Answers: Should PR Pros Participate During Interviews?

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on July 2, 2015 – 3:04 am

Earlier this week, I asked readers whether it was appropriate for PR pros to participate during media interviews when someone else—an executive, subject matter expert, or client—is the person being interviewed.

Many of you responded (thank you!). We heard from people via Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and in the blog’s comment section, so in this post, we’ve pulled several of your comments together.

Patrick Coffee Tweets

In general, I agree with Patrick’s points. But in some circumstances—such as when a spokesperson says something factually inaccurate, is about to go off the rails, or has already said something damaging—jumping in may be the better of two lousy options.

 

Steve Johnson Tweet

For some interviews, it’s also okay to jump in to add something useful—some PR pros possess broader institutional knowledge than a subject matter expert, whose knowledge may be deep but narrow.

 

Justin Walden Tweet

Good advice. “Reading the situation” is where the value of experienced PR pros comes into play, since these are often subjective decisions that have to be made on the spot.

 

Stu Opperman Tweet
I agree in general, but I’d also maintain that protecting your client by jumping in may be necessary. That may be “controlling,” but also appropriate. Your point about preparing clients carefully is spot on; to the degree we can prepare them better before something goes wrong, we can reduce the risk of being put in such an uncomfortable position.

 

Ted Flitton Tweet

I agree. That’s one of the most persuasive arguments for sitting in.

 

Michael Schroeder Tweet

Again, I agree generally, but think interventions may occasionally be the better of two bad choices.

 

Melanie Ensign Tweet
I understand that argument, but that seems strong. Media training can’t entirely remove every bad instinct a spokesperson might have every time. We can coach to those points, reduce them, make spokespersons aware of them, etc. But a person who is quick to anger, for example, probably can’t be completely “fixed” in a single media training session. When working with such people, PR people might need to take on a babysitting function to help maintain the professionalism of the brand.

 

Reader Sean Mallen left his thoughts in the comments section on the blog:

“I can tell you from 30+ years as a reporter (before recently jumping to communications consulting) that having someone in the room to listen to the interview was fine by me, whether it be an in house PR person or a hired gun. And now that I’m on the other side of the divide, I recommend it. Why? Because anyone, even the most accomplished speaker who has been well-prepared can make a mistake. At the end of the interview, your colleague can advise that you mis-spoke. As a reporter, I’d have no problem in giving my interviewee an opportunity to correct a fact. However, the PR person should NEVER interrupt an interview in progress, not unless they want to make themselves the news clip.”

 

Sharon Navarro, who does hospital communications, added her thoughts via LinkedIn:

Sharon Navarro Comment

 

And Laura Creswell left the following comment on our Facebook page:

Laura Creswell Comment

 

Thank you all for your great comments! Come join the conversation on Twitter at @MrMediaTraining.

 

 


Tags: , , ,
Posted in Media Relations | Please Comment »

Question: Do You Tape Reporters During Media Interviews?

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on May 20, 2015 – 7:36 pm

I recently received the following email from Christopher Holcroft, an Australian public relations pro. He writes:

“I have found these days more and more journalists who conduct phone interviews are recording them on voice recorders. To ensure there is complete transparency and to keep within my country’s federal laws, I ask the journalist if they are recording. I then ask do they mind if I record for my records.

This recording has now put both the journalist and yourself on the path to a complete record of what was said. Nothing can be mistaken.

Also, if the journalist skews their article/story you have a complete record to seek correction if required. The recording is also great for your bosses as it protects you and what you said versus what the journalist thought you said and reported.

I also encourage all interviewees to bring a voice recorder to media interviews and openly place it on the table next to the journalist so there is no mistake you are also recording the event for truthfulness. This way you can send a copy of the interview to your bosses before the story is aired or published.”

dictaphone 06

In my two decades as a journalist and public relations practitioner, I’ve seen three media relations practices that were once largely verboten become acceptable, at least in some circumstances: Asking reporters for their questions in advance, requesting to see a copy of their stories before they run, and recording raw copies of interviews. (To be clear, the first two practices are only acceptable in certain cases, but they’re more common today than they were a decade ago.)

