Mr. Media Training

Reporters for the college newspaper The Daily Princetonian are no longer allowed to conduct interviews through email. Neither are reporters for The Stanford Daily or The Oracle, the University of South Florida’s paper.

What’s behind this seemingly urgent push for “no email interview” policies? To find out, writer Mark Lisheron wrote a thoughtful and well-researched piece for the April issue of the American Journalism Review. (Disclosure: I’m quoted in the article.)

Unsurprisingly, his investigation revealed deep passions on both sides of the debate. Supporters of the email ban argued their side thusly, as summarized by Lisheron:

“E-mail deprives the reporter of all of the sensory advantages of the other interview styles. Facial expressions, gestures, posture. The sound and the cadence of the voice. The emphasis on words or phrases. The pauses.

As fast and convenient as they are, e-mail interviews are never really conducted in real time. The timing of the response, the allowance for measured and edited replies create an artificiality readers recognize.”

The then-editor of The Daily Princetonian, Henry Rome, explained his decision to ban email interviews by writing:

“Interviews are meant to be genuine, spontaneous conversations that allow a reporter to gain a greater understanding of a source’s perspective. However, the use of the email interview — and its widespread presence in our News articles — has resulted in stories filled with stilted, manicured quotes that often hide any real meaning and make it extremely difficult for reporters to ask follow-up questions or build relationships with sources.”

On the other side of the debate are those who make the case for email interviews. One past president of the National Information Officers Association said this, as summarized by Lisheron:

“Reporters, he says, have no inherent right to a statement from him. He reserves the right to ask for questions in writing and provide answers in writing, usually through e-mail.

Departments like his are trying harder to control the message, not because they are deceptive and evil, but because relationships with the media have changed.”

And another public information officer told him that getting questions in writing is:

“…not only a way to form more complete and accurate answers, but to be better able to parry inquiries designed to elicit specific responses.”

So who’s right? Both sides have a point, and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Like anything else (say, PowerPoint slides) the problem is less with the tool itself than with the way that tool gets used. That said, far too many spokespersons rely on email. They think they’re maintaining control by only offering written statements—and sometimes they are—but too often, they’re unnecessarily undermining their relationships with the press.

You can read more about my view on this issue in my article called “Three Reasons to Interview by Phone Instead of Email.”

I hope you’ll read Mark’s excellent article in full. You can find it here. And please leave your thoughts on this topic in the comments section below.

Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg, recently appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to promote her new book, Lean In: Women, Work, And The Will To Lead.

Ms. Sandberg had many terrific communications traits. She made an articulate and persuasive case, used her body language to reinforce her verbal points, and laughed heartily at Mr. Stewart’s jokes.

And yet…

Something about her interview bothered me. I wanted to like her and agreed with every point she made—but I had a difficult time connecting with her. It took me a week and three viewings of her segment to figure out why.

If you can’t view this video on your mobile device, click here. 

First, and perhaps most glaringly, she oversold her book. In a six-minute segment, she mentioned Lean In five times (Jon Stewart also mentioned it at the beginning and end of the segment; the name of the book also appeared in a giant on-set graphic, an on-screen book graphic, and a lower third graphic).

In total, viewers saw or heard Lean In no fewer than 10 times in six minutes. 

It may surprise you that a media trainer who encourages people to remain on message was chagrined by that. But there’s a fine line between selling and over-selling, between being on message and over-messaged.

Mentioning her book title a couple of times would have been fine. But her continual mentions had the effect of pulling me out of her interview and reminding me that she was there to pitch a product, which compromised my ability to relate with her. Perhaps part of that wasn’t just the repetition—it may have just been that Ms. Sandberg didn’t pull it off without sounding a bit forced.

That leads me to my second point. Sandberg sounded a bit too rehearsed. And that’s a shame, because she did a lot of things right. Her anecdotes were tight and effective (e.g. “Pretty like Mommy” t-shirts, her friend’s five-year-old daughter), and her sound bites were great (e.g. “Men still run the world. And I’m not sure that’s going that well.”)

