Mr. Media Training

This is an excerpt from my new book, The Media Training Bible: 101 Things You Absolutely, Positively Need to Know Before Your Next Interview, now available in soft cover and all major e-book formats.

Press conferences aren’t as common as they used to be. Technology has allowed companies to disseminate information to reporters (and the public) without gathering the press in a single place—and that’s a good thing, since reporters have less time than ever to leave their desks to attend a press conference (and many won’t).

Still, press conferences can play an essential role in media communications, particularly for major news announcements, in political campaigns, and during crises.

Press conferences can be tricky, since reporters from competitive news organizations often play a game of one-upmanship to see who can ask the most difficult question. For that reason, press conferences—especially those about controversial or challenging topics—require a deft spokesperson. Ask yourself whether a press conference is truly the best way to release information before scheduling one.

If you decide to proceed with a press conference, here are four rules to remember:

1. Test the logistics: I’ve attended dozens of press conferences in which the spokesperson walks to the lectern, shuffles his papers, pats his finger on the microphone to test the volume, and looks around for a place to rest his water. When I see a press conference begin that way, it’s a sure sign I’m in for a snoozer.

You’d be surprised how many people fail to check the logistics before reporters arrive. Get there early, position the microphone to a comfortable height and test the volume, check the PowerPoint and its remote control, position your papers, and place a glass of room-temperature water within reach.

2. State your name: Begin the press conference by stating (and spelling) your name and giving reporters your preferred title. Identifying yourself at the beginning helps ensure that broadcast journalists get your on-screen ID (known as a chyron) right.

3. Coordinate with your co-presenters: Little is more awkward than watching co-presenters fumble while transitioning to one another. Good co-presenters are like teammates in a relay race; one hands the baton off to the other seamlessly.

Upon finishing the first portion of the press conference, a presenter should conclude with a line that wraps up the section and introduces the next speaker’s part, such as, “Now that you have a better understanding of how our company intends to roll out this product, Joanne Myers, our lead researcher, is going to explain some of the science behind it.”

For the question-and-answer period, coordinate with your co-presenters in advance to determine which types of questions each of you will answer. While you might handle the business questions, for example, Joanne will take the lead on answering the scientific ones.

4. Maintain eye contact: If multiple cameras are present, keep eye contact with the questioner while answering the question. That way, every camera—regardless of its position—will show you delivering your answer with steady eye contact in one direction rather than darting purposelessly from one person to another.

The Media Training Bible is available from Amazon here and for the Kindle here. For other eBook formats and to read free sample lessons, click here.

Press conferences aren’t as common as they used to be. Technology has allowed companies to disseminate information to reporters (and the public) without gathering the press in a single place—and that’s a good thing, since reporters have less time than ever to leave their desks to attend a press conference (and many won’t).

Press conferences can also be tricky, since reporters in packs sometimes play a game of one-upmanship, in which each reporter tries to ask a tougher question than the last. Still, press conferences can play an essential role in media communications.

Today’s post will help you identify six times to call a press conference.

1. When There Is High News Interest

Since many reporters are reluctant to attend press conferences, your news story must rise to a certain level of newsworthiness before it makes sense to arrange one. If you’re an attorney in a high-profile case, for example, odds are good that the assembled reporters will appreciate your on-camera statement. Doing a press conference may also help prevent you from spending hours doing dozens of one-on-one interviews (which, in some cases, might be a better option).

2. When Reporters Are All In The Same Place

If reporters are already gathered in one place or locale, it might make sense to hold a press conference. As examples: a few dozen reporters are attending your scientific conference; you’re a New York financial firm making a major announcement to the financial press; or you’re a sports coach debriefing with the press following a game.

3. During Political Campaigns

National and many state political campaigns come with a trailing pack of reporters. If you’re running a competitive Senate race in California, for example, odds are that your candidate will have several reporters nearby at any given time.

4. When Public Safety Is Involved

The media are rarely a greater ally than when you need to disseminate critical safety information to local communities quickly. As an example, imagine you’re the public safety officer for a municipality when a gas line erupts, jeopardizing local lives. It’s probably a good idea to hold a press conference (outside the “danger zone,” of course).