One obvious reason for the apparent increase in taping interviews is technology: Whereas taping once required us to carry a separate piece of equipment (three, actually: the recorder, a cassette, and fresh batteries), smartphones make it easy today for anyone, at any time. I suspect another reason is that social media has gotten us accustomed to living more public lives, so journalists who might have viewed tape recorders as an intrusive irritant a generation ago are more likely to view it as an inevitability today.

I understand the merits of the “record every interview” argument well, and have encountered many clients who employ such a policy. For some clients, particularly those dealing with highly controversial and potentially litigious issues, I agree that keeping an audio or video trail makes sense.

Personally, though, I don’t advise it to our clients as a general practice. Setting a tape recorder on the table immediately creates a climate of mistrust. Therefore, you might reserve its use for times when: you have a reasonable suspicion that the interviewer has an agenda and is not to be trusted; the news outlet is unfavorable toward your work; the topic is of great economic and/or reputational consequence. 

If you do decide to record an interview, make sure you remain on the right side of the law. You can find out if your state requires one- or two-party consent here.

Do You Record Your Interviews With Reporters?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What are your practices regarding taping media interviews? Please leave your thoughts and experiences in the comments section below.

 

 


Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Media Relations | 5 Comments »

Help A Reader: This Reporter Is Blowing Me Off!

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on April 29, 2015 – 4:46 pm

A Florida-based PR pro recently wrote in about a situation almost every media relations professional has faced at some point in their career:

“I was introduced to a journalist of a national magazine. My colleague and I sat down with the media person and pitched him what our organization does. He loved our cause and said he would publish a story in his national and local magazine after he visits our events. He couldn’t get enough of the work we do which is a non-profit providing free music training to kids.

I have invited him via email to all of our events and have called him twice. He hasn’t shown up to our events and responds with ‘I’m working on the next issue’ via phone.

I continue to send press releases to his attention. I hear nothing but crickets. I want to give him one more call. But at this point, what can I say? What is appropriate to say to a journalist who’s kind of giving me the run-around?”

Do not disturb with your calls 3

I empathize with this dilemma. In 2002, I traveled to Guyana with a reporter from the Associated Press who was interested in writing about the work being done by the organization I worked for. I planned a trip that had us crisscrossing the country and taking a ferry into Brazil, organized a series of meetings, and spent three full (and pleasant) days with her.

She never wrote the story. I followed up many times. At some point she stopped replying, and shortly thereafter, I gave up. It was a tremendous waste of resources (although I was delighted to see Guyana)— but it’s also part of the media relations game.

In your case, the first thing I’d say is that I wouldn’t take the reporter’s silence personally. It’s entirely possible that he remains as interested in your cause now as the day you met, but has been sidetracked by other stories, demands placed onto him by his editor, or just an unforgiving workload.

Many times in these situations, I’ve observed that the media relations professional and the reporter enter into a brief “push/pull” dynamic that quickly ends the relationship: the PR person keeps calling, emailing, and pressing, and the reporter is repelled by the (perceived) onslaught and backs away.

Tug Of War iStockPhoto PPT

Therefore, I’d suggest avoiding that dynamic by sending him an email that empathizes with his presumably busy workload, gives him control over your future contacts, and offers to make his life easier. Here’s an example:

“Dear Reporter,

I know that you were interested in our work, but I also understand how busy a reporter’s life is. Therefore, I’d like to make sure that I’m available to serve you—but that I don’t become a PR pest. 

How would you like me to keep in touch with you? Do you prefer that I continue sending you our press releases so you can keep up with our work? Should I remove you from the list but send a quick email if a newsworthy event is on the horizon? Should I check in with you, say, next month to see if there’s a clearing in your schedule to resume our conversation?

