Mr. Media Training

Disclaimer: From 1999-2001, I served as one of three full-time producers for CNN’s Reliable Sources. I worked with host Howard Kurtz for two years. I left the show on good terms, but have spoken to Howie only once since leaving. During our time on the show together (and when producing a few of his pieces for Inside Politics), he always treated me respectfully. I enjoyed working with him.

When NBA player Jason Collins came out as gay in Sports Illustrated last week, Howard Kurtz, the host of CNN’s Reliable Sources, accused him of not being forthright about having been engaged to a woman. Worse, he mocked the player for “playing both sides of the court.”

In fact, Collins had explicitly disclosed his relationship with the woman in the article. When confronted with his error, Kurtz chose to modify the article only slightly. Only after continued criticism did the website The Daily Beast, the site on which his erroneous article appeared, retract the story. (Kurtz left The Daily Beast last week. He says it was amicable; other sources describe it as a “firing.”)

On Sunday, CNN invited two other media reporters to interview Kurtz about this mistake—and others—on his own show. From a crisis communications perspective, how did he do?

Generally speaking, Kurtz did a good job with his on-air mea culpa. He appeared humbled, chastened, and even shaken. He didn’t mince words about his errors, saying:

“The mistake I made was sloppy and inexcusable. I’m not going to offer any extenuating circumstances. I screwed up.”

“I deserve the criticism. I accept it. And I’m determined to learn from this episode.”

But there are at least two things I wish he had done differently.

First, he would have been much better served by acknowledging his original error immediately. As a result of delaying his apology, his eventual mea culpa may be perceived as a reactive necessity rather than a proactive choice.

Second, he didn’t fully answer multiple questions about his workload. During the time I worked with Howie, I wondered whether he was overburdened. At the time we worked together, he was not only writing a weekly column (and other regular articles) for The Washington Post and hosting Reliable Sources, but he was also writing a book called The Fortune Tellers. His workload has only seemingly increased in the digital age, with more columns, tweets, and online videos.

When asked whether he would decrease his workload, he said:

“I’m going to try to be careful not to take on too much.”

“I’ll leave it to others to judge whether I have taken on too much…my kids tell me I work too hard.”

“There are some people who say, ‘Well, maybe you had a little too much on your plate.’ I’ll leave that to others to judge….I’ll be careful from this point on not to take on too much.”

That strikes me as a rather tepid pledge, and Kurtz should have been more specific on this point. If his workload is going to be the exact same, how can he slow down and fact-check more carefully? If he’s going to take on less, what, specifically, does he intend to give up? An unspecific pledge that fails to enumerate specific action steps falls short of an ideal crisis communications approach.

For now, Kurtz is fighting to continue his role on Reliable Sources. As the pointed questions asked of him in the video above show, it won’t be easy.

Photo credit: David Shankbone

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.

If you follow my Twitter feed (I’m at @MrMediaTraining), you know that I often have critical words to say about CNN. Based on my tweets alone, you might reasonably conclude that I hate the network.

The truth is I don’t. I’m just bitterly disappointed in what the network has become. CNN’s decline has occurred at the exact moment that a solid news—not opinion—network is needed most.

There’s a critical need for a cable news channel that aims down the middle and gets it right. CNN should be the network that meets that need. Instead, it’s too often filled with silly and completely unnecessary graphics of holograms (really), silly and completely unnecessary over-coverage of “breaking” stories (such as the hours-long broadcast following the arrival of the Carnival Triumph cruise ship), and, worst of all, incorrect reporting.

CNN has had its credibility shattered in recent years. Its reputation took a bad hit in 1998, when the network claimed that U.S. troops committed war crimes during Operation Tailwind, a covert incursion that occurred during the Vietnam War. The network retracted the report.

In 2000, the network suffered another black eye by calling the presidential race incorrectly. More recently, CNN said that Gabrielle Giffords had died (she didn’t), that the Supreme Court overturned ObamaCare (it didn’t), and that Ryan Lanza was the Newtown shooter (he wasn’t – it was his brother, Adam).

