Mr. Media Training

I recently received a tweet from Heather Harder, a North Carolina college student, who asked: “What should college students interested in media training be doing now to prepare?”

That’s a good question, one I hear not only from college students, but also from other professionals hoping to make a career switch. So in today’s post, I’ll give you my thoughts regarding making your way into our exciting industry.

First, check out my article about how to select a media trainer. It offers 11 tips buyers should consider when shopping around for a trainer – and it will offer you some insights into what I consider to be important qualities in a trainer.

Since media training is not an entry-level job, Heather will need to gain professional experience first.

She can get that experience in one of two places: by working as a journalist or by working with journalists as a public relations representative. Heather should be able to find an entry-level job with a community newspaper, a small radio or television station, or as a staffer in the communications shop of a company or not-for-profit organization.

If she really wants to challenge herself, she should accept a position with an organization in crisis. For example, I recently noticed that the Komen Foundation – which just endured a bruising public relations battle – was hiring a senior communications professional. Although Heather won’t qualify for the senior position, she should keep her eyes out for an entry level position with a similarly scandal-struck group. There’s no better way to learn than being thrown straight into the fire.

Media training requires not only knowledge of the media, but also the ability to teach the information in a way that’s likely to resonate with trainees. So Heather should look for every opportunity to lead workshops, develop session agendas, and coach people. Knowing the facts is one thing; knowing how to teach them is quite another.

There are a few other things Heather can do now. She can write for her college newspaper or write a blog, keeping an eye out for opportunities to analyze the communications skills of public figures. She should read books and blogs written by media trainers. And she should follow a few journalism websites as well, to help make sure she’s getting the broadest perspective possible.

Thanks for the message, Heather. I look forward to hearing great things from you in our industry!

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.

A public figure says something insensitive.

People get angry about it. They air their discontent on Facebook and tweet their demands for an apology.

The insensitive public figure goes into high gear, drafts a statement, and apologizes for the infraction.

The public moves on, at least until the next time a public figure says something insensitive.

Is that predictable cycle – the one that begins with a high-profile infraction and ends with an apology and public punishment – too much? At least one controversial figure thinks so. Writing in The New York Times, comedian Bill Maher (whose misogynistic comments recently landed him in hot water) wrote:

“When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don’t like? In the last year, we’ve been shocked and appalled by the unbelievable insensitivity of Nike shoes, the Fighting Sioux, Hank Williams Jr., Cee Lo Green, Ashton Kutcher, Tracy Morgan, Don Imus, Kirk Cameron, Gilbert Gottfried…

Let’s have an amnesty — from the left and the right — on every made-up, fake, totally insincere, playacted hurt, insult, slight and affront.

If that doesn’t work, what about this: If you see or hear something you don’t like in the media, just go on with your life. Turn the page or flip the dial.”

Maher has a point. I’ve noticed recently that some social media “disasters” have a half-life confined to a single afternoon, after which the supposedly “outraged” flock moves on with their lives, never to mention the alleged infraction again.

But Maher takes his point too far. The public was right to blast comedian Tracy Morgan for saying he would “stab” his son “to death” if he was gay. Or to criticize Gilbert Gottfried for “joking” during the horrific Japanese tsunami that killed more than 15,000 people that “I just split up with my girlfriend, but like the Japanese say, ‘They’ll be another one floating by any minute now.’” Or, yes, to knock Maher for calling Sarah Palin a “c*nt.”

Is Maher right? Do we apologize too much?

I’m glad that we live in a time when we can use the power of social media to hold people accountable for their most horrific statements, even if the public occasionally deploys those tools with too little provocation or too much frequency.

Maher continues by writing:

“If we sand down our rough edges and drain all the color, emotion and spontaneity out of our discourse, we’ll end up with political candidates who never say anything but the safest, blandest, emptiest, most unctuous focus-grouped platitudes.”

