Archive for category: Blog

For weeks now, politicians of all colours have been appearing on the big TV debates, ready to be interrogated in depth by the serious news interviewers out there – such as Laura Kuenssberg, Nick Robinson, and Julie Etchingham.

These programmes are a regular part of the build-up to a General Election, and politicians prepare for them rigorously, knowing that every word is being examined, scrutinised and analysed by newsrooms around the country (and sometimes the world), eager for a headline.

But there’s one type of arena in which politicians have to perform which is arguably even more difficult for them – and that’s the ‘soft’ TV entertainment show like BBC1’s The One Show, ITV’s Loose Women and Channel 4’s Sunday Brunch.

The reason it’s so tricky?

Because whilst professional politicians may feel at home in a challenging debate which feels similar to the environment of the House of Commons, they feel much less comfortable on a show where politics is rarely discussed. They know that in these appearances, the audience is used to a different diet of topics, and somehow they have to present their ‘real’ selves (whatever that may mean) in an authentic way.

This is a subject which came under discussion in a recent edition of the excellent podcast ‘The Rest Is Entertainment’, hosted by author and broadcaster Richard Osman and journalist Marina Hyde.

As Marina Hyde puts it, politicians realise “that kind of soft exposure can be as helpful, if not, more helpful, than hard news exposure – particularly now that mainstream news has been abandoned by so many people”.

In other words, in some respects, entertainment TV has become even more important during an election because it has an audience of people who do not normally care about the news or politics suddenly wanting to know what various politicians are really like.

Richard Osman agrees, saying “Elections are for politics what Wimbledon is for tennis. Literally, 85% of the population doesn’t care at all about politics… not because they’re idiots or anything; it’s not the thing that rings their bell… in the same way that most people are not interested in tennis, until suddenly Sue Barker pops up”.

But the problem is, the experience of being on an entertainment talk show feels like a “bear trap” where they are suddenly the “amateurs” rather than the “professional politicians” in the room. This ‘softer’ choice of outlet has form: Margaret Thatcher on Radio 2’s ‘Jimmy Young Show’ in 1975; Bill Clinton on Arsenio Hall’s TV show in 1992.

It’s a tricky balancing act – showing yourself to be interesting enough (or at least not boring, which is not quite the same thing), to justify your appearance on the comfy sofa, but not to be seduced into saying something so odd it becomes a negative headline. Think of Teresa May’s ‘naughtiest’ memory being ‘running through fields of wheat’, when interviewed in 2017.

“If you’re a man and you go on Loose Women”, adds Marina Hyde, “you have to say: ‘this is my scariest interview’… It’s electoral law. You have to say: ‘I’m terrified of this one’”. And with good reason. The curveball question to Rishi Sunak “Why do you hate pensioners?” on that very same programme was clearly not something he was expecting.

As Richard Osman explains, unlike entertainment guests, “politicians have no freedom to do or say anything…  They’ve got their party lines. And that doesn’t work if you’re going up against Judi Love and Janet Street-Porter… It’s not the rhythm of the conversation that you need to have.”

All of this means that this type of interview can become the most difficult politicians are likely to encounter. Suddenly, they are fishes out of water and they no longer know the rules. “Everyone I know who would be good on The One Show would be a bad Prime Minister,” says Richard Osman. “I don’t think you can do both; you have to choose.”

It’s a bit like the ‘funny’ question which used to appear at the end of every edition of Question Time. During their preparation for the show, politicians would spend a surprising amount of their time obsessing about the nature of the enquiry, and what the correct response would be.

“The issue that these politicians have:” explains Richard Osman, “they’ve grown up in an environment where every single show they go on is pretty much the same – and also goes out to pretty much the same audience… You’ve got this ridiculous dance – of something where it’s not a real interview. They know their line of attack; he knows his line of defence – and everyone who’s watching has made their mind up already, anyway. And that is so much of political broadcasting over the last 20 or 30 years: it’s a dance that everyone knows the moves to.”

But away from this environment, in programmes where entertainment guests are usually booked, the steps have changed. The dance becomes much more free form. Policy gives way to personality; charisma and authenticity are suddenly what the judges are looking for.

It could be argued that as neither Sunak nor Starmer are ‘natural’ TV performers, the reaction of viewers to their respective appearances is ‘fair’ – even if, in real life, they are both much more personable.

What we can say for sure is that whoever wins in the polls on Thursday, you can guarantee that the victor will not only have coped with the serious TV debates, but – just as importantly – will also have managed to handle the ‘soft’ entertainment shows too.

 

 

I heard a great interview this week with Mick Lynch of the RMT. He was a guest on the “When it hits the fan” with David Yelland (former Sun editor) and spin doctor Simon Lewis.

I have already made some observations about the Mick Lynch approach to media relations which can be summed up as: do not try and do it like he does. A quick summary of why comes at the end of this blog.

However, the thing that caught my ear from this interview is that Lynch mentioned in passing that he and his team at RMT prefer a live interview over a pre-record. I agree with this and have been pointing this out to those we train for years. Often,  saying this provokes surprise and disbelief. But I am sure on this Mick Lynch and I are both right.

While everyone is naturally scared of doing a live interview on a main media outlet where the audience is in the millions, it is actually much ‘safer’ than doing a pre-record. That is because once you are in control of yourself, everything you say will reach the audience.