But CNN’s misreporting this month about the Boston Marathon bombings may have been its lowest moment, compounding the network’s growing reputation for blowing the big story.

At the time of this report, no arrest had been made—Correspondent John King made these comments before the manhunt in Watertown, Massachusetts that led to the death of one suspect and the capture of the other.

King didn’t stop there. He also described the suspect as a “dark-skinned male,” which turned out to a questionable description—and was probably too vague to warrant mention at all.

John King later acknowledged his mistake and described his agony over getting it wrong. But CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker seemed not to care. He sent his staff a tone-deaf and congratulatory statement on their wonderful coverage of the bombing:

“For journalists like each of us, these are the times that define what we do and why we do it. All of you, across every division of CNN Worldwide, have done exceptional work. And when we made a mistake, we moved quickly to acknowledge it and correct it.”

Zucker is right that these are the times that define what they do. It’s just that his rose-colored definition is wrong. Despite the fact that many of CNN’s reporters and correspondents reported parts of the story well, their successes were rightfully drowned out by their mistakes.

It’s true that other news organizations got this story (and some of the others I mentioned in this piece) wrong. But I don’t expect more from many of those outlets. I do expect more from CNN. And for that reason, I’m naming CNN’s misreporting the worst video media disaster of the month.

What do you think? Was I too hard on CNN, or do they deserve being named the worst disaster of the month? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

CNN is yet again being criticized for misreporting a major news story.

This time, the network claimed that a suspect had been arrested in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing. After the FBI issued a stern rebuke, the occasional news network backed away from the story. (Others got the story wrong as well, but CNN’s mistakes were made with particular panache.)

BuzzFeed did a wonderful job of capturing CNN’s awful hour of reporting here.

Below are a few other high-profile examples of mainstream media outlets getting a major story wrong. 

In December 2012, after the horrific shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, many news outlets wrongly identified the shooter as Adam Lanza’s brother, Ryan. Lanza’s mother was also widely reported to have been a teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary School; she wasn’t. Many news outlets also misreported the type of gun used in the attack.

In June 2012, both CNN and the Fox News Channel misreported the Supreme Court’s decision regarding President Obama’s health care law, as the screenshots below show.

In 2011, many news organizations misreported that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had died. According to Poynter.org:

“Organizations such as NPR, Reuters, Fox News, CBS, CNN and the Huffington Post sent out tweets or distributed other reports declaring Giffords dead. The New York Times’ website briefly reported her dead as well.”

In 2004, The New York Post splashed John Kerry’s Vice Presidential choice on its front page: “Dem picks (Dick) Gephardt,” blared the headline. Except he didn’t. John Edwards got the nod.

In 2000, CNN reported that Al Gore had won Florida.

In 1981, President Reagan’s spokesperson, James Brady, was declared dead by news networks after being hit by one of John Hinkley’s bullets. He’s still alive.

Remember President Thomas E. Dewey? In 1948, The Chicago Tribune named him the winner of the presidential election. He wasn’t. Harry Truman was elected to a full term.

These are just a few examples – the list of incorrect media stories could include hundreds of others.

I think it’s reasonable to conclude that breaking news coverage is broken. I no longer trust the first wave of reporting on the cable news channels. In the rush to be first, they too often blow the story, or at least critical parts of the story.

We should be skeptical when reporters rely upon the wording “sources said.” Yes, anonymous sources are often reliable. But as we’ve seen from these high-profile examples, they’re too often wrong. And we, as viewers, have no way of determining the credibility of those anonymous sources. That has always been so, but in light of these major and recurring mistakes, it’s more so now than ever before.

From now on, I’m inclined to wait until law enforcement officials confirm stories publicly before fully believing them. You probably should too.

What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

When some people learn that I’m a media trainer, their first reaction is to say, “Oh, so you teach people how to spin?”

I patiently explain (usually) that ethical media trainers don’t teach people to spin, since effective communication requires answering direct questions and offering authentic responses that don’t feel canned.

Evasion, obfuscation, spinning, dodging, hedging, sidestepping, and waffling doesn’t usually work.

