Much of our work with clients focuses on building key messages and developing the techniques to say them powerfully, along with presenting the evidence to make sure they are clear, credible and memorable.
However, we also concentrate on the use of language – not only getting rid of jargon, but also demonstrating how it can play a significant part in framing what the participants of any debate are talking about.
Farage accuses BBC of ‘dishonesty’ in the way it uses word ‘Europe’
His complaint was that the broadcaster was using “Europe” as shorthand in discussions about the forthcoming vote, saying that to do so benefits the ‘In’ campaign. His point was that the phrase ‘European Union’ can be something of a toxic label for voters, so using ‘Europe’ instead can help soften the blow for those in the pro-EU camp.
Europe not EU
Private polling suggests Farage is right: voters seem to have less of an issue with the name of the land mass than the political organisation. It’s no doubt why ‘In’ campaign leader Stuart Rose repeatedly used the word ‘Europe’ in his launch address. It’s also explains why an email from pro-EU campaigner Laura Sandys called on supporters of Britain remaining a member to “always talk about Europe rather than EU”.
Importance of language
Whether you agree with Mr Farage’s opinions or not, the very fact that an individual phrase has become the subject of contention indicates just how important language is in shaping what is being discussed.
Less experienced interviewees than Mr Farage may not find it as easy to spot how the terms of reference can influence the issues under discussion. In short, to see the whole picture clearly, it’s important to check the frame.
https://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/16486626570_248f28ccbe_m-e1445955335673.jpg300450Eric Dixonhttps://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-media-coach-logo-300x137.pngEric Dixon2015-10-27 14:45:092020-09-14 08:10:25Farage reminds us the ‘frame’ of an argument is crucial
A new phrase has crept into the British political reporters’ lexicon – to Flip-Flop. The phrase has come from the US and it means to say one thing one week and something different the next.
Flip-Flops and U-Turns
Flip-Flop has a whole new meaning
This used to be called a U-turn, a phrase that regularly made the headlines in the eighties. As a journalist, spotting a change in a publicly stated position still instantly provides an angle and a headline. I stumbled across this quote from Bernard Ingham, Thatcher’s chief press secretary, who suggested in PR Week fifteen years ago that U-turns deserved a whole chapter in any book on political PR.
“I spent the first two and a half Thatcher years playing spot-the-U-turn with the Lobby until she told her party conference: ‘You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning’. That didn’t stop ’em looking for one but it did slightly reduce the expectation.”
Clinton Flip-Flop
In the US Hillary Clinton is getting a lot of Flip-Flop headlines. She is said to have changed her mind on at least three key points during her run for President: whether she supports illegal immigrants being allowed drivers’ licenses, whether she supports a trade deal called TPP and whether she opposes same-sex marriage: all changes widely dubbed a Flip-Flop.
McDonnell Stumbles
In the UK John McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor won the Flip-Flop headline and a lot of stick for firstly saying Labour should support the government’s Fiscal Charter and then deciding it should not. (For those that have missed this bit of political theatre the bill enshrines in law the principle that the government must maintain a budget surplus in ‘normal times’.)
McDonnell wins the Flip-Flop headline
The PR Rules
If you are in the public-eye, changing your mind about something of substance always carries the risk of the U-turn/Flip-Flop headline. And yet of course leaders, both business and political, can and should change their minds, it would be a crazy world if they didn’t.
As PR people know, such changes just need to be managed carefully.
Rule number one is, avoid making pronouncements which you may have to change later: I am often suggesting to clients that are not quite so definite about something, if its not crucial to the story then why provide this ‘hostage to fortune’. I would also caution against making up a policy in the middle of an interview! Sounds unbelievable but happens all the time. I have several examples in mind but would be breaking client confidentiality to share.
Secondly, if you are going to change your mind, plan it and explain it in a coherent and open way.
Managed U-Turns
The news this week gave us just such an example: a carefully stage-managed U-turn. President Obama held a news conference to explain his change of heart on his plans to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. He still got the odd Flip-Flop headline – or indeed in a new iteration ‘Flips’ in the Huffington Post, but mostly the story was not used as evidence of a weak and indecisive president.