5. In a Crisis

You won’t call a press conference in every crisis, but if it meets some of the criteria listed above, you might consider doing so. A press conference in a crisis not only satisfies many of the reporters’ questions, but sends a strong message that you’re in control, willing to talk, and not in “duck and cover” mode. For some scandals, a press conference can help shrink the news cycle, as it did in this case.

6. When Announcing a Loss of Life

In many cases, it’s a good idea to put a human face on tragic news. If you’ve lost a colleague in an explosion at your plant or you’re a public safety officer who knows how many students died in a bus crash, you might consider telling the press in person and on camera. Be careful to notify immediate family members before releasing names through the press.

What have I missed? During what other circumstances would you recommend a press conference? Please leave your thoughts and experiences in the comments section below.

I recently trained a group of 100 senior executives on the best way to deliver an effective crisis press conference.

Jerry Gonzalez, the head of the crew we hired for the training (and a veteran ABC News and CBS cameraman), pulled me aside and offered a view of press conferences I hadn’t heard before. Jerry knows what he’s talking about, since he’s covered hundreds of press conferences through the years.

In his view, the first press conference in a crisis is the most difficult, because the spokesperson often has to face wild speculation from the press corps.

One of the most important jobs you have during the first press conference in a crisis, he argues, is to  “narrow the focus” and “wrangle the information.”

“You’re funneling information early in the story,” he says. Spokespersons who successfully narrow the focus early on help reduce misinformation and inaccurate reporting later in the crisis. But those who fail to successfully narrow the focus by articulating a clear and credible message and dismissing rumors early on will find that their future news coverage (and subsequent press conferences) will suffer.

There are exceptions to this rule, of course. For example, companies or agencies that hide information from the press in earlier press conferences will face an antagonistic press corps in later ones. And the press may occasionally give the benefit of the doubt to spokespersons in the early stages of a crisis, but pursue more aggressive lines of questioning once the spokespersons begin to appear incompetent, unforthcoming, or hypocritical.

Last week, Jerry attended a press conference at the San Antonio Airport after the airport was closed down for “credible bomb threats.” Here’s what he observed:

“It was amazing that all agencies were very coordinated in their message – public safety first and diverted away from talking specifics about the “threats” and the three vehicles bomb sniffing dogs hit on. To my surprise, the radio station did not ask any questions or challenge any of the information given, instead the radio host asked that the PIO call back when they had an update. Interesting? Or perhaps the media easily surrenders when the information comes often and repeats the narrative?”

I like Jerry’s idea a lot, and will begin asking a new question when preparing clients for a crisis press conference: “What’s the best way to narrow the focus of the media narrative?”

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

So there it is.

In a press conference late this afternoon, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) finally admitted that he took some racy photos, sent them to at least six strangers on Twitter, and lied about doing so for ten days.

During the presser, Mr. Weiner said numerous times that he was giving the press conference because he wanted to “accept responsibility.”

But he’s not going to resign. Or stop using Twitter. Or Facebook. Or seek counseling. And he’s going to seek another term.

Mr. Weiner’s lack of sacrifice makes him appear more like a man cornered into finally admitting an obvious truth than a man deeply committed to taking responsibility for his actions. And I’m betting the public will perceive his apology as yet another sign of a self-serving politician who wants to do just enough to make amends with his devastated wife without making any of the real changes that demonstrate self-sacrifice.

Short of resigning, he should have refused to address his aspirations for another term, pledging instead to first discuss his future plans with his family. He should have said he was immediately turning his Twitter and Facebook feeds over to his staff so they could communicate official business on his behalf. And he should have said he would get help for his obvious compulsion to engage in self-destructive behavior.

Instead, he took the tone of an indignant fifth grader – “I said I’m sorry, okay?”

Take Our Poll: Would Anthony Weiner Be More Likely to Survive the Scandal if He Had Been Honest the Moment This Crisis Broke?