If you're going to refuse to answer direct and obvious questions, should you turn down the interview?

Carlos Gutierrez, Co-Chair of the Romney Campaign’s Hispanic Steering Committee, proved the point when he appeared on CNN’s Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien last week. O’Brien’s rather direct question? “What is Mitt Romney’s position on SB 1070?” (SB 1070 refers to the controversial Arizona immigration policy.)

As you’ll see, Mr. Gutierrez was completely unprepared to offer a direct response. And she hammered him for it.

Even more damning, Ms. O’Brien played a clip from Rick Gorka, the Traveling Press Secretary for the Romney campaign, in which he, too, refused to comment on SB 1070.

After watching these exchanges, the public is left to conclude only one thing: The Romney campaign is terrified of the issue, wants to sidestep it, and isn’t willing to take a principled stand on immigration policy in either direction.

If I had been preparing Mr. Gutierrez for this interview, I would have told him that his answer was insufficient – especially because Ms. O’Brien is known as a challenging interviewer who asks tough follow-up questions. I would have advised him to either answer the question more directly or to bail on the interview altogether. Ms. O’Brien was right to press him for a direct response—I wish more interviewers followed her lead—and Mr. Gutierrez should have been willing to offer a better answer.

But that’s just my opinion. What’s yours?

 Loading ...

As we close out the first half of 2012, I’m happy to report that public figures didn’t let us down.

As usual, they committed a series of gaffes ranging from the bizarre…to the rude…to the downright cringeworthy.

So without any further ado, here’s this month’s collection, featuring a deceased spouse, some bad reporting, and an aggressive heckler.

And if you missed the ten worst media disasters of 2011, click here to catch up.

5. Hey, Martin Short: How’s Your Dead Wife Doing?

Today Show host Kathie Lee Gifford committed an embarrassing gaffe when she asked comic Martin Short how his wife was doing. The problem? Mr. Short’s wife, Nancy, died two years ago.

Two things are noteworthy about this gaffe. First, Ms. Giffords’ question suggested a more intimate friendship with the Shorts than she clearly had. Second, note Mr. Short’s incredibly graceful reaction. His poise during an uncomfortable moment only made him look better. 

Note: Although this occurred at the end of May, it missed the deadline for last month’s list.

4. CNN and Fox News Blow Supreme Court Call

In their zeal to report the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, two of the biggest cable news channels blew the story. Both incorrectly reported that the individual mandate was dead.

Given the history of blown media calls—which include “Gabrielle Giffords dead,” “Gore wins Florida,” and “Dewey beats Truman,” you’d think the networks would know better than to rush information to air.

3. British Member of Parliament Gets Pummeled By Interviewer

This was a classic interview with an “out of the loop” spokesperson.

Chloe Smith is a young (30-year-old) conservative member of the British Parliament who serves as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. When she appeared on Jeremy Paxman’s Newsnight to discuss the decision to delay a planned increase in fuel taxes, she failed to answer even the most direct questions.

Many of Ms. Smith’s colleagues in Parliament were furious that her boss who made the decision, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, sent her to do the show instead of doing it himself. Cover your eyes when you watch this one.

h/t @simonbriault

2. Blogger Heckles President Obama’s Immigration Speech

Neil Munro, a blogger for Tucker Carlson’s conservative website The Daily Caller, heckled President Obama during his immigration speech by shouting a confrontational question at him: “Why are you favoring immigrant workers over Americans?”  

Mr. Munro later claimed that he thought the President was finished with his statement and simply mistimed his question. But no other reporters were similarly confused, and some said afterwards that it was clear the President was in mid-speech.

Tucker Carlson (with whom I worked at CNN and personally like) also belongs on this list for offering a spirited defense of Munro’s uncivilized behavior.

1. President Obama Says The Private Sector Is “Doing Fine”

While speaking about the economy at a press conference earlier this month, President Obama said, “The private sector is doing fine.” By some measurements, that may be true. But by making such a declarative statement, he handed his opponents a perfect opportunity to label him as “out of touch.” Hours later, he walked his comment back.

