The F1's decision to go ahead with the Grand Prix in Bahrain is still contraversial

John Humphrys’ BBC Today Programme interview (this morning) with Fahad al-Binali, the Bahraini Information Authority Affairs spokesman provides some useful lessons for organisations that find themselves the subject of hostile media challenges.

What this interview tells us:

1. The Bahraini Government realises saying nothing is not an option.  This may sound like a no brainer but the act of putting spokespeople up to be grilled live on tough Western news programmes such as Newsnight and Today is a signal that the Bahraini government wants to be seen as being open and transparent.  Before you even get to working out what to say, the first decision that organisations need to take when in a tight spot is deciding who will talk, particularly as the Bahrain Grand Prix has been generating a huge amount of chat on Twitter.  In other words, in an age where saying nothing is not an option, going live with tough media inquisitors sends the signal that you understand why it’s important to be part of a process of engagement.

2. Strong messaging should form the basis of all interviews.
Despite how it may have sounded, this was not a reactive interview. Mr Fahad and his advisors had clearly spent some time working out what messages would leave a lasting impact on the audience and portray themselves as reasonable, moderate and open.  Two key messages were Bahrain is undergoing a process of human rights reform, and that there is a big difference between ‘violent assault’ and legitimate freedom of expression. But messages on their own aren’t enough. Mr Fahad had built his case using good ‘sizzle’ such as ‘sweeping institutional reforms’ ‘we have opened ourselves up to scrutiny’ and ‘positive action’ to make sure he got quoted in a favourable way. And lo and behold, the ‘positive action’ quote is the bit that got picked up by the BBC. Similarly, using numbers such as ‘100 cases of mistreatment’ and ’50 police’ added authority to Mr Fahad’s statements because they suggest he – or someone in his office – had bothered to find out details. Numbers are hugely important in media – they make things concrete: otherwise you are merely making wild assertions.

Fahad al-Binali, the Bahraini Information Authority Affairs spokesman

3. Showing that you are across the wider discussion makes you appear to be listening.  During his interview Mr Fahad made several references to how the Grand Prix controversy was being discussed on other media outlets. He referred to an Al Jazeera interview with David Frost and the leader of the Bahraini Opposition on 10 March and also to other reports on the BBC in which the journalist had mentioned that protestors were throwing molotov cocktails at police. Some people may view this as slick and controlling – a way to pre-empt criticism which, of course it is. But this is a legitimate tactic in media interviews and Mr Fahad was also discussing the criticisms not just batting them away. This is an important exercise, particularly in a  situation where his government (like many others in the Arab world) has been accused of not listening.

4. You can embrace your critics while maintaining your line.  Mr Fahad was unfailingly polite, came across as thoughtful rather than too polished and stood his ground while seeming open to discussing criticism. He used phrases such as ‘We do respect Amnesty International and human rights advocacy’, and attempted to pre-empt criticism with statements such as ‘Even the most liberal Western democracy would draw the line’ (at violent assault on policemen and molotov cocktails). At the same time he came across as tough by rejecting certain criticisms through the use of bold statements such as ‘an unfair assessment’ and ‘unjust allegation’.

These are just some of my observations. Mr Fahad was clearly helped in this scenario because John Humphrys was not at the top of his game – his questions were too general and he didn’t deliver any killer blows. But overall, Mr Fahad showed us that being a good spokesperson is as much about listening, hard work and discipline as it is about natural skill.

There is no doubt that Russians have taken to Facebook, Twitter and their Russian equivalents with unparalleled gusto. “I just don’t know when they find the time to actually get any work done,” one journalist marvelled.

Until December Social Media in Russia was mostly a social phenomenon

But until last December, this frenetic activity was largely a social phenomenon. Russian net-heads became world leaders at file-
sharing, hacking into other people’s computer networks, online pornography and other shady activities. But apart from embarrassing President Dmitry Medvedev by Tweeting an obscenity under his name, social media practitioners had no significant impact on public politics.

All that changed with December’s parliamentary elections, when widespread fraud in favour of the pro-Kremlin United Russia party caused outrage. While the state-controlled tv networks ignored the vote-rigging and the protests from monitors, NGOs, opposition politicians and ordinary voters, the new networks were buzzing.