Please feel free to reply with a short phrase or sentence—there’s no need for a longer email if you’re swimming in work.

Thank you very much, and all the best. 

Brad Phillips”

This doesn’t guarantee a response, of course. But if the reporter does reply, your gentle approach might help invoke the “Reciprocity Principle,” which asserts that since you did something to help him (back off), he might be more inclined to do something for you (prioritize your future contacts). 

Other people use more aggressive media relations strategies than I do, and often to great success. So please regard mine as only one point of view. I’m hoping some readers will offer their own suggestions for you in the comments section. Good luck, and thanks for writing!

The Media Training Bible Ad

Do you have a question for Mr. Media Training? Send it to Contact@MrMediaTraining.com.

 


Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Media Relations | 1 Comment »

Help A Reader: Should I Use One Spokesperson Or Many?

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on April 21, 2015 – 5:06 am

A reader dealing with some changes within her organization recently wrote in with the following concern:

“Up until now, when we received a media inquiry, designated staff members would decide who would be the ‘spokesperson’ based on the type of inquiry and availability of spokespersons. If it was a general or simple inquiry, we might be the best spokesperson. If it was a complex or technical inquiry, a subject matter expert might be a better choice. Of course, we would choose a trained, capable spokesperson and provide additional coaching if needed. All this would be done on a case-by-case basis.

Now, leadership wants there to be one spokesperson for the agency. There could be a backup if that person is unavailable, but the push is to designate [that person] as the agency spokesperson. Subject matter experts will no longer be able to do interviews…

We have a crisis and non-crisis mode. It seems our leadership wants this new model to be used in both instances. I have advised them that it would be difficult to respond to multiple media inquiries when you have only one spokesperson, whether you are in a crisis or it’s business as usual. Also, that one spokesperson may not be knowledgeable enough to respond to reporters who require more background or technical expertise. Their response? They feel it is more important for the public to know, when they see that designated spokesperson, they know he/she is speaking for this agency.”

cut off excess

Your management is right that having a single spokesperson can lead to an increase in brand recognition, and some companies that have or have had a single spokesperson (e.g. Steve Jobs, Wendy’s founder Dave Thomas, chicken magnate Frank Purdue) benefitted from an immediate connection between spokesperson and brand. I understand the appeal of providing the public with a sense of continuity, a single person who gains credibility with an audience over time by becoming a more familiar (and hopefully trustworthy) face.

But the image I selected to illustrate this story (above) tells you what I think of this idea. In my experience, it’s unnecessarily risky, will frustrate reporters, and could lead to a more flat-footed response.

What happens when your organization, which placed so much of its public identification into the hands of one person, loses that employee? Much of that brand-building disappears with that person’s resignation (or firing). What happens if that spokesperson handles a situation badly and loses credibility with the public or press? Or has a personal scandal that embarrasses the agency?

Here are a couple more questions: What happens if the spokesperson goes on long-term medical or bereavement leave? Or is overwhelmed with media calls on several different topics during a particularly busy period?

Eggs in Basket iStockPhoto PPT

This sounds like a bad idea that places too many of the agency’s eggs in a single basket.

I know many people who are the lead spokesperson for their agencies. Most of them are good at their jobs, and many are very knowledgeable. But they’re not subject matter experts, and they happily defer to those who are (assuming, as you stated, that they’ve received media training). Trying to suddenly become a subject matter expert on a variety of topics every time a reporter calls is impractical and destined to fail.

Plus, there’s another important consideration: I can’t imagine that reporters will like this. For straightforward questions, a lead spokesperson is appropriate. But a reporter who needs subject matter expertise and is forced to speak to a spokesperson who plays the role of intermediary for every detailed follow-up question will quickly become resentful.

Two solutions might help, at least in part:

  1. 1. Use this spokesperson as much as possible, but pair him or her with the proper subject matter expert in cases for which such expertise is necessary.
  2. 2. Use this spokesperson as the primary face for on-camera briefings, but provide reporters with access to subject matter experts behind the scenes. 