His gaffe was reminiscent of Mitt Romney’s “I like being able to fire people” gaffe. Neither sentence will likely determine the outcome of November’s election. But expect to see Republicans use President Obama’s gaffe against him—and probably with some success— in hundreds of ads this fall.

Bonus Video 1: Candidate Covers His Bases…In an Unusual Way

One week before the Supreme Court issued its verdict on “Obamacare,” Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock pre-taped his response to the outcome.

Of course, he didn’t know what the outcome would be, so he pre-taped a response for four different options. That may not be terribly unusual – but the fact that all four videos made their way onto the web was.

Here’s Stephen Colbert’s rather hilarious take.

Bonus Video 2: Honeywell Security Rips Microphone Away From Reporter

Mike Elk, a reporter with the progressive In These Times, tried to ask Honeywell CEO Dave Cote a question during an event at the U.S. Capitol. During his question, a burly security person ripped the microphone out of Elk’s hands, which turned a mere adversarial question into a viral video sensation.

Later that day, Mr. Elk accused Honeywell’s “external communications director Rob Ferris of barricading him in a room for several minutes,” according to PR Daily.

Had Mr. Cote simply answered the question (heck, even if he had dodged it), this would have been a non-story.

DON’T MISS OUR HOTTEST POSTS! Enter your name in the upper right hand box of this blog to begin receiving emails of our most popular stories.

Earlier today, both CNN and the Fox News Channel misreported the Supreme Court’s decision regarding President Obama’s health care law.

Screengrab by Jason Keath

I hammered CNN on Twitter for its mistake. Well-known investor Henry Blodget took me to task, arguing that “News orgs will always make mistakes…I’m sure they’re ripshit about it. Someone will probably get fired. But it is what it is. And it’s now old news.”

With all due respect, I believe that he couldn’t be more wrong. The issue isn’t hammering a news organization for a single mistake, but for failing to learn from high-profile mistakes the network—and other media organizations—have made in the past.

CNN, for example, did a lot of journalistic introspection after retracting its infamous “Operation Tailwind” story in 1998. But that didn’t stop the network from incorrectly calling Florida for Al Gore two years later (disclosure: I worked for CNN at the time, but had no influence over that call). 

And last year, CNN was again part of the story when many major news organizations—most notably National Public Radio—incorrectly reported that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords had died. This appeared on NPR’s blog:

“2:24 p.m. ET: CNN reports it too has confirmed that Giffords was killed.”

They’re not alone. In 2004, The New York Post splashed John Kerry’s Vice Presidential choice on its front page: “Dem picks (Dick) Gephardt,” blared the headline. Except he didn’t. John Edwards got the nod.

In 1981, President Reagan’s spokesperson, James Brady, was declared dead by news networks after being hit by one of John Hinkley’s bullets. He’s still alive.

Remember President Thomas E. Dewey? In 1948, The Chicago Tribune named him the winner of the presidential election. He wasn’t. Harry Truman was elected to a full term.

These are just a few examples – the list of incorrect media stories could include hundreds of others.

As I’ve written before, journalists are under enormous pressure to report the latest information during a breaking news event. But as my former CNN colleague Bernard Kalb was fond of saying, “Get it first, but first get it second.” In other words, get the story first – but first, get a second source to confirm it.

What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

This morning’s decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the individual mandate—and the majority of the Affordable Care Act—is a huge victory for the Obama Administration. 

By a 5-4 verdict, The Supreme Court decided that the President’s signature health care legislation, commonly known as “ObamaCare,” will stand. The Court appears only to have thrown out a provision that would penalize states for not expanding their Medicaid rolls.

It’s impossible to analyze the High Court’s decision without considering what it means for November’s presidential election.

Most importantly, by winning today, President Obama avoids the stench of being framed as a political “loser” who wasted a massive amount of political capital on an unconstitutional bill. His victory will allow him to campaign on the Bill’s key provisions: providing health care to 30 million Americans by 2022 who otherwise wouldn’t have it, doing away with pre-existing conditions and lifetime insurance caps, and adding children up to age 26 to their parents’ insurance policies.