Negative reporting is reduced if you go public on your own timetable, and provide a reasoned argument. It also helps if some time has elapsed between any original pronouncements and the reversal. McDonnell did explain his change of heart to the House of Commons but the fact that it was just a couple of weeks after the first announcement, meant it was his ‘Flip-Flop’ rather than the bill itself that got all the headlines. As in this example from The Guardian.
Flip Flop picture courtesy of clourblindPICASO under a Creative Comms licence.
https://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/flip-flop.jpg482643Lindsay Williamshttps://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-media-coach-logo-300x137.pngLindsay Williams2015-10-20 13:48:442017-06-23 07:08:48How to manage a Flip-Flop
Lindsay Williams (the only blonde head) in rural Ethiopia where she was visiting land management projects
Every now and then someone wants to hijack a media training session with a detailed discussion about why journalists are as they are; why newspapers and broadcasters obsess about celebrity and the royal family, for example, when there are more important things to be writing about. Another often-heard complaint is that so much journalism is negative, whining, knocking or finding fault. My stock reply to this is ‘All planes land safely at Heathrow today’, is not a headline or a news story because this is what happens almost every day and it is what the public would expect. One plane crashing is out of the ordinary, shocking even, and therefore is to be written about. In fact, I see news as the professional and hopefully trustworthy version of gossip.
But the negative bias in news does sometimes have ‘unexpected consequences’. As many of you know I work a lot with one major UN agency, which is very close to my heart. As a team we have almost a dozen humanitarian clients (Laura has a lot more of this in Brussels than we do in London, and Oliver Wates knows more about international development than most professional aid workers).
Oliver in the classroom in Addis Ababa
As a result we are aware of the huge progress that is being made across the globe in ending poverty, fighting hunger, promoting equality and health and getting children into school. There are of course huge exceptions. Anywhere where there is a war, everything goes backwards, from Syria to South Sudan. The problem I see is that most people don’t realise how much progress is being made. The negative bias in the reporting means most people think the global situation is dire and getting worse. How many people know for example that Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, now has a modern light railway or tram system. On the bigger picture, here is a piece from the BBC reporting on this week’s World Bank figures showing extreme poverty across the globe has fallen to below 10%. And here is another piece from the Guardian, which is more mixed but tries to audit the success of the international Millennium Development Goals. They were set in 2000, signed up to by all member countries of the United Nations and 23 international organisations and end this year. Although not all goals have been met, there are some spectacular successes. The MDGs, as they are affectionately known, are about to be replaced by the SDGs – or Sustainable Development Goals. And there is plenty of negative reporting about those. The negative news bias means the good news on development is almost hidden. Meanwhile all those agencies raising money for development projects feel they need to emphasise the bad. I think this is a worldwide strategic mistake. We in the developed world mostly suffer compassion fatigue and feel the situation is hopeless. Whereas if everyone realised we are nearly there – it is entirely possible to have a world in which no one dies of starvation, most children survive beyond their 5th birthday and every child goes at least to primary school – we might all feel more energised for the last big push. The solution: I recommend all videos by one of our heroes, the Swede Hans Rosling. They should be compulsory viewing for all of us who care about current affairs. If you have never watched a TED talk by Rosling, start today with this one and work backwards.
Journalists will continue to write “interesting” stories about disaster, suffering and conflict and less often highlight the dull reality of constant improvements and gradual progress. That is not going to change in our lifetime. But we as consumer of news need to remember that is not the whole story.
https://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/The-cost-of-negative-bias-when-good-news-is-not-newsworthy-.jpeg12001600Lindsay Williamshttps://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-media-coach-logo-300x137.pngLindsay Williams2015-10-06 13:50:052020-09-14 08:00:03The cost of negative bias: when good news is not newsworthy
Dame Zaha Hadid is a giant in the world of architecture; the most famous woman in a male-dominated profession, she is one of its three-four best-known names. Her ambitious, tradition-shattering designs are famous – or infamous, depending on taste – around the world. She has won every top accolade in the profession, capped now with the Royal Institute of British Architects’ Gold Medal.
Zaha Hadid
As a result, last week, she was invited onto BBC’s “Today” ( to listen click to 2hrs 35 minutes into the show, but it’s only available until 23rd October). The programme is a major agenda-setter for news junkies, and the interview was in honour of her Gold Medal. For someone so feted, and experienced, you would think she would be prepared for the occasion. Apparently not.