Mr. Weiner’s undisciplined performance at his own press conference reinforced the narrative about his immaturity. He delivered his opening statement – in which he admitted he sent the lewd tweet and that more bad news was coming – well enough. He was emotional, seemed genuinely pained by the hurt he caused his wife, and appeared to be ashamed of his behavior.

But his tone became more aggressive as soon as he started taking questions, immediately undercutting the effectiveness of his opening statement. He took dozens of questions, straying far away from any useful messages. After all, headlines that quote him as saying, “I don’t see anything I did that violates…any law or any rule” will read as defensive and clueless. He should have announced he would take questions for five minutes before returning home to make amends with his wife, allowing him to re-deliver the messages he needed to before exiting.

Weiner could have looked to history for a path back. In 1982, Democratic Congressman Phil Gramm supported President Reagan’s tax cuts and became a pariah in his own party. He resigned his seat, ran as a Republican to get it back, and won.

Mr. Weiner should have considered a similar strategy, resigning his seat and allowing voters to decide if he deserved it back. That would have demonstrated real sacrifice. And it might have been his best chance to restore his stained reputation.

What do you think? Please leave your comment below.

Related: Congressman Anthony Weiner’s “Bulge” Photo Crisis

Related: Brad Phillips Interviewed on Washington, D.C.’s WTOP About The Anthony Weiner Scandal

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky…and I need to go back to work for the American people.” – Bill Clinton, January 26, 1998

“I’m going to get back to work today.” – Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), May 31, 2011

New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, a liberal firebrand whose fiery rhetoric earns him endless cable airtime, suddenly hates television cameras.

Here’s the story. Late last week, Rep. Weiner appeared to Tweet a photo of his “bulge” in a tight pair of underwear to a college student in Washington State. Rep. Weiner, who is married, claimed his account was hacked (he later called it a “prank.”) Conservative activists who claimed to see the Tweet say he’s lying. 

It’s possible that Mr. Weiner didn’t send the tweet himself. But his crisis communications response thus far has been to borrow from two dreadful examples – Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky speech and Gary Condit’s stonewalling silence – and as a result, he looks guilty.

Here are a few of things Mr. Weiner is doing wrong:

1. Refusing to Answer Basic Questions: Did Weiner send the tweet or not? He refuses to say, opting instead to take a tone of supercilious sanctimony with the media. His tone is totally inappropriate given the ease with which he could end this story by answering the direct question.

2. He’s Obviously Obfuscating: Instead of answering a direct question, he directs people to an incomplete statement that doesn’t answer the key question.

3. Attacking The Media: In the above clip, Mr. Weiner calls a reporter a “jackass.”

“The Bulge.” Photo Credit: The Daily Caller website

If Weiner is innocent, no crisis communications coach in the world would advise him to employ this strategy. His response leaves the unmistakable impression that he did, indeed, send the picture to a young woman – and that more damaging parts of the story may yet emerge. If not, why not just admit the infraction and move on?

Instead, Weiner, a likely contender for New York City Mayor in 2013, is acting like a man whose mayoral aspirations just went up in smoke.

Update (June 1, 2011, 2:35pm): In an interview with MSNBC this afternoon, Rep. Weiner finally denied that he sent out the tweet, but could not say “with certitude” that the tweet wasn’t of him in his underwear. He appeared defenisve and evasive, confirming my impression that there’s more to this story than the public knows right now. Worse, he made an erection joke (“I’m not sure it rises to the level, no pun intended.”). The interview is below:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Like this blog? Sign up for free monthly email tips to help you become a better media spokesperson and public speaker. Sign up box is in the upper right hand of the blog.

Click here to hear my interview about Anthony Weiner’s crisis on Washington, D.C.’s WTOP.

You Might Also Enjoy: The 10 Worst Media Disasters of 2010

Since news of her death early Saturday, the media have widely hailed Geraldine Ferraro’s status as a pioneer. But the first woman on a national political ticket was a pioneer in at least one other way – she ushered in the crisis communications tactic of the marathon press conference, in which a spokesperson attempts to quash a crisis by taking virtually every question the assembled journalists can think of, effectively outlasting the reporters.