Republicans have a bigger messaging challenge. Mitt Romney is a flawed spokesperson for the anti-mandate message, since he supported an individual mandate while serving as governor of Massachusetts. Plus, other prominent conservatives—Newt Gingrich comes to mind—until recently supported the individual mandate.

The breakdown of the Court’s decision also complicates their messaging strategy. The swing vote upholding ObamaCare belonged to conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee. That prevents conservatives from running against a “liberal” court.

But Republicans have a couple of potentially potent openings. First, the Court decided that the individual mandate would survive as a “tax,” despite the Obama Administration’s earlier insistence that it wasn’t one. That allows Republicans to accuse President Obama of raising taxes on the middle class. Sarah Palin, for example, was quick to tweet this morning that, “Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn’t a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies.”

Second, ObamaCare remains deeply unpopular with many voters. If Mitt Romney runs on repealing it—and it appears that he will—he may help energize portions of the G.O.P. base and boost fundraising.

Two other big losers today are CNN and Fox News, both of which initially reported that the Court killed the individual mandate. But the biggest media loser of the day is CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who predicted in March that “This law looks like it’s going to be struck down.” His words serve as an important reminder to spokespersons that issuing highly speculative predictions is a bad idea that can badly undermine your credibility.

What do you think? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

Whatever you think of his politics, Newt Gingrich is pretty gifted at delivering a strong media interview.

He appeared on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 in support of Mitt Romney recently, and Mr. Cooper had a few “tough” questions prepared. But Cooper didn’t ask a tough follow-up to at least one key question, allowing Gingrich to say only what he wanted to – and nothing more.

And that teaches you something about how to respond to difficult questions well.

Anderson Cooper: “Mitt Romney’s record, 47th in the nation overall [in job creation] when Mitt Romney left office [as Massachusetts Governor]. That’s obviously not a great number. Why, if Mitt Romney knows how to create jobs, was he not able to create more jobs as the governor of Massachusetts?”

Newt Gingrich: “Start with a point you made – they were at 4.7 percent unemployment. If we were at 4.7 percent unemployment right now, five-and-a-half Americans would be at work, but under Obama’s policies, they’re clearly unemployed. So I think it’s pretty hard for the Obama team to make the case that Romney did a worse job in Massachusetts. He clearly had a lower unemployment level.”   

Gingrich’s response didn’t at all answer the essence of Cooper’s question. The essence of Cooper’s question was about Romney’s poor job creation ranking as 47th among 50 governors, which paled in comparison to his peers – not about the unemployment rate itself. But Cooper didn’t follow up, allowing Gingrich to get away with his borderline non-sequitur.

Here’s the follow-up question Cooper should have asked (and how my former boss, Ted Koppel, likely would have asked it): 

“With all due respect, Mr. Gingrich, that’s not what I asked. During Governor Romney’s tenure in Massachusetts, 46 governors had a better record of job creation than he did. If he ranked only 47th out of 50 in Massachusetts, why should we have any confidence that he knows how to do a better job on a national scale?”

Newt Gingrich was able to sidestep Mitt Romney's record as a job creator

If a trainee answered the question the way Gingrich did during one of our media training workshops, I would have told him that it wasn’t a great answer since it failed to answer the essence of the question. But that brings us back to the title of this post, about why it’s so important to research reporters before every interview.

If you research the host and know you’ll likely be able to dodge tough questions without facing tough follow-ups, you might as well avoid the toughest part of the question and say something related to it instead. (You have to be careful not to go too far or do it too often, since a string of non sequiturs could alienate the audience.)

So research the host before your interview. If the host tends not to ask tough follow-ups, you may be able to answer tough questions a bit less directly. That may be bad for our national discourse – but it could be very good for you as a spokesperson.

Editor’s Note: I’m not accusing Anderson Cooper of never asking a probing follow-up question. He often does. But he didn’t in this case, and this exchange perfectly illustrates the larger point of this post. 

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