Mr. Media Training

I’ve conducted hundreds of media training workshops over the past decade, so few questions surprise me anymore. But one recent trainee asked a question I hadn’t heard before, one you would more commonly hear in an acting class: “What’s their motivation?”

In method acting, actors seek to understand what motivates their characters, which helps inform the choices they make in their roles. Similarly, in an effort to understand what reporters are seeking, our trainee wanted to understand what motivates their tough questions.

With a nod to Stanislavski, today’s article looks at the five reasons reporters ask tough questions. 

1. They Want The Truth: According to The Elements of Journalism, journalism’s first obligation is to tell the truth. Journalists often see themselves as truth-seekers, and they ask tough questions in an effort to get the facts.

2. They Want The Whole Truth: Sources who tell the truth often tell the version of the truth they want you to hear. But reporters are less interested in the public party line than what sources are privately telling their colleagues. That means that reporters may have to ask challenging questions, play the “nice guy,” play dumb, or use an extreme journalistic tactic to learn the rest of the story.

3. They Want to Represent the Underdog: The media are often referred to as the “Fourth Estate,” because they’re supposed to act as a check on power for the first three estates (in the U.S., those estates are the judiciary, executive, and legislative branches of government). Many reporters are motivated by a sense that they’re supposed to hold power accountable and be a voice for the voiceless. Reporters in this camp likely agree with the old reporter’s adage: “Afflict the powerful and comfort the powerless.”

4. Personal Glory: The first three motivations are rather noble. But it would be dishonest to exclude the personal motivations that sometimes lead reporters to ask tough questions. Anyone who’s worked for the media (or in PR) long enough knows that some reporters are on a “Pulitzer quest,” doing whatever they have to in order to earn an award and the recognition of their peers. But they may also be motivated by other personal factors – the appreciation of their bosses, career advancement, personal ego, insecurity, etc.

5. Ratings: In a deeply competitive media age, journalists want to attract as many eyeballs to their stories as possible. Sometimes, tough “gotcha” questions are more about showmanship than substance, intended more to create headlines for the host than to inform an audience. Since tough questions often go viral, reporters may ask them in order to create a “media moment.”

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

The title of this lesson looks like it contains a typo. That’s because in everyday conversation, most people would phrase the title as, “six things the media wants from you,” not, “six things the media want from you.”

But grammatically speaking, they’re wrong. “Media” is a plural term, not a singular one (medium is the singular term).

That may seem like grammatical nitpicking, but it’s an important point that you should carry with you during your time as a media spokesperson. You shouldn’t think of “the media” as an “it,” a single entity that acts in a specific and predictable manner. Instead, you should think of “the media” as a plural, a collection of markedly different news organizations approaching news gathering in vastly different ways.

For example, The Wall Street Journal doesn’t want the same thing from you as People Magazine. Whereas The Journal might just need a quick quote from a financial analyst to plug into a short article, People might be looking to write a three-page profile of an ordinary person who overcame tremendous obstacles to achieve a remarkable feat.

So what do the media want from you? It depends on the news organization, the reporter, the story, and the format. But as different as news organizations and reporters are from one another, almost all of them want the same six things from the media spokespersons they interview:

1. 1. Honesty: Reporters expect honesty from spokespersons and will punish people who lie. This is non-negotiable.
2. 2. Access: Reporters want access to the people they’re reporting on. Sure, they can file stories without the cooperation of their subject – but they occasionally punish uncooperative subjects by running a more negative story.
3. 3. Timeliness: More than ever, reporters operate under brutal deadlines – some online stories have to be written, edited, and posted within an hour. Reporters want spokespersons to return their calls and emails quickly.
4. 4. Candor: Reporters want to know what you’re saying to trusted colleagues behind closed doors. They prefer speaking to straight-shooters who speak without guardedness.
5. 5. Knowledge: Reporters want spokespersons who are “in-the-know.” They don’t have to know everything, but should be able to speak credibly on their topics of expertise.
6. 6. Media Savvy: Reporters want to speak to spokespersons who can offer short, understandable, and quote-worthy media sound bites. Spokespersons who give long, technical answers are difficult to quote – and may even be tough for reporters to understand.