The result was the biggest demonstrations in Russia for years as tens of thousands took to the streets of Moscow and other cities. The Kremlin was undoubtedly shaken. Eventually even national television decided to cover the protests.

December 2011 saw the biggest demonstration in Russian for years

For the first time discontented Russians had a forum, bypassing official media channels, where they could coalesce around a single theme and organise a mass protest movement free from state interference.

But the presidential election on March 4 will still end with a convincing victory for Vladimir Putin. Russia is not North Africa and whether the New Media will really make any difference in the medium and long term remains an open question.

According to a survey by comScore, Russian users of social media spend more than twice the world average of time online. They show dazzling skill and wit in creating jingles, cartoons, film clips and so on. They may not have invented too much in the virtual world, but Russian geeks follow developments in the outside world closely and are brilliant at adapting them.

In some ways, New Media could have been designed for Russia – a country with vast distances between cities, a highly literate population, appalling weather which makes straying outside an unattractive prospect for half the year and, above all, intrusive authorities.

The freedom and open access of user-generated content have given millions of Russians access to a new way of communicating about what happens inside and outside their country, shattering the monopoly of “the official version”.

It would be nice to think that this technological revolution would lead to a lasting political openness, a more multi-faceted and democratic universe. And there is no doubt that the recent protests have served a purpose; Vladimir Putin is having to fight a genuine election campaign, popular discontent is being aired.

But history cautions against too much optimism. Over the centuries Russia has zigzagged between liberal and authoritarian autocracies, opening and closing the spigot of democracy every generation or so. But there has always been a huge difference between what goes on in Moscow/St Petersburg, and what is permitted in the provinces.

The modern-day equivalent of this geographical control is national television. It was the first thing to be brought under the Kremlin thumb when the liberal period of Boris Yeltsin gave way to the more authoritarian atmosphere of the Putin era.

Central television news and current affairs coverage is technologically smart, entertaining and far from pure propaganda. But no serious challenge to the Kremlin’s world view is allowed, no criticism too effective, no political rival too convincing. So long as the scattered masses get their news from central tv, they will still vote for Putin and United Russia, let the Moscow elites huff and puff as they will.

As an observer, and a media trainer, it has been a mystery that the big beasts of the city to not apply their considerable brain power to managing the British media. Sure it is not easy: especially given the large amount of money each are paid.

But these guys are very, very bright. They do lots of things that are very difficult. And they are already professional communicators because that is what management, at the top level, is all about.

And surely one of the biggest risks to any bank today, is the public anger against the sector. Tackling this now has to be part of the job.

Stephen Hester, CEO RBS

Stephen Hester got a bloody nose when public opinion and the politicians made it impossible for him to get his modest (in banking terms) £963,000 bonus. RBS admitted it did not anticipate the storm and it was caught off guard. But a week later, instead up hiding behind the barricades, Stephen Hester has, it appears, decided to learn the rules of media engagement, and come out and face the world.

And this week he should feel very proud of himself. He has been interviewed by Evan Davies on Radio 4 Today programme and Andrew Marr this Sunday 26th February, and in both interviews he did very good job.

Let’s run through a quick check list of what Hester got right. He sounds decent and likeable. He does not use jargon. He talks about banking in a way the common man understands but without being patronising. He is humble, for example he admits there have been times when he considerd walking away from the job but added ‘everyone has days like that’. He has clear messages such as ‘we want to prove the critics wrong’, ‘we had to defuse the largest balance sheet time bomb ever assembled in history’ and ‘we started in a deep hole and we are clawing our way out’. But he doesn’t deliver them excessively.

As trainers that talk endlessly about use of metaphor, we enjoyed the perfection of those metaphors. But Hester also used some other great communication tricks. For example he makes great use of analogy. He says RBS has reduced the balance sheet by £700bn, equivalent to twice the debt of Greece.

We don’t know who trained Stephen Hester for those interviews but we are pretty sure he was trained. Listen to either as a layman and it sounds like a chat but it was no such thing. In both cases it was a job well done.

Scientists and journalists are often at loggerheads because their respective professions emphasise completely different skill sets. Scientists stress the importance of facts by amassing large amounts of evidence with which to support (or not) theories via painstaking experiment and replication. This is an anathema to the journalist who prefers the big picture, generalisations, snappy quotes, one or two facts, anecdotes and emotion.