If you think about the copy or the write-up of an interview conducted by a print journalist, only a small percentage of what is said will be read by the audience. What’s more, the journalist will have provided the context and the headline. In other words, someone else will have heavily curated the message the audience receives.

And even if you do a pre-record interview for radio or television, your journalist will have had time and opportunity to choose the bits that the audience hears. You don’t have to distrust the journalist or assign some evil intent to realise that you are handing over a great deal of control.

And that is the point Lynch was making. He prefers to do his interviews live. He can handle himself and he trusts himself to land the arguments he cares about. Of course, in the modern age, any live interview that is interesting will be recorded,  edited and used elsewhere, but at least the original version is somewhere on the record.

To give my quick summary of what else we learnt from the Podcast …an interview that is worth a listen …Lynch tells us he doesn’t prepare for interviews, he has no problem calling out (fighting with) a journalist, he doesn’t write a speech if he can avoid it and finds it impossible to memorise a speech. Instead, he relies on a lifetime of experience, regular practise at articulating arguments at union branch meetings and chatting with other members of what he is comfortable calling the ‘working class’.

No one could argue that this does not work, for him.

However, in my experience most business leaders do not have a very clear idea of what they want to communicate, they have a lifetime of experience in meetings with other highly educated and specialist colleagues and contemporaries. That ensures they will suffer hugely from the curse of knowledge, i.e. assuming everyone knows what they know, and assuming everyone understands the wider context as they see it.

Even if an inexperienced spokesperson navigates the curse of knowledge, anyone deemed to be in a privileged position is never going to win good coverage by fighting with a journalist.

Mick Lynch is articulate and entertaining. But, his is not a style to emulate unless you too have spent 50 years learning to boil everything down to simple arguments that all will understand.

If you feel you or your team would benefit from learning how to prepare for a media interview and should be taught all the tricks of the trade for managing the process, why not get in touch. Either call 020 7099 2212 to speak to me or email enquireis@themediacoach.co.uk

 

Images:
BBC Podcast

Mick Lynch, grab from YouTube

Catherine Princess of Wales made a very modern statement last week, to tell the world she is having chemotherapy, as cancer was found present in her recent surgery.

Rather than a written missive, the Princess casually dressed in a jumper, recorded a short video in a spring garden.

While it might not be obvious to the untrained eye, it is certain she was reading an autocue or teleprompter. It is very difficult to memorise such a long piece and deliver it without ‘hesitation, deviation or repetition’ (to quote the rules of BBC Radio 4’s Just a Minute.) She will have had her words appearing on a screen in front of the camera, invisible to the viewer but large and carefully scrolling to match the pace she is speaking.

Reading autocue is a lot more difficult than it sounds and ‘Kate’ as she is known to the world, did an excellent job. She has surely been coached.

We constantly advise people against trying to read autocue. It is just not something untrained people can do well. Learning to adlib around a set of bullet points is much easier for most.

A lot of the secret of good autocue delivery is in the writing. When you write for the ‘ear’ rather than for the ‘eye’ as my colleague Eric Dixon would put it, you need a different writing style. Shorter words, shorter sentences, and plenty of grammatical contractions, such as I’m, it’s and they’re, etc.

We can tell from the Royal statement that this was something very carefully written.

In breaking the news about her condition, she softens the blow by at first not using the word “cancer” as a noun, but instead as the adjective, “cancerous” – and even then in the negative, “non-cancerous”.

“In January I underwent major abdominal surgery in London, and at the time it was thought my condition was non-cancerous.”

Only once the subject has been introduced does she use ‘the C word’ as a noun, but in its past tense (“had been present”) and immediately after the positive results of the operation had been mentioned:

“The surgery was successful. However, tests after the operation found that cancer had been present.”

We think this is the work of a professional wordsmith, although the publicity says the Princess wrote the statement herself.

But even the excellent writing should not detract from the very smooth performance. Most people reading a script (or anything) aloud, cannot manage to do it with what is called in the trade ‘standard intonation’. I’ll let Eric Dixon explain:

The trouble with reading out loud is that the natural rise and fall of spoken English – the placing of stress and emphasis on certain words and not on others – tends to go out of the window. People often focus too much on the words they are reading, rather than the meaning that lies behind them.

But emphasis plays a massive part in making sentences make sense. Compare “I don’t want to go THERE” (which is objection to the chosen location) to “I don’t WANT to go there” (which shifts the emphasis to the desirability of the trip, but leaves open the suggestion that they had resigned themselves to going anyway, or might yet be persuaded).

When being read out loud, I’ve even heard “I don’t want TO go there” – which doesn’t make any sense at all!

Coupled with a speedier pace (people tend to read out loud faster than they would usually speak), this leaves a narrower ‘bandwidth’ for expression, leaving many speakers sounding more monotone than usual. The Princess of Wales manages to avoid all of these things, in what is a very assured performance.

In this video the intonation is perfect. Plus, we note this has been recorded in one take. No editing. It is easy to spot an edit in a video if you know what you are looking for, and there is none here. We are guessing this was considered important to avoid adding fuel to the crazy internet conspiracy theorists who had such a field day about the doctored family photo released on Mother’s Day.

Of course, we don’t know how many ‘takes’ Kate took to get it perfect. But perfect it was. Well done!

If you would like to learn how to write and read a script on autocue this is something we can help with. We can also teach you how to ad-lib a short speech using our Message House method. Just get in touch to discuss our various training offerings. Email enquiries@themediacoach.co.uk or ring +44 (0)20 7099 2212.