Remember: this article is focused on what reporters want from you – and those things may or may not always be in your own self-interest.

For example, reporters might want you to tell them everything you know, even though doing so would hurt your cause. They might want you to speak to them immediately, even though you haven’t had a moment to prepare for the interview.

Still, these are good general guidelines, and it’s easy to understand why reporters want these six things from you. In an ideal world, you would be able to deliver on all of them.

What have I missed? Please supplement my list by adding your thoughts to the comments section below.

If you’ve ever attended a media training workshop, your trainer has probably advised you never to say anything to a reporter that you wouldn’t be comfortable seeing in print. But is that advice over-simplified, reducing media relationships to uncomplicated, black and white interactions?

I recently asked readers to weigh in on this question: When is it appropriate to go “on background” with the media? You had some great comments that make clear that going on background with reporters has an important place in media relations.

First, it’s worth defining the term. “On background” usually means that a reporter can use the information you give them, but cannot name or quote you directly. That’s different than “off-the-record,” which theoretically means that the information you share with a reporter cannot be used in any way.

Here’s an example of when you might go on background with a reporter. Say you represent one of ten advocacy organizations that are working closely with a politician on a certain bill. You’re afraid that the politician is slowly backing away from their promise to pursue the legislation, but can’t publicly call him out without risking your relationship. By speaking to a reporter on background, you might be able to get a media story that helps to put public pressure on the politician without compromising your personal relationship with him (with ten coalition partners, it would be tough to know who spoke to the press).

Here’s what you had to say about when to go on background:

Keith Plunkett wrote: “In the end, the answer to this question of going “on background” all comes down to trust. It’s a simple answer. It’s working through the relationships to know who you can and can’t trust that’s difficult.”

Mary Denihan said: “Keith is right about trust. Am also in a smaller market and it does make it easier to know who to trust. If you do not trust your gut with a reporter, listen to your gut.”

Patricia Smith wrote: “Going on background may be a useful way to provide a reporter with information that helps the reporter to construct a broader view of an issue, particularly when another party is publicly offering a narrow and/or slanted view of an issue.”

DoubleA said: “There always is risk associated with this tactic. (About two years ago, a reporter quoted me on the record from a conversation we had off the record. When I asked her why she quoted me, she acknowledged that we agreed to be off the record, but said that when I was still speaking to her 10 minutes later she didn’t realize we were still off the record, so she quoted me.)

Ted Flitton wrote: “Both off the record and background are challenging, and can be disastrous if something goes wrong. You must have a very defensible argument about why you employed the strategy you did as you may get into trouble with your executive team. The strategic need for this should be very clear and you must illustrate that proceeding as usual would have really cost your agency…You need to have a very good relationship with the reporter(s) and a sense of trust already built up.”

Leslie Gottlieb said: “I think relationship with the reporter is key. I will go “on background” and occasionally “not for attribution.” It depends on the sensitivity of the topic to my company/organization and the relationship I have with the reporter.”

John Nemo wrote: “Very simple – it all depends upon your relationship with the reporter and if you trust him/her and vice-versa. Relationships are key. Reporters hate being lied to and sources hate being “outed” or burned.”

I’m particularly struck that a majority of commenters mentioned the words “trust,” “relationship,” or both.

Those two words are as good as any to help determine whether it’s safe to go on background with a reporter. Still, it’s worth mentioning that a few commenters also rightly mentioned the words “risk” or “disaster.”

Here are five rules of the road for going on background:

1. 1. Consult with a communications professional – either in your own company, organization, or agency – or with an external firm, preferably one with crisis communications experience. You may be unaware of the landmines that exist in your specific case.
2. 2. Consider your relationship with the reporter. Journalists you know well and who have treated you fairly for several years are generally safer risks than reporters you are working with for the first time.
3. 3. Ask reporters to define exactly what on background means to them, preferably in writing.
4. 4. Make any agreements with a reporter in advance of the interview. You can’t say something interesting and then suddenly declare it on background.
5. 5. Keep in mind that even if you do the four things above, you may end up being named as the source. Even if you’re not, it may be obvious to the audience who the source was. If you’re not willing to take that risk, don’t go on background.