The interview was something of a car crash, ending with the celebrated architect declaring “Let’s stop this conversation right now, I don’t want to carry on” and terminating the conversation.
Dame Zaha had failed to prepare. Here are some of the preparations she failed to make.
Key Message
This interview is a stunning opportunity to address a highly influential audience. Dame Zaha is a fascinating person and may have had a really interesting idea or campaign to share. We will never know because she was entirely reactive. The first question, on discrimination against women in architecture, should have been easy to exploit. But she had no strong message, wavering between saying that things had got much better and that prejudice was still a problem. On this latter angle, she declared: “I don’t have any examples”, squashing the subject flat on the spot.
Hard Questions
British journalists are renowned for giving tough interviews – it’s part of the “macho” culture of the media here. Dame Zaha has had plenty of brushes with controversy in her distinguished career so even here, on an occasion for celebration and congratulation, she might have expected a hostile question or two. When it duly came – deaths of workers in Qatar – she was clearly unprepared.
Dealing with Death
Dame Zaha has a strong argument – the deaths occurred before the start of construction of the stadium designed by her practice. But instead of stating this clearly and calmly, she angrily denied any connection between her project and the deaths, pointing out that allegations on these lines had been withdrawn after she threatened to sue. While expressions of sympathy would have been ideal the lawyers are always advising against such things, but Dame Zaha could at least have prepared some phrases about how seriously her company took the welfare of workers in Qatar.
Twitter reaction to the interview was mixed
Media-friendly Style
“Today” has a relatively leisurely pace by the standards of current affairs programmes, but it still operates at a level of intensity far above normal conversation. Interviewees have to say what they want to say in two-three sentences, even when the matter is complex. Dame Zaha was asked about the failure of her bid for an Olympic stadium in Tokyo and was still listing the members of the jury after 30 seconds. Inevitably she was cut off. She had not prepared a short and media-friendly version of events.
Keeping Cool
Finally she lost her temper. She argued with the interviewer, complained about being cut short, and in the end declared the interview over. To do Dame Zaha justice, the interviewer did not seem in total command of the facts and the emphasis on controversies of the past may have seemed to some excessive. In fact, the BBC has since apologised for factual errors in their questions.
The resulting headlines were all about Dame Zaha Hadid “storming out” of a BBC interview and not about celebrating one of the great creative figures of our time, or about any other theme – discrimination in architecture, planning restrictions, the direction of modern architecture, etc – she could have chosen to highlight.
This commentary is not to criticise Dame Zaha Hadid, the architect. She is a genuine star and behaved in a natural way that everyone can sympathise with.
But her failure to prepare properly for this interview turned it into a disaster. Any competent media trainer would have had her delivering strong Key Messages in a concise and media-friendly format, calm and measured responses to hostile questions, and the patience to deal with badly-briefed interviewers.
Leading figures in public life, not just business and politics, need to take note.
https://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Zaha-Hadid1.jpg600479Oliver Wateshttps://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-media-coach-logo-300x137.pngOliver Wates2015-09-29 13:50:342020-09-11 08:01:17The P Word
In the digital age, should PRs still bother putting their spokespeople up for interviews with journalists from the traditional media?
As Lindsay has blogged previously, you don’t have to look too far to find statistics that confirm how the proliferation of new media is eroding the business model and audience share of more traditional rivals. And, it’s also not hard to see why many organisations use social media to bypass journalists, particularly if an issue is contentious or they simply want to put a message out directly to the public.
That said, here are four reasons why talking to traditional journalists on the record should still have a place in your communications strategy.
1. Third party credibility
With trust in corporations and politicians (and to be fair, some of the media) very low, the fact that a spokesperson is prepared to put themselves up for a two-way grilling shows a willingness (or appearance of willingness) to take questions publicly. This is enormously valuable for credibility, as it shows the exchange is not self generated corporate or sponsored puff masquerading as objective news. There’s a reason it’s called earned media..
2. Catharsis
Likewise, in a crisis, companies who put their CEO’s up for a mea culpa interview often do a much better job limiting damage to their brand, provided the CEO plays by the rules i.e. appears to be genuinely empathetic, follows the crisis messaging formula and doesn’t say anything stupid that will wreck the share price.