As media trainers we  know that scientists care if their work is misunderstood by journalists (and the wider public) because we often come across talented people who claim all their problems would be solved if the public only understood ‘the facts’.   But the longevity of scare stories such as MMR and GM, combined with a massive drop in the number of European students choosing to study science, suggest that there is clearly something wrong with this approach in its current form.

We work with many different types of scientist  and the constant challenge is that ‘scientific fact’ is almost always communicated in a form that fails to connect with non-specialist audiences. Findings are often presented in chronological data sets which are often divorced from context or wider social impact.  Furthermore, results are often not clear cut, making them unpalatable to a hype-obsessed media and a scientifically illiterate public in possession of some contradictory views about what it means to accept ‘risk’ in their daily lives.

A group of African Americans with high blood pressure were able to control their condition better after hearing stories from fellow sufferers

Let’s be clear – of course facts are important for communication because they provide objective evidence and back up to any argument.  But there is a growing body of literature (think Chip and Dan Heath, Daniel Pink or Peter Guber) which suggests that storytelling is a powerful tool not only for making core messages memorable but also for persuading people to do things that scientific data alone can’t.  And by storytelling, I really do mean a narrative sequence of events with a clear beginning, middle and end.

A recent study monitored a group of African-Americans with high blood pressure who, as part of their treatment, listened to or watched stories of others with similar problems. After hearing how the characters in the stories were able to control their blood pressure through simple methods like being careful about their diet and taking exercise, they were able to control their illness as effectively as another group taking extra drugs for the condition.

Obviously this is just one case where a story may have been instrumental in changing the way patients responded to ‘treatment’ and changed their behaviour. But there are countless other ways – such as communicating the progress of trials or dispelling scares – where storytelling could be the scientist’s most powerful tool for persuading others of the realities behind an issue.

The world of science is full of incredible tales. But all too often they are buried because they are deemed ‘unscientific’.  Our prescription for better communication of science is first recognise that communicating with a general audience requires very different skills to writing an academic paper. Second, nurture and recognise the good communicators in your team or discipline (we find they are often persuaded to communicate less effectively by group pressure), and third, if its really important and you have the funds, hire people like us who can help you find and craft the stories that will make your data convincing.

Science is a human enterprise – and scientists could benefit hugely by remembering this when they need to communicate with the rest of us.

Laura Shields has been working with Robert Matthews, a science journalist, to develop media training workshops that help scientists of any persuasion to communicate powerfully and accurately, while also challenging opposition spin.

A piece in today’s Daily Mail perfectly illustrates the dilemma some of our clients face. Evidence based science versus emotion and quasi theology.

The headline sums it up:

The report is an apparently ‘balanced’ piece on the pros and cons of the open release of a genetically modified diamondback moth.

The Diamondback Moth

The moth has been developed by the company Oxitec, which has inserted a gene into the male that ensures, when it mates with a female in the wild, that their offspring die almost immediately, causing a sharply decreased population.

Oxitec claim the moth would boost crop yields for anyone growing cabbages, broccoli or cauliflower. The piece quotes a farmer arguing that the GM moth is preferable to a pesticide. If he has to spray a crop he kills all the insects, not just the moths.

The opposition voice comes from GeneWatch. It is not clear whether Dr Helen Wallace of GeneWatch actually used the word ‘Frankenmoth’ although the casual reader would assume she had:

‘Dr Helen Wallace, the director of GeneWatch UK, who has sat on government advisory bodies, said the release of GM ‘Frankenmoths’ is potentially disastrous.’

We suspect Frankenmoth is straight out of the Daily Mail sub-editors lexicon. As in the preceding quote which is unattributed:

‘The idea that man is ‘playing God’ in this way is also controversial.’

Again, this is a textbook anti-GM trope that gets wheeled out by lazy journalists whenever they want to push their readers’ buttons fast.

The attributed GeneWatch quotes go on to raise general alarm about the ecosystem, the interdependence of species and – just in case that did not build enough fear – Dr Wallace raises the spectre of the transmission of new diseases to humans.

But what is this all based on?