Like our blog? Don’t go yet! Like us on Facebook here and follow us on Twitter here.

If you’ve ever pitched a story idea to a reporter by phone, you know how hard it can be to succeed.

When reporters say “no,” the person pitching them on the other end of the phone often protests, “But this issue is so important!” They’re probably right. But there’s a big difference between what you consider important and what the reporter considers newsworthy.

As an example, more than 33 million people are living with HIV worldwide. That’s an important story. But in the eyes of reporters, that story will be no more important tomorrow than it is today – unless something happens related to HIV today. If physicians discover a new vaccine or a drug company pledges to provide free drugs to one million HIV patients in Africa, the “important” issue will suddenly become “newsworthy.”

As a spokesperson, it’s important for you to understand what reporters consider newsworthy. You can often propel your story from important to newsworthy just by highlighting a different angle.

So take out that story you’re about to pitch and see which of the following 11 elements it has (hopefully it has several). And if you’re not prioritizing those elements enough, what are you waiting for? Turn them into your lead!

Here are the 11 things reporters find newsworthy:

1. Conflict: Reporters are professional storytellers, and good stories have conflict. If you disagree with a competitor’s approach, for example, you’re more likely to receive coverage than if you agree.

2. Local: Most news organizations cover a specific geographic range. A newspaper in Iowa may report on a local charity event, but is unlikely to report on a new condo development in Florida.

3. Incident: Anything that goes wrong has the potential to become newsworthy, such as an industrial explosion, a car crash, or a school shooting.

4. Extremes or superlatives: Reporters love extremes or superlatives: the first, the last, the best, the worst, the biggest, the smallest. If your story contains one, highlighting it will usually make it more newsworthy.

5. New: It’s no coincidence that the word “news” contains the word “new.” News stories have to answer the question, “why now?” Stories that don’t are considered “old news” and usually receive little coverage.

6. Timely and Relevant: Timely stories, often about an upcoming event, are often considered newsworthy, as are stories relevant to the news organization’s specialty. A Boston-area real estate journal will consider a story about next week’s annual gathering of local real estate pros newsworthy, but the Boston Globe probably won’t.

7. Scandal: The Congressman who hides money in his freezer, the hedge fund manager who rips off his clients, and the music mogul who murders his companion are almost guaranteed to be deemed newsworthy.

8. David vs. Goliath: In many stories, there is a “big guy” and a “little guy.” Since the media often view their role as being the protector of the exploited, the little guy usually receives more sympathetic coverage.

9. Incompetence: The corporate executive, politician, or celebrity who can’t seem to get it right will almost always draw the critical eye of the press.

10. Surprising: Stories with an unexpected hook are candy to reporters. If your study discovers that fried foods have previously undiscovered health benefits, you can bet the media will lavish your work with coverage. That story, incidentally, would also make me very happy.

11. Hypocrisy: I saved my favorite for last. Say you’re an anti-gay rights politician who gets caught with a gay lover. Or the president of an animal shelter who’s caught abusing animals. There are few stories as delicious to reporters as powerful people betraying their own publicly-stated positions – and they’re almost guaranteed to remain in the headlines for days or weeks.

What have I missed? Please add your thoughts to the comments section below.

Are you coming to our small group media training workshop in New York City on March 20, 2012?  Why not? We have a seat waiting for you, so tell your boss you’re coming. Details here. 

If you take a media training course, one of the first pieces of advice you’ll hear is this: Never, ever go “on background” with a reporter.

It’s a safe and often prudent piece of advice – after all, we’ve all seen spokespersons pay a hefty price for giving an “on background” interview that ended up naming the source in print.