3. Audiences – bigger and more specialist
There may be more information outlets out there but many traditional journalists and news organisations also have big social media followings, meaning that if they tweet quotes or clips of their interview with your spokesperson, there’s an increased chance of it being shared and seen more widely. This is very helpful, not least because many organisations don’t have big or active enough digital communities to multiply a message effectively through their own social media channels. We also shouldn’t forget that we’re in a transition phase – many people, particularly older consumers or elite audiences still get their news and information predominantly through more traditional or niche outlets.
4. Profile building
An interesting recent analysis by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism showed that the relationship between social and traditional media is complex and symbiotic. Stories frequently begin life on social media or sharing sites such as Reddit but it often takes the pick up and ‘coronation’ by traditional journalists for a story to really make it into the mainstream. Likewise, social media pundits with big digital followings get a huge visibility boost once they get noticed by what is often still perceived as the Premier League of traditional media. And of course, the great thing about the social media/media interplay is that it’s measurable in terms of click-throughs and numbers of impressions related to an article.
My guess is that traditional media relations (particularly radio and TV) will continue to play a substantial, if not quite as important role in most PR’s communications strategies for a while yet.
What’s your strategy as a PR? Is the traditional media still important for you or are you focusing more on digital?
https://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/important-of-traditional-media-interviews.jpg540750Laura Shieldshttps://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-media-coach-logo-300x137.pngLaura Shields2015-09-22 13:46:532021-05-30 11:46:474 reasons traditional media interviews should still be part of your PR strategy
Judging from some of the conversations I’ve been having with people on Twitter, I have been unfair to the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, because I wanted him to deliver his State of the Union speech in an engaging and convincing manner.
When I make comments like this, people in Brussels often assume that this is somehow a dig at the speaker’s English (which is usually perfect) and that I should cut them some slack because they are often talking in their third or fourth language.
So before I start this blog in full I want to make a number of things clear.
I am in awe of people who work in several languages
As a Brit who works almost exclusively in her mother tongue and speaks passable (but not professional) French and Spanish, I know how hard it is to work at an effective and nuanced level in other languages.
Doing speeches in multi-lingual environments is tough
This is partly because of language but also genuine cultural differences which exist over what makes an authoritative public speaker. Personally I think speeches should be banned from EU policy environments because they don’t add anything and almost all policymakers do better when taking questions rather than delivering set piece speeches which they aren’t good at.
I don’t want everyone to sound like Tony Blair
Or Angelina Jolie.
Far from it. I want them to be the best possible version of themselves if they are going to convince an audience to listen to their message. This does not make me superficial and unduly fixated on metaphors. Nor does it mean I overlook substance in favour of rhetorical flourish (whatever that is). Rather, it means I accept that all public speaking is an exercise in creating and sustaining a convincing connection with an audience over a set period of time. The Greeks knew this thousands of years ago when they were using speechmaking to cement ‘democracy’ in Athens. And not being boring matters more than ever in the increasingly impressionistic digital age we now live in.
So, caveats aside, the speech was a game of two halves. It was beautifully crafted, with lovely soundbites, great numbers and sticky stories but delivered in such a flat and listless way that it made me want to put a biro through my eyeball.
Quite simply, you wouldn’t have known this was the make or break speech it had been trailed as.
Juncker’s well written State of the Union was undermined by his flat delivery
The Good
– Beautifully written: lots of sizzling soundbites such as ‘There is a lack of Europe in Europe and a lack of union in the European Union’ and ‘Europe cannot house all the world’s misery’. Chapeau to Juncker’s speechwriters, who have done a very good job in focusing the content on the audience.
– Great numbers – such as 20mn Poles live outside Poland – helped create a strong narrative arc and context for discussing the refugee crisis.
– Strong storytelling and examples to help make the speech visual and real. There was also very little jargon. Good, good, good.
The Bad
Just one major point: the delivery was flat with terrible energy and no light or shade (in all three languages, not just English). This is not a language issue. It’s a performance issue. No speaker will be convincing if they do not seem interested in and engaged by their own subject. Most of us have to fake energy and enthusiasm when it comes to public speaking. It does not mean you have to be a fake to do it.
I am a broken record on the energetic delivery point. I cannot emphasize this enough. You can have the best or worst content in the world but if you have no ooomph as a speaker then you will always fail to ignite or even connect with your audience.