If I was working with her, I’d advise her to stop trying to deliver her lines as she rehearsed them and to start delivering them like she was talking to an elderly neighbor or a high school friend instead. From her less rehearsed moments in this interview, she appeared to have that ability. She should use it more often. She should be going for “real,” not “polished.”

The bottom line? Ms. Sandberg did a great job with the precision of her words, but didn’t do as well in terms of relating with the audience. (I’ve written more about that common challenge here.) The good news for Sandberg is that she’s really, really close. And with a little more work, she can do a better job of making that all-elusive audience connection.

If Facebook doesn’t shut down my account after writing this story, please stay in touch with me at www.Facebook.com/MrMediaTraining.

There’s a cute little cupcake shop on our town’s main street.

The store’s décor is welcoming and whimsical. The walls are painted bright pink, and the stools are shaped like something you might see in Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory.

My wife and I have passed the shop many times, each time looking longingly through the store window at the display cases, filled with cupcakes lined up in perfect rows—banana cream cupcakes next to chocolate ganache cupcakes next to peanut butter and jelly cupcakes.

We finally stopped in last week. And something the clerk said instantly removed the shop’s magic and made us unlikely to return.

When we entered the shop, I noticed that the store also sold brownies, my favorite. I asked the clerk if the brownies were also homemade, to which she said:

“Nothing in the store is homemade. We get it all delivered.”

With those 11 deflating words, nothing in the shop looked as cute anymore. And for the first time, I noticed that the shop smelled like nothing—it didn’t smell badly, but it also didn’t smell like baked goods. I purchased the brownie, ate it without enthusiasm, and decided to support a different store next time instead.

As we walked away, my wife remarked how different it would have been if the clerk had said something like this:

“We have an exclusive relationship with an award-winning bakery, and we’re the only store in our city that carries them. Our bakery makes 25 types of cupcakes for us every day, and they deliver them fresh every morning.”

We might have still been a little disappointed, but at least that type of response would have preserved some of the shop’s magic for us.

As readers of this blog know, I hate the word “spin.” So this incident serves as a perfect example of the difference between spin and smart strategic communications. Assuming for a moment that both of the quotes above are true, then neither is spin. But only the second message is smart and strategic—and therefore effective.

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

When Harvard’s Center for Media and Public Affairs studied the average length of a sound bite in 2000, they found that the typical television quote lasted just 7.3 seconds. It’s probably even shorter today. And that’s down from 42 seconds in 1968. (PDF of study here.)

Since most of us speak an average of two or three words per second, that translates to a measly 18 words per quote.

Many spokespersons complain that they couldn’t possibly say anything of meaning in that short time period. And they’re right—it’s a major challenge. But it is possible.

I recently saw a tweet that contained the “world’s shortest horror story.” It read:

“The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door.”

Those 17 words send chills down my spine. If you’re like me, you probably created a strong mental picture of the room, how the man was sitting, and the terror he felt when he heard that unexpected knock. With just 17 words, this story elicits a strong visceral reaction.

That tweet made me think of another terrifying line, this one from the 1979 classic horror movie, “When a Stranger Calls.” You may remember the set up to that film: a babysitter is alone in a house with the young children she’s looking after. She keeps getting threatening phone calls. She calls the police, who ask her to keep the caller on the line when he phones again to allow them to trace the origin of the call. She complies. After the police trace it, they call the babysitter back and say:

“We’ve traced the call. It’s coming from inside the house.”

I saw that movie as a teenager. And whenever I’m alone in my house and hear a strange sound, I’m reminded of those 10 terrifying words.

So next time someone tells you it’s impossible to say something of meaning in just 7.3 seconds, remember the lesson from those horror stories. Sometimes, the most evocative ideas require the fewest words.

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, as Hurricane Sandy claimed dozens of lives, demolished homes, and wreaked havoc on millions of people in the eastern United States, I noticed an interesting debate playing out in my Twitter feed.