But if you’re a regular reader of this blog, you know that I don’t like easily dispensed platitudes. Media relations isn’t always so black and white, and there may indeed be times when speaking to reporters on background makes sense.

So here’s my question for you, and I’d really like your help with this one: When is it appropriate to speak to reporters on background? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

Just so we’re all speaking the same language, you’ll find my definitions to four of the most commonly used journalism terms below (keeping in mind, of course, that different journalists interpret these terms differently):

Off-the-record: Strictly speaking, off-the-record means that the information you share with a reporter cannot be used in any way; rather, it is used solely to help the journalist have a more complete understanding of a news story. But some reporters may use the information if they can get a different source to confirm it.

On Background: The information provided by a source can be used, but the source cannot be named or quoted directly.

Not For Attribution: The information provided by a source may be used and the spokesperson may be quoted, but not by name. Instead, the quote will be attributed to an obscured source, such as a “Senior White House Official” or a “company director.” Sources can negotiate the manner in which they are described by the reporter.

On-The-Record: Unless you specify otherwise and gain the prior agreement of the reporter, assume that everything you say is on-the-record.

You represent an organization with a vulnerable client base, say victims of domestic abuse or recovering addicts. As a matter of policy, you guarantee your clients confidentiality.

But then one of your clients bashes you in the media. The client’s story is false.

What should you do? If you respond to the specific charges, you’ll betray your promise of confidentiality and hurt your work with other clients. If you don’t, your organization will be portrayed as clueless, heartless, or downright inept.

That dilemma was on the mind of one reader, who wrote:

“I have encountered dozens of occasions in which an aggrieved party goes to the media upset with how my organization is handling a situation that impacts them. To be blunt, the media is being spun in classic David and Goliath fashion.

In responding on behalf of my organization, I follow very strict privacy rules…that state an agency cannot disclose personal information about a customer. My concern is that the story almost always proceeds, full of all of the exaggerations and misinformation.

How does someone like me balance this adherence to confidentiality while protecting themselves from repeated stories that are reputationally harmful?”

Here are four possible approaches, in order from the safest to the riskiest:

1. Make a Statement: Although you may not be able to comment specifically on the charges made against you, there’s no rule preventing you from making a more general statement, such as:

“State law prevents us from speaking about or confirming whether or not someone is a client. Therefore, we cannot respond to specific allegations, even if they’re false. What I can tell you is that in general, most of the charges made against us are false, and news organizations that run with a story based on only one side’s account are at risk of running inaccurate stories. Worse, those stories unfairly punish other vulnerable people who will be less likely to seek our services to help them move past life-threatening conditions.”

2. Cry Foul To a Media Referee: Before or after the story runs, you can work with a competing journalist to combat the false charges. For example, you might consider working with a sympathetic columnist who understands the constraints you’re required to work within and who is willing to point out how unfairly the competing news organization is treating you. You might also consider working with an ombudsman or media critic if there’s one in your area.

3. Go Off-The-Record: As readers of this blog know, I rarely recommend going off-the-record. But if you have a longstanding relationship with a trusted reporter, this may be a time to consider it (just make sure you follow these four rules). Going off-the-record can help the reporter reconsider the story altogether, but be careful – even if you have a good relationship with the journalist, he or she may be able to nail down the facts from other parties and make it obvious to readers that you’re a source.  

4. Ask The Other Side To Waive Confidentiality: Plead for fairness from your accusers by publicly asking them to waive the confidentiality that prevents you from being able to speak. This strategy comes with obvious risks and may help you win the crisis while losing future trust from potential clients. Therefore, tread carefully here – but keep this option available for extreme circumstances when an aggressive response is warranted.

Want these tips delivered to your inbox twice each month? Please enter your email address in the signup box on the upper right of the blog.

Journalists receive dozens of unsolicited phone calls and hundreds of unwanted emails each day. Their Twitter networks churn out an endless stream of updates, links, and photos. Their RSS (really simple syndication) feeds offer innumerable stories from their favorite blogs and websites.