It’s entirely possible that your management knows something I don’t and/or that I’m missing something here, so I’d like to ask readers to weigh in. Do you agree with me that this is a bad idea, or is this reader’s management seeing something that I’m not?

Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

 


Tags: , ,
Posted in Media Relations | 3 Comments »

Media Relations And The Seven Deadly Sins

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on March 26, 2015 – 6:02 am

This is a guest post by Ted Flitton, a public relations professional working in the banking industry.

For centuries, the Catholic Church has used the teaching of vice as a guide to help people live a virtuous life.

Today, those ancient lessons have spread throughout much of western society and popular culture. They form the subplots of movies, books, and theater. Smart reporters even use the seven deadly sins to provide a narrative depth to news stories. Media relations practitioners take notice.

Recently, Sun Life Financial found itself subtly cast less-than-favorably in a news story in which a policyholder with dementia took an action that had a near-disastrous financial consequence for his family. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Bruce Gabriel was a policyholder who suffers from Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia:

“…as his mind was slipping, in 2010, he called up his insurance agent — when his wife was away at work — to cancel his two policies.

He had paid more than $17,000 in premiums since 1983 and cashed in for less than $2,000 on policies that would have paid his family $140,000 when he dies.”

Seven dealdy sins signpost

Upon discovery, Bruce’s wife Debbie tried to have the situation reversed. After four years of pleas, the company remained steadfast. It then wanted Bruce to undergo extensive tests and still did not reverse course, budging only after media inquired about the standoff. This can be characterized as sloth.

Other characterizations in the story are more damning. The CBC writes that Sun Life “repeatedly refused to undo the damage” to the family’s finances and labeled letters denying coverage as “rejections.” Unable to get other coverage, Debbie said the experience left them feeling “very powerless in the face of big business,” and that she and her family felt “vulnerable … and we had no recourse.” She added the family felt “robbed” of a sense of security and Bruce Gabriel said they felt “stolen from.” Enter the second “sin,” malice.

Sun Life’s own words can be viewed as adding to this narrative. In letters to Debbie, it concludes the tests it ordered “do not provide any new evidence that your husband was incompetent and therefore, incapable of making the decision he made.” Later, when reversing course and reinstating the policy, a spokesperson said, “We are making an exception on compassionate grounds in this unique case,” as though the company was begrudgingly doing the family a favor. The lack of support to the family, combined with sometimes harsh language used by the company and others, underscores a narrative of pride.

I have sympathy for Sun Life. The perception of slothful behavior is difficult for many companies to avoid: they must do their utmost to investigate all situations thoroughly to protect policyholders and investors. To make hasty decisions is financially irresponsible, precedent-setting, and could cause harm to others depending on them.

Eraser deleting the word Sloth

“Sloth” could also be a deliberate strategy. The company could truly view this situation as exceedingly unique and may be making an exception after rigorous investigation. Of course, this strategy is fraught with risk and an accusation of sloth is often the first domino that starts the narrative chain reaction.

Media relations practitioners must decide: Which strategy will you choose—and are you prepared for that plan’s related baggage?

A Better Approach

In an alternative conclusion to this matter, the company could have written:

“As our population ages, we suspect there will be more families who will find themselves in a similar unthinkable situation. Many companies, including ours, need to train front-line personnel to be better prepared to identify and at least try to take preemptive action to avoid them. No company can avoid all of them—but we can work harder to reduce such situations, and we will.”

The CBC article referenced another constructive approach by quoting a representative of the Alzheimer’s Society of Ontario, who argued for contractual cooling off periods for people struggling with dementia. Working with such an organization could generate better protocols and provide a powerful balanced third party, thereby reducing the number of sins—real or perceived—being cast upon Sun Life.

Ted Flitton is a public relations professional working in the banking industry. He is also the owner of T Communications. He lives in Calgary, Alberta.