Some of my Twitter friends took the opportunity to advocate for stronger policies aimed at curbing climate change, for which they blamed Hurricane Sandy. Others took offense at that suggestion, claiming that it was inappropriate to “politicize” tragedy.

These tweets tell the story:

My new post: Let’s Politicize #Sandy fdl.me/RsvKXQ via @firedoglake. Climate change is real. RW actions make it so. Time to stop ‘em.

— Spocko (@spockosbrain) October 31, 2012

#OnlyinAmerica can they politicize a disaster like #Sandy. People struggling, fix it first then worry about your agendas!

— Aqil (@shaqfu75) November 1, 2012

I’m not sure I agree with those who argue that it’s wrong to push an agenda during a tragedy. News organizations are fickle: they cover breaking news extensively but for a brief period of time, then move off the story and provide little follow-up coverage. When’s the last time you saw the Aurora movie theater shooting in the news, for example?

Therefore, PR professionals representing a cause—say climate change or gun control—face a choice:  Strike immediately to capitalize on the media’s short-term focus on their issue but risk the wrath of the public, or let the moment pass to avoid criticism but lose the media spotlight.

In the case Hurricane Sandy, for example, I believe that PR pros advocating for better climate change policies should make their case while Sandy is still part of the news cycle. I believe that gun control advocates should make their case in the dark days following a mass shooting. The public will be able to create a much stronger cause and effect during a media event than weeks or months after it passes.

Of course, there’s a right and a wrong way to “politicize” tragedy. Pitches for commercial products, like this idiotic one for American Apparel, never have a place:

Advocating for an inherently political cause during a tragic event is a skill that requires incredible deftness, sensitivity, and tact. Tone matters. If you appear to be taking advantage of those who are suffering great losses during the tragedy, the public will rightly hold it against you. But I wouldn’t take this approach completely off the table as a way of bringing attention to important causes.

What do you think? Please vote below.

 Loading ...

“Congress Getting Dumber!”

So screamed headlines last week after the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation released a study showing that “Congress now speaks at nearly a full grade level lower than it did seven years ago.”

But according to those headline writers, Martin Luther King’s brilliant “I Have a Dream” speech would also be considered “dumb.” In fact, his speech would be dumber than Congressional speak.

Seven years ago, Congress spoke at an 11.5 grade level, according to the Flesch-Kincaid test. But the study found that Congressional speak decreased to the 10.6 grade level this year, still higher than Rev. King’s speech, which was written at the 9.4 grade level.

Pundits touting this study as a sign that Congress is getting dumber are not only wrong, but intellectually lazy. Instead of castigating members of Congress, we should be congratulating them for speaking more understandably.

Was King's speech really dumber than this year's Congressional class?

Politicians who use terms such as “cloture,” “discharge resolution” and “supplemental appropriation” aren’t smarter. Nor are they helping their constituents understand what they’re doing; too often, they’re simply hiding behind incomprehensible legislative language.

Legislators have an obligation to reach their constituents in the one in five households that don’t speak English as their primary language. Or the six in ten American adults who haven’t obtained an associate degree by their 25th birthday. Or everybody else, unless they’re experts in Congressional arcana. 

Consider this: Five of the eight “dumbest” speakers represent the Deep South, which has some of the nation’s lowest high school graduation rates. I’d argue that by speaking in jargon-free language, those members of Congress are serving their constituents well, not poorly.

I’ve written before about the need to simplify, which is completely different than “dumbing down.” A quote often attributed to Albert Einstein gets it exactly right: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

Perhaps this Congressional class is dumber than most. But this study doesn’t prove it.

According to the Flesch-Kincaid test, this article scored a grade level of nine. I guess that makes me dumber than Congress.

Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.

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

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

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

They usually say yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have the best of the blog delivered to your inbox twice per month! Enter your name in the box on the upper right of the blog to join our mailing list.