With all of that information constantly coming in, it’s not hard for reporters to find potential news stories. But finding news stories they can actually report on? Now that’s the hard part. That’s because every news organization has constraints on which stories their reporters can cover and how they can cover them.

This post will describe the five factors that drive news decisions in virtually every newsroom around the world – time, speed, space, profit, and bias.

1. Time: Journalists have never before 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. Plus, 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. That means if your story requires reporters to do extensive research, they may not cover it at all.

2. Speed: Competition from the faster-moving new media has largely forced the traditional media to abandon rigorous fact checking. In order to keep up, they now rush deadlines and release stories sooner than they might like, especially during breaking news events. If you can’t explain your story quickly (and easily), it’s more likely that reporters will get it wrong.

3. Space: Journalists regularly have to edit complicated stories down to 500 words or two minutes. It’s not that they’re superficial – it’s that their magazine only has so many pages or their newscast so many minutes. That means your story will be incomplete, lacking in nuance.

4. Profit: Most news outlets are designed as profit-making entities. As a result, they have to tell stories that attract the widest-possible audience, allowing them to raise advertising rates and increase revenue. That helps explain why so many news organizations cover the most sensationalistic stories; as much as the public claims to hate them, they also tend to tune in for them. Since conflict sells, reporters may tell your story by pitting two sides against one another.

5. Bias: Some media outlets have a clear ideological bias. A conservative outlet is unlikely to run a glowing piece about a Democratic candidate, and vice versa. But the predominant bias in media today is the bias toward cheap, easy, and visual. The less expensive a news story, the closer the story is to the news outlet’s headquarters, and the more compelling the visuals, the more likely it is to receive coverage. As one client told me, his local television stations (thankfully) opted against covering a fire at his plant since cameras couldn’t spot flames shooting up through the roof! Without the compelling visuals, it just wasn’t interesting to them.

What have I missed? What other factors drive news decisions? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

The New York Times published a profile piece this week about Laurie Goldberg, the head spokesperson for the cable channel TLC.

The story, titled “In Speaking For TLC, The Least Said Is Best,” highlighted Ms. Goldberg’s reluctance to speak on the record with reporters. Regarding a controversy over the TLC show “All-American Muslim,” for example, writer Brian Stelter reports:

“Ms. Goldberg said almost nothing on the record about the controversy, lest she spur more coverage. But behind the scenes she was trying to influence reporters’ views of the mostly imaginary boycott.”

Laurie Goldberg, top spokesperson for TLC

Typically, a spokesperson who refuses to comment is punished by the press. But Stelter concludes:

“Despite all its controversial shows, TLC’s brand has remained mostly unblemished these last few years. That may be in part because while Ms. Goldberg is genial and helpful with reporters off the record, she routinely doles out no-comments to them on the record, thereby refusing to make big stories bigger. She declined to be interviewed on the record for this story.”

My first reaction was to reading about Ms. Goldberg’s approach was to give her the benefit of the doubt. After all, it’s hard to argue with success, and if her tactics are working, who am I to criticize her unconventional approach?

But the more I considered her strategy, the more it bothered me: Doesn’t being a spokesperson mean that you should be willing to speak, on the record, to reporters?

TLC’s refusal to speak on the record likely leads to reporters writing, “A spokesperson for TLC refused to comment.” That line is often dangerous, since it leads readers to conclude that the channel’s critics must be right. (If they weren’t, wouldn’t TLC refute the charges?)

This TLC program created a major controversy, but drew little comment from the network

I have a tough time understanding why Ms. Goldberg’s “no comment” is better than my approach of commenting without commenting. It’s almost always better to say something, anything, to avoid a reporter writing that you refused to comment. A bland quote that says little is better than no quote, which says a lot.

One final point: By using such an unusually aggressive strategy, Ms. Goldberg made herself – and her shop – the story. Funny, isn’t it? Her approach, designed to prevent making “big stories bigger,” landed her a profile piece in the New York Times.

What do you think? Is Ms. Goldberg’s approach effective? Do you think it’s an acceptable P.R. practice?