Don’t miss a thing! Click here to instantly join our mailing list and receive the best of the blog twice each month.

 


Tags: , , ,
Posted in Public Relations | 1 Comment »

Is “Blame The Media” A Good PR Strategy?

Written by Christina Mozaffari (@PMRChristina) on March 4, 2015 – 9:18 am

This post was written by Christina Mozaffari, vice president of Phillips Media Relations and a former NBC News producer. 

I’ve always bristled at the “blame the media” public relations strategy.

Plenty of politicians and public figures have used the strategy, sometimes with great success (here’s President Obama, Bill Cosby, and Chris Christie). It’s also probably fair to say my dislike for the strategy is largely due to my own bias as a former reporter.

That said, Frank Bruni’s column in The New York Times last weekend addressing the successes and failures in political reporting—including so-called “gotcha” questions—was spot-on. In it, he admitted the media have some significant faults in covering politics, but that politicians still have a lot of responsibility for the coverage they receive. His last line perfectly summed up the issue:

“…when candidates bemoan and disparage the media’s omnipresence and hypervigilance… remember this, too: When they’re harping about our shortcomings, they’re first and foremost trying to cover up their own.”

Cameras at Press Conference

As an example, Wisconsin governor and potential presidential candidate Scott Walker recently criticized the media after punting on fairly easy and unsurprising questions surrounding his beliefs on evolution and President Obama’s religion. While Walker’s strategy may help him in the primaries with conservatives who distrust the mainstream media, it’s not enough to work in a general election in which you have to win voters in the middle. The actual questions didn’t get Walker into trouble; rather, it was his refusal to answer them in a straightforward manner.

The media are far from perfect. There are certainly many mainstream outlets with clear biases on both sides. However, when the coverage goes wrong, more often than not, the blame lies with the public figure.

Scott Walker Obama Christina

So, when faced with biased reporters, what should you do? These rules of thumb may not apply to the most aggressive cases, but tend to serve most spokesperson well.

  1. 1. Know your “enemy.” It’s your responsibility to know, as best you can, the reporter’s work and point of view. All it typically takes is a quick Google search and a few minutes to read the reporter’s previous work. If you know what you’re walking into, you’ll be better equipped to handle it.
  2. 2. Be the bigger person. It’s your job to stay cool. Let your audience decide on the bias of the reporter, particularly if it’s a live audience and the audience can see the full exchange. If the audience believes you’re being bullied and you manage to handle the reporter’s biased questions with openness and class, you will come off looking better.
  3. 3. Ask yourself if you really need to do this interview. In general, participating in interviews when you know a story is going to be written about you or your organization is smart. Having your voice in a story, even if it’s an aggressive story, keeps you present in your own coverage and helps to avoid that damaging line, “We reached out to Organization X and they had no comment.” That said, if you truly believe you have no chance at getting fair treatment in an interview, there’s no rule that says you have to do it.

What do you think? Is blaming the media a lame cover-up or smart strategy? Please leave your thoughts in the comments section below.

 


Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Media Relations | 1 Comment »

Should One Person Really Be The Face Of Your Brand?

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on February 17, 2015 – 4:02 am

Ted Flitton Headshot 2This is a guest post by Ted Flitton, a public relations professional working in the banking industry. He is also the owner of T Communications. He lives in Calgary, Alberta.

Many questions have been raised from the Brian Williams fiasco, mostly from the perspective of journalism and corporate ethics.

But there’s a question that’s been mostly overlooked: Is it really a good idea for one person to be the primary public face of a brand, as Brian Williams was for NBC News? 

Building a brand around a single face comes with significant benefits—but, as the past week has once again proven, also significant risks.

Williams had a zest for the spotlight, and no doubt his superiors encouraged him to market himself and his newscast. He starred in an advertising campaign commemorating his ratings-winning decade commanding the show. He was a semi-regular on the late night talk show circuit, he made cameos in movies and TV shows, and even granted plenty of interviews to the tiniest of small town newspapers.

