Mr. Media Training

Editor’s Note: Since August 2010, I’ve written more than 560 posts. Some of the most popular posts have gotten buried over time, so I occasionally unbury especially useful older posts to share with readers who missed them the first time. This article was originally published on November 8, 2010.  

It’s one of the most asked questions in my media training sessions: “Should I ever freeze a reporter out?”

When I hear that, I immediately think of a scene out of The Godfather or Fatal Attraction, complete with horse’s heads and boiled bunnies. I imagine my clients suddenly appearing as caped crusaders, exacting their revenge on unfair journalists by “rubbing them out”.

Freezing out a reporter is a dramatic step, and it often backfires. After all, don’t you think a company is guilty when a newscaster says, “We contacted representatives from the Huge Corporation, and they refused to return our calls?”

So before making a decision to blacklist a reporter, here are some remedies that may solve your problem:

1. Show it to a Neutral Party: It’s an age-old truth: the closer you are to a news story, the more likely it is you will think it’s a negative story. Ask neutral parties to read, listen to, or watch the story and give you their views. Often times, you will be surprised to find that the message you hoped would get through to the audience got through.

2. Talk to the Reporter: Reporters need access to sources to do their jobs, and good reporters are willing to hear their sources’ objections to a story (they may not agree with you, but they usually listen). Call the reporter, and ask if he or she is on deadline – if so, ask to schedule a time to call back. When you speak, remain polite regardless of his or her response. You will get a better reaction to a discussion about objective factual errors than subjective differences of opinions.

3. 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.

4. 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 ensure 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. There is a downside here – no one likes to be complained about, and the reporter may take it out on you through future news coverage.

5. 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.

6. Cut Off All Access: The only time I ever recommend cutting off all access is when you can honestly say that there is nothing to be gained by speaking to the reporter. Those cases may exist, but they are rare. Most of the time, good media management means finding solutions to working with the press – not avoiding them altogether.

7. Use Online and Social Media: Cutting off access doesn’t mean you stop communicating. Instead, use online and social media to continue communicating with your key audiences – through all available channels, including your company website and blog, and your corporate YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter accounts.

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

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.

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.

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

A few months ago, I wrote an article that listed seven times you should turn down a media interview. That article became the subject of an on-line chat recently, and one of the participants – a journalist – took me to task.

Her point was this: Who cares if executives turn down an interview? She regularly circumvents executives at the beginning of a crisis, and prefers to start by talking to the receptionist.

“She always knows more anyway,” said the reporter.

She raises a good point. Reporters occasionally avoid “official” channels to get more candid and unscripted responses from staffers lower down on the hierarchy chart. And too often, receptionists – notoriously more plugged in to the gossip than most – inadvertently say something to reporters that they shouldn’t.

It’s always a good idea to train your receptionists how to handle media calls, but it’s even more critical to prepare them for an unexpected crisis. Receptionists are often the first people to learn of a crisis, tipped off by a phone call from a reporter, a colleague, or a stranger. There’s little point in investing thousands of dollars to train your executives to manage a crisis if your receptionist says something he or she shouldn’t.

And it’s not just receptionists. You should also prepare security guards who first greet unscheduled camera crews. And spouses of your executives, who may answer their home phone during a burgeoning crisis and say something like, “Yeah, I think there was an explosion or something at the plant. But you just missed Dawn – she already headed down there.”

Oops. Dawn’s husband just became the reporter’s primary source.

You don’t have to enroll your receptionists, security guards, and other support personnel in a formal media training class. Instead, create a policy that articulates the protocol for unexpected contacts with the media and share them with your entire staff. Don’t do it once – they’ll need regular reminders.

And remember: When you have temps staffing your phones along the way, fill them in on your media procedures. Those  “temps” have your company’s reputation in their hands.

Wait! Don’t go! Have you followed us on Twitter yet? Please click the Twitter logo (on the upper right of the blog) or follow us at @MrMediaTraining.

Related: How To Select a Media Trainer

Related: The 21 Most Essential Media Training Links

Many media spokespersons are guarded when speaking to reporters. Perhaps they’ve been burned before or watched as a colleague got grilled by an aggressive investigative journalist.

But little is more disarming to reporters than a spokesperson who conveys an eagerness to speak on-the-record. Reporters are much more likely to believe a person who wants to talk to them than a person who hides behind a wall of attorneys and evasive language.

Generally speaking, you should express openness and an earnest desire to help. That doesn’t mean you have to tell a reporter everything – but it does mean that you should respond to a reporter’s call quickly, answer questions as completely as possible, and make clear that you are open to follow-up questions. Your tone should be professional and unfailingly polite.

As an example, one of our clients is occasionally accused by local television consumer reporters of exploiting a vulnerable population (it doesn’t).

Until a couple of years ago, we provided reporters who called with a written statement on behalf of the group. But I quickly saw that the written statements did a lot of damage. Reporters would show a sympathetic-looking person from the vulnerable population, and would then contrast that with the group’s sterile written statement. It never looked good.

So I decided to use a different approach. When reporters call now, I tell them we’d love to comment, but only if it’s on-camera. I even offer to shoot the video of the interview for the cash-strapped stations and send them the tape. Most stations take me up on that – they call the client on speaker phone, the client does the interview, and we send them the tape.

Before we started doing that, 100 percent of the stories were negative. Today, the mix is much closer to 75 percent neutral, 25 percent negative. It’s not perfect, but it’s a huge improvement.

Consumer reporters are used to spokespersons who “duck and cover,” not spokespersons who invite additional communication. Doing so is disarming, and our open approach with reporters is leading them to conclude there’s more to the story than they originally thought – and they air a more balanced story as a result.

Related: Seven Rules to Remember When a Crisis Strikes

Related: The Right Way to Do a Crisis Press Conference

Imagine you have a television interview scheduled with a reporter. The handsome TV news personality arrives at your office, the crew sets up the cameras and lights, and the interview begins.

Fifteen minutes fly by in what seems like seconds, and you’re done. You feel good. Even though the reporter asked a few tricky questions, you were prepared and handled them well.

As the crew packs up, you stand around with the reporter and make some polite small talk. He casually asks you about one of your competitors, and you offer a casual, if mildly negative, response about their work. When the piece airs, you’re shocked to find that the reporter introduces the piece by quoting your offhanded remarks about your competitor.

Your boss is not going to be happy.

You may feel betrayed by the reporter, but he’s done nothing wrong. The interview didn’t officially ”begin” when the cameraman pressed the record button or “end” when he turned it off. Anything you say before, during, or after the actual interview – including any phone or email exchanges – can be quoted.

Don’t say anything in the presence of a journalist that you wouldn’t want published – until you’ve said goodbye, gotten in your car, and driven away. I know that sounds like incredibly obvious advice, yet my month-end media disasters lists are regularly filled by public figures who make this mistake.

One such example was California senate candidate Carly Fiorina, who was caught on-camera (before the “official” interview began) bashing her opponent’s hairstyle. The clip below gave Californians an insight into who Ms. Fiorina really was – and they didn’t like it:

In the downtime before and after the “official” interview, it’s okay to chat with the reporter. But use that valuable time to state your most important messages – if not verbatim, then by advancing the main themes you want him to remember. Otherwise, that causal remark may come tomorrow’s nightmare headline.

Related: Why Going Off The Record Is a Dumb Idea

Related: The Three Questions Reporters Always Ask