Mr. Media Training

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?

I regularly hear clients tell me that a reporter they have to work with is stupid. But are they really dumb, or just playing “dumb” to get more information?

That’s what reader Patricia Carlson wondered after reading my article, “Three Dangerous Types of Reporters,” which omitted the “dumb” reporter as a dangerous type. She wrote:

“I’m not sure if this would fall under a ‘dangerous reporter’ or ‘dangerous tactics’ headline, but I’ve witnessed the “playing dumb” reporter on many occasions. I’m told there are several reasons why a reporter would use this routine but I’m wondering what your take is on it?”

There are three primary reasons a reporter might come across as dumb.

Be careful. This reporter may not be as dumb as he looks.

1. They’re Trying To Get You To Say More

A reporter might say, “I’m sorry, I don’t understand” as a device to keep you talking. As we tell our trainees, the more you say, the more you stray. If a reporter can keep you talking, they can increase the odds that you’re going to say something you’ll regret.

Don’t fall for it. Ask reporters what, specifically, they don’t understand and clear up those misunderstandings. But remember that your primary job isn’t to download a semester’s worth of education to the reporter – it’s to get the quotes and the storyline you want without saying something that strays from your message.  

2. You’re Not Saying It Right

Reporters might say, “I’m sorry, I don’t understand” as a way of getting you to speak without jargon. Technical, wonky words and ideas are difficult for the reporter to quote, since the audience won’t understand what you mean.

Here’s a trick from a former ABC News colleague to help you avoid jargon. She once interviewed a jargon-filled scientist. After 20 minutes, he still hadn’t said anything we could use on air. She ended the interview, thanked him, and said, “Could I ask you a favor? My 12-year-old nephew loves science. Would you mind doing one take I could show to him?” He agreed, and delivered a terrific answer without any jargon – and that’s the take we used that evening.

If you have young people in your life, run your messages by them. If they can paraphrase them back to you in their own words, you’ve successfully eliminated the jargon.

3. The Reporter Is Actually Dumb

A reporter might say, “I’m sorry, I don’t understand” because he or she is just plain dumb. Every field has its dummies, and journalism is no different. The reporter may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, and their apparent stupidity may be less journalistic tactic than biological trait.

Still, don’t give up. That’s a great opportunity for you to practice making your message as clear as possible. As I wrote in an earlier post, “Don’t Dumb It Down, Just Make It Simpler,” you should remember this admonition from Albert Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

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.

Last week, I asked readers to weigh in on this question: 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?

That old expression, which traces back to the 1960s, advised spokespersons not to argue with the all-powerful press, since they owned the “ink” – and thus the power to publish their own storylines – while spokespersons owned little ink and were often unable to respond to media criticism.

Given that social media has given companies, organizations, and individuals the ability to respond to negative or incorrect stories, I wondered: Is the expression “Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel” a relic of a bygone era?

Should you argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel?

Here’s what you had to say:

John Barnett said: “By picking a fight, you are simply giving many news organizations their best gift: controversy and conflict. Gives otherwise routine or less interesting stories longer legs.”

Rodger Johnson wrote: “You never want to argue with a fool with access to a blog or buys ink by the barrel. Reason? A fool likes to hear his own opinion and he’s always right no matter what reason or reality dictates.”

Mary Denihan agreed, saying: “I would never pick a fight with the press. And speaking of blogs, would never argue with anonymous bloggers. We now have more tools than ever to set the record straight, so we don’t have to sink or swim in their ink anymore.”

Marcus said: “Communicators should be wary of anyone with a larger reach. Most company Facebook pages and Twitter accounts don’t reach the audience that even a mid-sized media outlet can. [But] social media make it a whole lot easier to react when the fight is brought to you.”

And David Z added: “For me, you don’t even have to so-called fight. Just give your side, be truthful, and maybe hope for the best.”

I agree that picking a fight is generally a bad idea, but I’m not an absolutist on that point. For example, conservative politicians aiming to attract the base are often able to gain traction by “picking a fight” with the media. So in some cases, battling publicly against the press can help (see this story about Marco Rubio vs. Univision).

I agree with Marcus that “social media make it a whole lot easier to react when the fight is brought to you,” but I’d add that social media can also be used to preempt a story about you that is about to run. It allows you to release the news first, manage the initial messaging, and combat false allegations before they’re even published.

In short, “Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel” no longer fully applies in the age of social media. I’d change it to “Think hard before arguing with a man who buys ink by the barrel.”

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!