A strong speech certainly helps. But performance, passion and conviction are everything
https://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/juncker1.jpg225225Laura Shieldshttps://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-media-coach-logo-300x137.pngLaura Shields2015-09-09 13:59:532020-09-13 07:49:16Juncker disappoints: We want more from EU speakers
On Wednesday 9th September, Jean-Claude Juncker will deliver his first State of the Union (#SOTEU) speech as President of the European Commission.
Despite being a comparatively recent addition to the EU’s political calendar (the SOTEU was introduced less than a decade ago), in its short life the speech has nonetheless managed to attract the kind of political sniping and rhetorical mockery (gentle or otherwise) that is usually reserved for much higher profile events.
To tune in to this have a look at some of the fun Jon Worth (euro blogger and creator of JunckerBullsh*tBingo) and Craig Winneker (a journalist at Politico EU) have been having ahead of the speech.
In a way, these digital digs are a backhanded acknowledgement that the SOTEU has ‘arrived’ as an event. But behind the perennial moans about mutated metaphors, stiff delivery and awful Eurish phrases lies a broader point – doing public speaking well in multi-lingual environments is fiendishly hard.
More broadly, what continues to amaze me about Brussels is that despite the amount of money sloshing around in communications and public affairs, very little gets spent on improving the actual quality of public speaking. And much of it is really quite awful.
Unfortunately, it’s also prolific – a partial inversion of Woody Allen’s 1977 Annie Hall Joke in which his comedian Alvy Singer tells the following anecdote:
‘There’s an old joke – um… two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ’em says, “Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.” The other one says, “Yeah, I know; and such small portions.”‘
Only in Brussels, the portions are big.
Doing public speaking well in multi-lingual environments is tough
I am not going to go into detail about the reason for the bad public speaking – although it does have to do with some non-natives speaking in their second or third language and a political culture that has long divorced policy expertise and substance from performance, as well as the fact that many policy experts are not natural orators.
However, whether it’s a roundtable, keynote speech, expert panel or Parliamentary hearing, there is no excuse for boring your audience to tears and leaving them hating you and your organisation.
So, here are a few tips specifically aimed at those who have to write or deliver speeches for EU policy audiences.
The speaker must put themselves in the audience’s shoes
Remind your speaker that a speech is a piece of theatre and that their job is to keep the audience’s attention throughout. No one can or should assume that an audience will be persuaded by or remember a piece of text that has been read in a dull and passionless way. This does not mean they have to turn into Laurence Olivier but it does mean getting your speaker to acknowledge that more is expected of them than simply turning up to read a speech that could otherwise have been e-mailed. If it means getting them into the ‘zone’ 10 minutes beforehand by taking them to a quiet room and going through the opening paragraphs, then do it. It can make all the difference for concentrating the mind on the task ahead.
Play to your speaker’s strengths
Not all cultures favour boldness in public speaking. Many take a more low-key approach and if your speaker is of the humble variety then work with it. If they are uncomfortable using imagery, tricolons or other kinds of rhetorical devices, don’t fight to include them while the text is being prepared. It will look much worse if they are clearly uncomfortable during the speech and it is your job to make them feel comfortable with the material, not to turn them into something they aren’t. But jargon should be removed and I think relevant anecdotes and examples work well for all personality types and should be included, provided they are authentic.
Help them improve eye-contact
Break the speech up into chunks and consider organising it onto numbered index cards rather than pages. Ideally, each card should only have one or two paragraphs on it but I appreciate this may be too radical for some. Breaking up the text not only helps the speaker to make appropriate pauses and allow the audience to digest but also encourages them to look up because they have fewer words to read on the page.
Highlight key phrases
Embolden keywords that you want the audience to take away from the speech. Add the verbal connectors such as ‘for example’ or ‘however’ to introduce new ideas. You could also write (PAUSE) and (BREATHE) at the points where you want your speaker to pause for effect or to allow the audience some space before introducing new ideas.
Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse
Get your speaker to rehearse several times, ideally on camera, then playback their performance and give honest but constructive feedback (if you can’t be that person then get someone who can be honest with the speaker). If they aren’t convinced that rehearsal is essential, getting them to look at the hard evidence of the videotape can make all the difference. It will also help to weed out fast or monotonous delivery, as well as words that are hard to pronounce or get lost if the speaker has a particularly strong accent.