That may be overstating it a bit. Colorful characters still break through and succeed – New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former VP nominee Sarah Palin, and Vice President Joe Biden immediately come to mind. This isn’t an “either/or” debate. We can have color, personality, and spontaneity without having bigotry, anti-gay rhetoric, and jokes about thousands of dead innocents.

All of that aside, I’m not sure this debate really matters for PR professionals. It’s usually outside of our power to change societal sensitivities. Our job is to help our clients present themselves in the most positive light while helping them sidestep unnecessary controversies, all within the confines of the societal sensitivities that already exist.

That means that in most cases when my clients screw up, I’ll continue to recommend that they apologize. I know that will likely upset Bill Maher. Sorry, Bill.

What do you think? Is Maher right that we’ve become a world of over-apologizers? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

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.

I often work with media training clients who respond to every question I ask during our mock interviews with unnaturally short, clipped answers.

They’re far from alone – many spokespersons answer the questions they’re asked, but fail to do anything else to advocate for their views. They might offer a five-word answer – not even a complete sentence, just blurted words that do nothing more than answer the specific query.

What should they be doing instead? They could begin with that five word answer, supplement it with a captivating and memorable message, story, and/or statistic, and finish it with a closing call-to-action. That doesn’t have to take long. They can do it all in 30 seconds or less.

Here’s a different way to think about it: being a great media spokesperson is like being a great football player.

When reporters ask you a question, they’ve handed you the football. If you answer with five clipped words, you’ve gained no more than a yard before giving them possession of the ball again. But if you take their question, run with it while advocating for your position in a memorable way, you’ve just given yourself a first down – and possibly scored a few points.

Here’s an example:

Question: “Why should your museum get more money from taxpayers? Times are tough for everyone – shouldn’t you have to sacrifice like everybody else?”

One-Yard Gain: “Absolutely, and we have.”

First Down: “Absolutely, and we have. It’s important to remember that we are only asking for enough money to keep our doors open and our artwork safe.”

Touchdown: “Absolutely, and we have. It’s important to remember that we are only asking for enough money to keep our doors open and our artwork safe. Last year, we were robbed because we couldn’t afford a nighttime security guard – and it cost us more than it would have to hire two guards for three years. That’s why we’re asking the public to contact the governor’s office and ask him to give us the funding we need, to make sure that parents can continue bringing their children to our museum for years to come.” 

This technique isn’t intended to allow spokespersons to filibuster, but rather to allow them to take advantage of their precious limited time while in possession of the ball. Be generous with the reporter by sharing the ball; but don’t give it back until you’ve fully advocated for your position.

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.

What qualities does a great media spokesperson have?

Over the past decade, I’ve noticed that most of the media greats share the same traits, regardless of personal style, ideology, or cause.

And here’s a pleasant surprise: you almost certainly have many of the same traits, and can probably learn the rest. 

Here are six traits that most great media spokespersons share.

First, they’re authentic. The audience may not agree with their perspectives, but viewers can tell that the spokespersons genuinely believe in their own message.

Second, they’re natural. The best spokespersons are the ones the public perceives as being the same person on-camera as off, the same in a television studio as in their living rooms. They’re the spokespersons who bring the same passion to their interviews that they express privately when discussing the same topics with their friends.

Third, they’re flexible. They know that breaking news, technical issues, or a shifting storyline can change the nature of their interview with little notice. They know that rolling with the changes and displaying a touch of humor, where appropriate, will enhance the audience’s impression of them.

Fourth, they speak to their audience. They know that their function during an interview isn’t to impress their bosses or their peers, but rather to forge a direct connection with each person reading or hearing their words.

Fifth, they self-edit. Great media spokespersons know that their job is to reduce information to its most essential parts, never to “dumb down” but always to simplify. They know not to try to say everything, since doing so muddles their message and confuses their audience.

Sixth, and finally, they know to express their points in a compelling manner that helps their audience remember them. They know how to use stories, statistics, and sound bites to make their messages stand out, and are adept at coining phrases that stick in the minds of every member of the audience.