First, the background. Just days after being selected as Walter Mondale’s vice presidential running mate in July 1984, the press began investigating shady financial dealings involving Ms. Ferraro and her husband.

The media circus only intensified when Ferraro made – and then reversed – a pledge to release her husband’s tax returns. When she explained her change of mind, she quipped, “You people who are married to Italian men, you know what it’s like,” which fueled even more critical coverage.

Geraldine Ferraro at Press Conference, August 21, 1984. Photo Credit: The Connecticut Post

On August 21, 1984, Ms. Ferraro held a nearly two-hour conference in front of 200 reporters. That marathon press conference – unparalleled in modern presidential campaigns –  was ostensibly intended to quell the public storm through full disclosure. But it accomplished at least three other critical things:

1. It helped reverse the narrative that she was not transparent.

2. It turned her into a more sympathetic figure.

3. It offered Ms. Ferraro a vital opportunity to show her mettle as a female candidate who could endure the intensity of the media’s scrutiny.

From The New York Times, August 22, 1984:

“Yesterday, Mrs. Ferraro subjected herself to nearly two hours of grueling questioning by reporters in an effort to quiet a controversy that has followed her for two weeks and threatened to derail her campaign.”

Far from derailing her campaign, the marathon press conference largely put the issue to rest (financial issues continued to dog her, but with nowhere close to the same level of intensity).

In an age of media consultants who limit access to candidates, it’s difficult to fathom a candidate who would be willing to endure a two-hour marathon press conference today. But as a media trainer and crisis communications coach, I would encourage my peers to keep this arrow in their quiver.

Sure, it’s a risky strategy fraught with potential dangers. But the right candidates – especially those who can remain unflappable while appearing genuine and likeable – can manage their crises with the same effectiveness as Ferraro.

One interesting side note: In a 2006 episode of The West Wing written by Lawrence O’Donnell, GOP presidential candidate Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) opted to give a marathon press conference after news emerged that he had supported a nuclear facility that had almost melted down.

It’s not hard to imagine that Ms. Ferraro was close to Mr. O’Donnell’s mind when he penned the episode.

Every good story should have a call-to-action. Here’s mine. If you like this blog, please sign up for our free monthly newsletter, full of media and presentation training tips. You’ll receive the tips weeks before we publish them on this blog.

We’ll never, ever share your information. One content-rich email from us per month. That’s it. Sign-up box is in the upper right corner. Thank you.

Related: Seven Rules to Remember When a Crisis Strikes

Related: 2012 Election Preview: The Final Rankings

Related: The 21 Most Essential Media Training Links

People love watching media mistakes, and I’m as guilty as anyone of airing the worst media disasters on this blog. But once in a while, someone gets it exactly right – and today’s blog story will highlight one of the best crisis press conferences I’ve seen this year.

During the early evening of September 9th, a natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, California, killing eight people and injuring dozens. In total, 38 homes were completely destroyed.

Within a few hours, San Bruno Mayor Jim Ruane and Fire Chief Dennis Haag delivered the following press conference: 

Communicating in the immediate aftermath of a crisis is rarely easy. Spokespersons have to speak without the benefit of full information during an emotional time, and speaking to the press is just one of dozens of tasks they have to fulfill.

But spokespersons don’t have to be perfect to succeed. They are judged positively for demonstrating their confidence and competence – something Mayor Ruane and Fire Chief Haag did quite well. Here are at least five reasons they succeeded:

1. Spelled N-A-M-E: The Mayor began the press conference by spelling his name for reporters and positioning himself correctly for the television cameras.

2. Prioritized the Victims: Mayor Ruane opened with a statement that prioritized the victims of the blast:

“All I have to say is a terrible, terrible tragedy has fallen on our city this afternoon. Our main concern as public officials here [is] making sure our citizens are safe. We’re trying to do that right now…I would ask anybody who sees this broadcast tonight to say a special prayer for those people.”