A reader named MJen recently wrote in asking how she should handle a reporter who regularly writes negative stories about her organization. She writes: 

“Brad, what are your thoughts on reporters or press that are consistently negative in their coverage? When it seems as though they have an angle or agenda already to a story…and when asking for another interview I am really not going to help them bash us again, just so it seems as though they are trying to cover both sides of their article. Would also love to hear how you would word turning down a reporter as well.”

There are times when it’s appropriate to turn down an interview (this article lists seven such times). But generally speaking, I advise against turning down interviews – if you know the story is going to be about you and it will be written regardless of whether or not you participate.

I explain why in this video, called “The Rule of Thirds.”

Blacklisting a reporter is a serious step, one you should reserve for extreme cases. I recommend trying these seven steps first. Here are three of those steps, which may be relevant in MJen’s case:

1. 1. Write a Response: In print journalism, you almost always have forums available to you for a response, such as a letter-to-the-editor or op-ed. If it’s an option, use it. Don’t repeat the original errors in reporting, since it just gives those errors more airtime – just articulate your point of view.
2. 2. Speak to the Editor: If you’ve gotten nowhere with the reporter, it may be a good idea to raise your objection with the reporter’s boss to insure he or she is aware of your complaints. Who knows? Perhaps you’re the fourth person to complain about the same reporter in a week.
3. 3. Respond with Statements Only: If it has become abundantly clear to most independent observers that the news organization in question is irrevocably biased against you or your organization, you have two choices: cut off all access, or respond with precision. I almost always recommend the latter option, which means sending a short written statement in response to a reporter’s query. It’s hard to take a two-sentence statement out-of-context – and it prevents the reporter from writing that you “refused to comment.”

Thanks for the question, MJen! I hope this helps, and wish you the best for future media interviews.

Do you have additional advice to offer MJen? Please leave it in the comments section below. And if you have a question you’d like answered in a future blog post, please send it to me at Contact-at-MrMediaTraining.com.

Related: Five Reasons Why Journalists Lead Miserable Lives

Related: How To Beat An Unfair Host In a Media Interview

Media trainers usually spend the majority of their time teaching you how to communicate during a media interview. But too often, we forget to talk about what you should do before your interview begins – or before you agree to the interview in the first place.

Before agreeing to an interview, you should interview the interviewer. Learn as much as possible about the story they’re working on, as you’ll be able to prepare for the interview with greater precision as you learn more about it. Most journalists are willing to share at least the basics about the stories they’re working on, and some are willing to go into great detail about their stories.

Here are nine questions you should ask before every interview.

1. 1. What’s Your Name? I know, that one’s obvious – but I’ve seen people forget to ask. Also ask reporters which news organization they work for and whether they cover a particular topic.
2. 2. Can You Tell Me About The Story You’re Working On? Keep this question open-ended and remain quiet while the reporter talks (the more they talk, the more you’ll learn). Feel free to ask follow-up questions and to clarify any points you don’t fully understand.
3. 3. Are You Approaching This Story From Any Particular Perspective? Some reporters bristle when you ask “what’s your angle?” directly, so this question tries to get the same information in a slightly more subtle manner.
4. 4. Who Else Are You Interviewing? Reporters often play it close to the vest on this one, but it’s worth asking. You’ll often be able to get a sense for the tone of the article by learning whether the other sources in the story are friendly or antagonistic toward your cause.
5. 5. What’s the Format? For print interviews, this question will help you determine whether reporters just need a quick quote from you or whether they are writing an in-depth piece that will focus extensively on your work. For broadcast interviews, you’ll be able to learn whether the interview will be live, live-to-tape, or edited. Also ask how long the interview will last. For television, ask if the format will be a remote, on-set, or sound bites interview.
6. 6. With Whom Would You Like to Speak? Reporters will often tell you who they want to speak to – often a company leader or subject-matter expert. But they’ll frequently take anyone in your organization who can answer their questions satisfactorily, so ask.
7. 7. Is There Anything Else I Can Help You With? Ask the reporter if you can provide them with any press releases, graphics, photos, videos, etc. You can often expand your presence in a news story if the reporter chooses to use your supporting materials.
8. 8. Who Will Be Doing the Interview? For many radio and television interviews, you will be contacted by an off-air producer rather than an on-air personality. If you’re not sure who the interviewer will be, ask. Also ask where the interview will be held.
9. 9. When Are You Publishing or Airing the Story? Look at the story as soon as it comes out. If it’s a positive story, share it with your online and off-line networks. If it’s a negative story, consider contacting the reporter or editor, or issuing a response.

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.

Related: Nine Things New Spokespersons Need To Know

Related: Seven Things To Do When The Media Get It Wrong