The bottom line is this: if you’re capable of energetically delivering a credible and memorable message that you genuinely believe in, the audience is likely to perceive you favorably.

What would you add to this list? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

I recently received an email from a reader working in Sierra Leone.

The reader saw my article, Eight Ground Rules for Working With Reporters, thought I missed a few important ones, and submitted four additional rules. They’re great. 

Given the unique perspective that this reader is able to offer from the other side of the world, I wanted to share the list.

This reader works in Sierra Leone, a tiny nation on Africa's west coast.

1. Going Off The Record: Don’t speak off the record unless you not only agree on definitions, but you trust the reporter not to publish it anyway. Some reporters, especially members of the parachute press corps, are willing to burn a source for a story.

Here in Sierra Leone, sources by default are anonymous – even opinion sources. In my case, I don’t express any opinion on any topic which could by the remotest possibility be mistaken for an official position. If I were to say "I like hip-hop music" (which I don’t), someone might ask "What is [your organization’s'] interest in hip-hop?" I exaggerate only slightly.

2. If You Can’t Discuss Specifics: You are right: never say "no comment." Let me add my law: if you can’t talk about particulars, talk about process.

Photo of Kroo Bay, near Sierra Leone's capital

3. Speak For Yourself: This is one you missed: Don’t speak for any organization except the one for which you are a spokesman. Reporters sometimes encourage this, with questions such as, "Why do you think Government A is taking this position?"

I use a football (soccer) analogy. When the reporter kicks the ball out of the field, kick it back in with a statement such as, "I can’t speak for government A, but our position is…" Know what you want your focus to be, so that when the reporter goes out of bounds you can bring the interview back to your message.

4. The Spokesperson Needs a Briefing, Too: The spokesman should be briefed by the people at “carpet level.” It is a bad practice to have reporters coming up with information that takes the spokesman by surprise. (Editor’s note: The term “carpet level” comes from a former NFL football coach. He would deflect certain questions by saying they had to be answered by executives who were at the “carpet level,” since the offices of top management officials were carpeted. In contrast, his “office” –  the field – was covered in grass.)  

Final Note: The reader offered one additional thought worth mentioning, one that should make Western journalists feel grateful. Reporters in Sierra Leone are mostly untrained, usually graduates of secondary school (high school) but rarely college graduates. How much does a typical journalist make? $30 per month – if they’re one of the lucky ones.

Note: This reader requested anonymity, but I am grateful for the thoughtful email.

Is your executive team long overdue for a media training session? Please contact us to learn more about our customized media training workshops.

People regularly tell me that they don’t trust the media.

I usually respond by asking them where they get their news. They’ll name a couple of news websites they visit each day. Or their favorite news radio station. Or the television hosts they cuddle up to each night.

Then comes my inevitable follow-up question: do you trust them?

They usually say yes.

The problem is that blasting “the media” is too imprecise. “Media” is a plural term, not a singular one, which means that almost any criticism of the entire media is overly-broad.

Each of these papers covers the news in a slightly different way.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers some valuable usage notes about both forms of the word. Note the final sentence:

“In most other applications media is used as a plural of medium. The popularity of the word in references to the agencies of mass communication is leading to the formation of a mass noun, construed as a singular <there’s no basis for it. You know, the news media gets on to something — Edwin Meese 3d> <the media is less interested in the party’s policies — James Lewis, Guardian Weekly>. This use is not as well established as the mass-noun use of data and is likely to incur criticism especially in writing.”

So the dictionary acknowledges that people are increasingly using “the media” as a singular term, but that doing so is likely to incur criticism.

I know that all of this may seem much ado about nothing, little more than a nitpicking grammatical point. But I’d argue that this distinction is important for anybody who interacts with “the media.” 

You will be a better media spokesperson if you view news organizations as individual outlets with vastly different needs, pressures, and biases.

For example, a blogger may have looser news standards than The Wall Street Journal. A political radio talk show host may be more casual with the facts than PBS’ The News Hour. National Public Radio may cover a story by interviewing members of a local union, while Fox News may cover that same story by talking to local business owners instead.