3. Appeared Genuinely Upset: In addition to getting the words right, Mayor Ruane got the tone right by delivering his words in a heartfelt manner that showed genuine concern for those affected by the explosion. That may sound like an obvious point, but too many spokespersons shed their humanity when speaking in an official role.

4. Defined Roles Well: Mayor Ruane and Fire Chief Haag both had clearly defined roles, preventing the awkward transitions that too often mar press conferences. Mr. Ruane’s job was to express sympathy for the victims and speak on behalf of the City’s commitment to help, while Mr. Haag’s job was to offer technical information regarding the blast.

Aftermath of the San Bruno Blast. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

5. Didn’t Speculate: Fire Chief Haag was a bit too technical at moments, but he did a lot of things right. When asked how many people had evacuated, he didn’t speculate but told reporters what he knew:

“All I know at this time is that there were 100 people in our evacuation center.”

When asked how long evacuees might have to stay away from their homes, he again refused to speculate – but explained why:

“I couldn’t venture to guess at this point until we really get down there to assess the situation.”

Fire Chief Haag should have identified himself at the beginning of the press conference. He could have explained certain terms better (what, precisely, does “containment” mean)? But in the context of this press conference, those were rather small and correctible problems.

In a crisis, the public wants to make sure their representatives “get it,” care, and are competent to fix the problem. Both men did that well, making this one of 2010’s best press conferences.

Editor’s note: I e-mailed Mayor Ruane yesterday. I asked him if he would be willing to share with my readers how he came to be such an effective spokesperson. I was curious whether he had attended media training sessions, and if so, what he took away from them. Mr. Ruane was kind to reply, and a portion of his response is below:

“What you witnessed that night was our sincere concern for our community and our desire to provide our residents with our latest information.

I am honestly uncomfortable discussing how we handled a news conference when our focus right now is solely on helping our community recover. 

In the future I believe I will be willing to share some of our lessons learned about crisis communications so that our experience may help other communities. I truly hope you understand.”

Mr. Mayor: Yes, I completely understand, and I admire your decision to remain focused on your constituents instead of basking in a personal recognition. When you’re ready to discuss lessons learned, I hope you’ll consider sharing them with us. May you and your constituents find greater peace in the New Year.

Related: Is a Written Statement Enough in a Crisis?

Related: Hostage Press Conference: Losing Control

Will one bad press conference from 2008 cost Republicans full control of Congress this year?

Most political prognosticators expect the GOP to gain control of the House next month, but their forecasts for the Senate are much closer, with some predictions suggesting the Senate will remain in Democratic hands – by a single vote.

It’s possible that former Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-MN) campaign manager cost the GOP the 2010 election.

Let’s rewind to 2008, when Sen. Coleman, up for re-election, was accused of accepting a gift of clothing from a wealthy donor in violation of campaign ethics laws. His campaign manager, Cullen Sheehan, refused to answer a yes or no question about whether the Senator had received the gift, instead saying nine times that Coleman had, “reported every gift he has ever received.”

 
The press conference train wreck, which occurred less than a month prior to the 2008 election, earned widespread statewide and national coverage.

Imagine if Mr. Sheehan had tried a different approach, saying, “Yes, Mr. Coleman was given a gift. The gift was reported, and complies fully with campaign ethics laws. However, Sen. Coleman is completely committed to transparency and openness, and in that spirit, he has returned the gift because he understands that appearances matter.” The controversy would have quieted down more quickly, and Sen. Coleman would likely still be serving in office.

Instead, Sen. Coleman lost his re-election bid by a mere 312 votes, paving the way for Al Franken to become a U.S. Senator. And because of a few nice suits given to a U.S. Senator two years ago, Democrats may retain its hold on the Senate by a single vote.

Note: It is possible that Mr. Sheehan disagreed with the media strategy to repeat this message numerous times but was over-ruled. I wanted to give him an opportunity to tell his story, and called the Communications Director for the Minnesota Senate Republican Caucus, who promised to pass a message along to Mr. Sheehan. That was on October 11. Mr. Sheehan has not yet returned the call. I will update this story if I hear from him.