Hopefully NBC executives are now plotting ways to build their corporate brand without relying so heavily on a single, fallible human. With Lester Holt firmly in the anchor seat until summer, the execs have time to consider the role they played in setting the NBC brand on fire.

 

The Perks of a Primary Public Face

Companies big and small have tied their fortunes to high profile names for years, and for good reason. It’s impossible to think about Apple without thinking about Steve Jobs, Virgin without Richard Branson, or, until his death, Wendy’s without founder Dave Thomas.

NEW YORK, NY - OCTOBER 02:  Virgin Atlantic Airways and Virgin Group founder, Sir Richard Branson bring Business Speed Dating to Wall Street on October 2, 2012 in New York City.  (Photo by Craig Barritt/WireImage)

Dynamic people build corporate brands by:

  1. 1. Providing a quick template for building brand values, raising consumer awareness, and signaling expected employee behaviors
  2. 2. Creating excitement and gaining employee buy-in
  3. 3. Adding star power to employee town hall meetings or community outreach events

 

The Downsides of Being Too Closely Associated With One Person

As Williams has proven, though, people make disastrous mistakes. Sometimes they go completely rogue. Depending on the scenario, not to mention how the fallout is handled, the downsides of a brand relationship involving a public figure include:

  1. 1. Tarnishing, if not severely damaging, a brand
  2. 2. Causing difficulty in separating the rogue person from the brand
  3. 3. Giving less-contented employees reason to thumb their nose at company culture
  4. 4. Pushing the company into crisis mode and hijacking priorities

Brian Williams Promo

On the last point, the Williams fiasco has consumed a great deal of time for a growing number of NBC executives. In fact, the storm is swirling around the upper tier at NBC Universal. As The Washington Post reports, Williams’s suspension:

“…was the culmination of a long period of internal concerns. NBC officials had been warned for some time about Williams’s exaggerations and self-aggrandizement, the network official said.

People were sending up red flags about a year ago, the official said.

What started out as eye-rolling escalated into genuine concern, but no one took action earlier because the statements that drew attention of staffers were not aired on the news broadcast.”

At the very least, decoupling from a rogue brand face is messy and all-consuming. Brian Stelter’s excellent 2009 New York Times article highlights the massive “Tiger-proofing” campaign Accenture officials immediately launched once golfer Tiger Woods’s serial infidelities were exposed.

Inc. Magazine chronicled the financial and human resources toll cyclist Lance Armstrong’s doping admission took on his charity Livestrong. Doug Ulman, CEO of the charity, openly wrestled for months with the existential knowledge that Armstrong’s deceit was the key ingredient for immense fundraising success.

Lance Armstrong iStockPhoto

 

What companies considering a conscious coupling should do:

  1. 1. Fully vet the person first. Once finished, vet again
  2. 2. Consider the tightness of the bond. Ask: “Is this a person who shares some of our values that we can casually reference in speeches or will we implore audiences to “Be a Tiger?”
  3. 3. Run the tie-in as a campaign with a sunset clause
  4. 4. (If you proceed) Monitor the person’s behavior and public statements and address problems the moment they surface
  5. 5. Prepare for the “go-rogue scenario” with a decoupling plan and standby statements and have your spokesperson briefed

Another tactic could include highlighting a team of individuals who espouse noble virtues. Imagine a TV commercial featuring the many faces of NBC journalists including Holt, the flawless Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, and Richard Engel as the words ‘trust’ and ‘integrity’ fade in and out. If one person trips up, the piece can be edited. One rotten apple shouldn’t spoil the bunch. But this tactic isn’t foolproof; just ask the U.S. Postal Service about its sponsorship of the men’s cycling team.

Ted Flitton is a public relations professional working in the banking industry. He is also the owner of T Communications. He lives in Calgary, Alberta.