Growers of cabbage and other brassicas might benefit from an absence of moths

GeneWatch almost certainly has a good scientific argument behind their concerns but nothing approaching science is mentioned to bolster their case. It is unclear whether they have been selectively edited by the Mail or that they have learnt that when dealing with the media, science is irrelevant. It is emotion and spin that have impact. Whichever is correct, GeneWatch has a huge PR advantage because they know which scare articles will slot easily into people’s existing schema.

What goes for ‘Frankenmoth’ goes for countless other policy debates. But scientists can never be persuaded to use the tools of the spin doctor because that runs counter to everything they have ever learnt as scientists.

Fortunately, help is at hand. But scientists must understand that participating in a meaningful discussion which is accessible to a non-expert audience does not have to come at the expense of science. Programmes like Channel 4′s The Food Hospital which use gimmicks such as ‘The Bloatometer’ to measure the impact of diabetes on people’s waistlines are not to be aspired to. The public are not idiots – they are just not scientifically literate.

Metaphors and analogies are just two of the tools scientists can use to engage people quickly and clearly at an emotional level. They can then back this up with strong, well organised evidence that means something to the audience and helps people understand the scientific arguments. And they mustn’t be patronising about or dismissive of people’s fears.

Mastering these skills is not easy. But neither is it insurmountable.

It is essential that our scientists skill-up and learn to communicate on the same level as lobby groups. Otherwise, they will find themselves – and their profession – increasingly marginalised by a media, which promotes being entertaining over being right. This may be frustrating for scientists at a personal level but, left unchecked, it could be far more damaging for society in the long term.

Laura Shields has been working with Robert Matthews, a science journalist, to develop media training workshops that help scientists of any persuasion to communicate powerfully and accurately, while also challenging opposition spin.

So often, in message building or media training sessions, I am faced with a complicated concept that the client needs to explain to a non-specialist audience. This happens equally often, whether the training is focussed on business, science or engineering.

The answer is always a metaphor. Finding the right metaphor takes time and a willingness to think ‘outside the box’. But many serious people think playing with language in this way is not real work and a bit beneath them. They are so wrong.

Find the right metaphor, your story will tell itself, and you will greatly increase the stickiness of what you say.

[Stickiness itself is a metaphor and used comprehensively by Malcolm Gladwell in his book, Tipping Point. It was picked up and expanded by one of my favourite business books, Made to Stick, by Chip and Dan Heath.]

The current financial crisis is complex, esoteric and hard for normal people to get their heads around. In such a case metaphors are not just useful but essential to communicate understanding.

Visual representation of the 'good ship euro'

So from this week’s Economist magazine:
‘The designers of the good ship euro wanted to create the greatest liner of the age. But as everybody now knows, it was fit only for fair-weather sailing, with an anarchic crew and no lifeboat. Its rules of economic seamanship were rudimentary, and were broken anyway. When it struck a reef two years ago, the water flooded one compartment after another’.

In a detailed and considered piece by the economist Gavyn Davies over the weekend, the various possible routes for the break up of the euro are discussed.

Economist Gavyn Davies is happy to reach for a metaphor

He concludes:
‘Once investors start to look over this precipice in earnest, the resulting stampede out of all euro-denominated assets could become self-fulfilling.’

Michael Portillo was last week musing about the options facing the UK government:
Mr. Osborne has to weigh up whether our felicitous standing in the markets is a prize won at enormous cost that it would be folly to sacrifice, or whether lenders are pleading with him to borrow more and stoke recovery.

This week Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, pleaded for Germany to act to save the European Union from ‘a crisis of apocalyptic proportions’.

Poland's Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski

The OECD, on the release of figures showing much reduced forecasts for economic growth, called on European Leaders to provide ‘credible and large enough firepower’ to stop the sell-off in Eurozone bonds.

An unnamed Italian bank executive spoke about the political pressure he was facing not to sell Italian bonds. He is quoted in the Wall Street Journal: ‘we know that if we reduce our exposure we’ll be killed by the Italian Treasury’.

In the same article an unnamed ECB official explained that political pressure by saying ‘banks can’t take the oxygen from the economy’.

Do not shun metaphors: find the right one and it will do much of your work for you.

The lead story in the FT today illustrates perfectly the competitive market for expert quotes. As ever, I am ignoring the importance of the actual story and just using it as a case study to show how journalists think about quotes. For many getting quoted, especially in the FT, isn’t just for fun but has a real PR value.