So next time you hear someone railing against “the media,” ask them what they mean. You’ll probably find that they mean something more specific than the term “the media” originally suggested.

Postscript: There’s a caveat to everything, and here’s this article’s caveat: “The media” means something to a lot of people. For example, many conservatives view “the mainstream media” with suspicion, and some politicians who rail against “the media” may gain political benefit from doing so. While true, that’s outside the scope of this article’s focus. 

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.

Scientists are awful communicators.

Not all of them, of course (physicians who interact with patients tend to be better than bench scientists), but as a profession, they’re just not great at explaining complicated matters to the general public.

(Here are three reasons scientists are bad communicators.)

Alan Alda, the actor best known as Hawkeye Pierce from the television show M*A*S*H, has been frustrated with scientists for years. It started as an 11-year-old, when he asked a science teacher what a flame was. The teacher responded with one word: “Oxidation.”

“It’s just giving it another name,” he told The New York Times last week. “It’s like saying, ‘Well, a flame is Fred.’ And that really doesn’t get you anywhere.”

Actor Alan Alda

He wanted to change that, so he began working with officials at Long Island’s Stony Brook University, where he helped establish the Center for Communicating Science. According to The Times:

“Then he thought, why not also create a contest where anyone — including scientists — could offer an explanation of a flame, and recruit 11-year-olds to judge which one is the best?

That is what he and Stony Brook did, setting up a Web site, http://flamechallenge.org, to collect entries, which can be video, graphics or just words.”

His plan is brilliant.

For years, I’ve been teaching spokespersons to lose the jargon using the “12-Year-Old Nephew Rule.” The idea is the same as Alda’s – that spokespersons should test their messages by running them past their younger relatives.

Here’s a video on the topic:

This is no academic matter. Science is important, and government policies on everything from climate change to teaching evolution in schools hinge, in large measure, on a broad public understanding of the best available science. Recent polls show scientists not only losing many important public debates, but also becoming lest trusted as credible authorities.

Communicating clearly won’t solve all of those problems. But it’s an important part of the solution.

Is your executive team long overdue for a media training session? Please contact us to learn more about our customized media training workshops.

A few years ago, I worked with a group that had a controversial public position on an economic issue related to illegal immigration.

The group’s mission had nothing to do with immigration, but the economic issue they were concerned about affected workers who were in the United States illegally. No matter how much they tried to explain that to reporters, news stories would inevitably state that the group was “anti-immigrant.”

Finally, we tried a new strategy. Whenever reporters would ask about immigration, we’d say, “This is not about immigration. It’s about an economic issue that affects tens of millions of Americans.”

Inevitably, they would push back: “But it affects illegal immigrants,” they’d argue. “It affects a lot of people,” we retorted. “This economic issue affects tens of millions of people, including seniors, the disabled, and middle-class workers.”

That approach helped. By reframing the issue and refusing to acknowledge the narrow frame the reporter drew around it, we were usually able to get our key quote in the story: “This is not about immigration.”

If you’ve been watching the debate between the Catholic Church and the Obama Administration, you’ve probably observed this strategy at work. Supporters of the Catholic Church’s position have claimed, “This is not about contraception – it’s about religious freedom.” Supporters of President Obama’s position have said the opposite: “This is not about religious freedom. It’s about denying health care to millions of women.”

Many Church supporters have failed to use the “It’s not this, it’s that” approach, and have gotten dragged into the weeds on the contraception issue as a result. The more they fail to redirect the conversation to religious freedom, the more they’re losing.

On the other hand, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) demonstrated how to use this technique well during a recent appearance on NBC’s Meet The Press.

Like most interviewing techniques, this approach should be deployed judiciously, and works best on topics that have two legitimate competing values. But in the right situations, it will help increase your odds of influencing the storyline and getting the quotes you want.

Is your executive team long overdue for a media training session? Please contact us to learn more about our customized media training workshops.