Don’t miss a thing! Click here to instantly join our mailing list and receive the best of the blog twice each month.

 

 


Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Public Relations | Please Comment »

Reader Email: Is It Ethical To Circumvent A Reporter?

Written by Brad Phillips @MrMediaTraining on February 3, 2015 – 3:02 am

A reader from South Africa recently asked:

“I wish to check with you on the ethics of publishing a media response to more than the persons that enquired. This is in a case of apparent collusion between members of the political opposition and the media.”

My answer is yes, absolutely. Based on your question, I’d say that “ethics” aren’t a factor here. If you were refusing to speak to any reporters, particularly about matters that concern the public interest, you might be entering into an unethical situation—but speaking to more reporters is different.  

That said, I still wouldn’t go down that path, at least not as a first step.

Mean Interviewer

The goal of media relations is to try to establish positive (or at least not negative) relationships with reporters. So the first question I’d ask you is whether you’ve done everything in your power to build a better relationship with the news organization? For example, have you taken these seven steps? Or, if you’re being falsely accused of something you haven’t done, have you considered these three options?

If you have—and you have strong reason to believe that the news organization is “colluding” with the political opposition—then yes, it is an acceptable practice to issue a response to numerous news outlets simultaneously and/or through your own websites and social media sites.

If the news organization complains, you can explain your rationale for circumventing them. Doing so may give you another opportunity to heal your relationship with them (you can offer to respond to their answers directly in the future in return for fairer coverage). Notice that I said “fairer” coverage, not “favorable” coverage. You still may not like all of the stories published by the media outlet—a reporter’s job isn’t to make you happy—but if their reporting is reasonably accurate, it may represent a meaningful improvement upon your current situation.

Of course, circumventing an individual reporter by responding to everyone at once could make your current relationship with that journalist even worse, which can lead to more hostile coverage against you. That’s why you should think carefully about whether you’ve truly done everything you can to improve your relationship with them.

Finally, you might also approach a competing news organization or media ombudsman-type to pitch the idea of running a story about their competitor’s inaccurate reporting. Some news organizations relish the idea of fact checking a competitor; here in the U.S., for example, it’s common to see Fox News questioning reporting on MSNBC, and vice versa.

Thanks for your email, and good luck in managing this situation!

Do you have a question you’d like to see answered on the blog? Please send an email to Contact@MrMediaTraining.com.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...


Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Media Relations | Please Comment »

Join our email list to get our 21 most essential media training tips

An Amazon #1 PR Bestseller: The Media Training Bible: 101 Things You Absolutely, Positively Need To Know Before Your Next Interview. Learn more.

  • About Mr. Media Training

    The Mr. Media Training Blog offers daily tips to help readers become better media spokespersons and public speakers. It also examines how well (or poorly) public figures are communicating through the media.

    Brad Phillips is the Founder and Managing Editor of the Mr. Media Training Blog. He is the president of Phillips Media Relations, a media and presentation training firm with offices in NYC and DC.

    Brad Phillips

    Before founding Phillips Media Relations in 2004, Brad worked as a journalist with ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel and CNN's Reliable Sources and The Capital Gang.

    Brad tweets at @MrMediaTraining.

    Christina Mozaffari is the Senior Writer for the Mr. Media Training Blog. She is the Washington, D.C. vice president for Phillips Media Relations.

    Brad Phillips

    Before joining Phillips Media Relations in 2011, Christina worked as a journalist with NBC News, where she produced stories for MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, NBC Nightly News, and The Today Show.

    Christina tweets at @PMRChristina.

  • Comments or Tips?

  • Media Requests

    To book Brad Phillips for a media interview, please e-mail Contact@MrMediaTraining.com
  • In The News

    Click here to see media coverage of Brad Phillips and the Mr. Media Training Blog.
  • Media Training

    Click here for more information about our customized media training workshops. To book a media training workshop, e-mail Info@PhillipsMediaRelations.com