FT reports on a big day in the bond markets

Today’s FT story, which was put together by two journalists is headlined ‘Eurozone Bonds hit by mass sell-off ‘. The journalists have noted big market movements and rung round ‘all the usual suspects’ for insightful comment. Here are the ’expert’ quotes in order of their appearance. I am ignoring quotes from political players.

Neil Williams, Chief economist at Hermes, the UK fund manager:
“Markets are losing patience so they are going for the jugular, which is the core countries and not the periphery.”

Neil Williams, Chief Economist, Hermes

And: “There is convergence but it is convergence on the weakest.”

Mike Riddell of M&G called it:
“Probably the most worrying day of the crisis.”

Paul Griffiths, global head of fixed income at Aberdeen Asset Managers:
“We don’t want exposure to the periphery and we are wary of buying anything in the Eurozone in these markets.”

And one unnamed trader:
“It is really scary…Everyone is liquidating in the Eurozone bond markets…Everyone is heading for the door.”

A big day on the bond markets

Four quotes: the question that any student of PR or media studies should ask is why did they appear in this order?

Immediately it’s apparent that Neil Williams takes the prize and the top slot in the article for including the words ‘going for the jugular’. He also uses a nice play on words with ‘convergence on the weakest’.

Mike Riddell does not use jargon. “The most worrying day of the crisis” is clearly heartfelt, and it is colloquial, but not quite as colourful as his colleague at Hermes.

Paul Griffiths similarly plays a straight bat although he does the classic thing of saying things first in professional conceptual language with ‘we don’t want exposure to the periphery’ and then flipping into colloquialism with ‘we are wary of buying anything’. If you are uncomfortable being colloquial on professional subjects, and many people are, this is a good compromise.

From the journalist’s point of view the trader’s comments are less valuable because they are anonymous. But they are graphic so do make it into the final cut.

There were almost certainly other comments collected but not used because they were expressed in market speak, without metaphor or emotion.

Journalists of course also take into account who is speaking: how well known they are and, related to that, what is the reputation of the organisation they are working in.

But, if you want to get quoted, colourful use of language is key.

EU Leaders’ Summits are the embodiment of this phenomenon. Even in difficult times such as these, when the future of the euro is in question, news management is nonetheless heavily weighted in favour of embattled and image conscious Prime Ministers rather than journalists.

Prime Minister David Cameron & President Nicolas Sarkozy

The main reason is that these summits are invariably dull and require journalists to understand how to make the most of limited access to politicians. Ahead of last weekend the major sticking points on the euro crisis were between France’s President Sarkozy and Germany’s Angela Merkel. So journalists looking for a quote from one of these two know and understand their PR operations. Hence, seasoned Brussels hacks without an obvious in to Merkel’s camp still know that she always speaks in German and always makes a beeline for the German broadcasters on arrival or departure.

Anyone who wants to get their on-camera soundbite therefore needs to turn up early (sometimes as much as 3 hours), get a good spot next to ZDF or ARD , wait until Merkel appears and press ‘record’ as she delivers a short prepared statement and one or two follow up questions. Never mind that these statements are often torturous policy-heavy utterances which are near impossible to translate (even for Germans) and, even then, make James Joyce read like a Mr Men story. The fact is, journalists need these clips to inject colour into otherwise pictureless stories, especially when so much of the action is taking place off stage or in drab briefing rooms.

Managing The Media

Even more helpful for students of news management is the tactic of political aides to plant a question with a friendly journalist, who they know is ambitious and keen to make their mark. I once had the displeasure of seeing a former colleague (a UK political correspondent, as opposed to one of the Brussels press corps) ask David Cameron ‘What should Europe be doing to spend less of our (the UK’s) money?”. He was clearly injected because he only appeared in the press scrum about 2 minutes before Cameron arrived, and the PM’s press team made no secret of the fact that Cameron would get out of the car and head straight for the side of the press area he was waiting in.

PR tactics such as these help portray politicians as calm in the face of the world’s media and in control of their message even as a thousand video cameras and digital recorders are waved in their faces. From a journalistic perspective it can be a depressing experience but it’s one we accept as part of the deal. For good PR teams they are gold dust when it comes to managing the media.