relevant. For example, when asked about the booing of a gay soldier during a Republican debate, he brought the conversation back to overall military policy. When asked about his remarks that African Americans were “brainwashed” against voting for conservatives, he brought his answer back to the economy.

Mr. Cain paints a specific vision for the economy, primarily through a new taxation plan he calls “9-9-9.” That phrase is on its way to becoming a household word, a credit to the simplicity of the idea and his effectiveness at selling it. He undoubtedly appears comfortable in his own skin, a trait voters have consistently rewarded.

Mr. Cain fares less well in other areas. He answers many questions with an almost defiant tone, and has displayed a snappish temper in several videos making their way around the Internet.

He has a bad habit of abandoning his main messages and saying some ridiculous things. Most recently, he declared, “If you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself.” He also declared that he wouldn’t appoint an American Muslim to his cabinet, a comment he subsequently backed away from. Since history is the best indicator of future behavior, we can expect more whoppers from Mr. Cain.

Although Mr. Cain has delivered a vision for the economy, he has not yet delivered a clear vision for foreign policy. He even derided the importance of such matters by mockingly saying, “When they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?” 

Mr. Cain has a good sense of humor and is adept at delivering funny one-liners. But he doesn’t exactly possess the sunny optimism Americans prefer in their leaders (e.g. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama).

Mr. Cain may be more than the “flavor of the week,” as Sarah Palin famously called him. But based on his performance thus far, it’s hard to see how he uses his recent momentum to win the White House.

GRADE: C+

To follow this series, please like us on Facebook at http://www.Facebook.com/MrMediaTraining.