Less is usually more
Mid career many of us are expected to speak in public
Not many speakers can hold an audience’s attention for as long as they think they can. Just because you know a lot about a subject does not mean that you have to say it all on every occasion. Persuade your speaker to make the point he or she wishes to make, with power and passion, and then sit down.
These are just a few tips. What others do you have?
https://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Brussels-Speaking2.jpg302398Laura Shieldshttps://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-media-coach-logo-300x137.pngLaura Shields2015-09-08 13:42:272020-09-14 08:04:10The Brussels challenge: how to deliver better speeches
The macho interviewing style of Jeremy Paxman and John Humphrys was called into question last week by the softly-spoken BBC star journalist Evan Davis. A bullying, hyper-aggressive approach, he said in an interview with the news site Byline.com, had been fresh and useful once, but had become worn out.
Arms race
Davis argues in Byline.com that a macho approach to interviewing has had its day
“It’s just made an arms race where politicians become more defensive and instead of making gaffes they just sound obfuscatory and boring,” he said.
There’s no question that the Paxman style – which you might caricature as “you’ve all got something to hide and I’m going to bully it out of you” – has made great entertainment over the years. Arrogant politicians, civil servants, businessmen and other public figures have been made to answer, on live television, for every detail of their actions and the consequences. It has certainly concentrated the mind.
But public opinion has moved on and Davis’ remarks will have hit a chord. As he pointed out to Byline.com: “it’s not really a public service to try and trip someone into a gaffe or get them to say something … in order to then blow it up into something which isn’t really what they meant.”
Less confrontational approach
A less confrontational approach – as practised by Davis himself – is far more effective at weedling out truly interesting material. In any case, these days most senior public figures will have armed themselves against the heavy bombardment threat with preparation and practice, before agreeing to appear in front of the camera.
Fear of Paxman-style cuffing up is what turns many executives to media training
Fear of a Paxman-style duffing-up is what turns many executives to media trainers. We certainly train our clients to cope with the former Newsnight presenter’s interviewing style as one extreme of the techniques you are likely to face, and we include some aggressive questioning in our practice sessions.
And there is no doubt that being prepared and trained to fend off this kind of blustering assault is an essential part of preparation for a media interview. But in reality the greater challenge to senior executives and politicians is elsewhere – how to be interesting.
Clear explanations, good examples
The vast majority of media interviewers are not interested in humiliating or embarrassing their targets, unless there is a real matter of substance involved; they need clear explanations, simple facts and good examples and an answer which says something their audience wants to hear. They are happy to cooperate if you can deliver that.
For most interviewees, the challenge is working out how to make your message interesting, how to find stories to illustrate it, and how to ditch the jargon and waffle for good clear English. That’s actually much tougher than simply keeping Jeremy Paxman at bay.
https://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Evan-Davies.jpg435624Oliver Wateshttps://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-media-coach-logo-300x137.pngOliver Wates2015-09-01 14:05:052017-06-23 06:07:45Aggressive interviewing goes out of fashion
Whatever the outcome of the Labour leadership debate, Jeremy Corbyn, the rank outsider, a Labour type familiar from the 1970s and 1980s, has grabbed all the headlines and given the socialist left an unlikely hero to rally around.
Jeremy Corbyn has a calm considered communication style
Firstly and crucially Corbyn scores off-the-scale on authenticity. He is a vegetarian and teetotaller and has been an outspoken left-winger all his career. Often in his 32 years as an MP he has been a thorn in the side of the party establishment – speaking out consistently against the tide of New Labour. This consistency and his length of service show clearly that he is not in the politics game for the money or self-aggrandisement. He says repeatedly that the campaign is not about him, it’s about giving a voice to people who think society can be run differently.
Authenticity: the ‘big idea’
Authenticity is a big buzzword in PR at the moment. Post the banking crisis, PR people looking for a new ‘big idea’ are latching on to the notion that 21st century super brands need to be about more than making money. Brands, it seems, now need to demonstrate they are working for the public good. Whilst there is room for cynicism here, it is clear that there is a backlash, particularly amongst millennials, against the perceived greed of bankers and money-men. It’s clear the consensus of capitalism is being eroded. Here is a piece from PR Week last year that addresses this trend.
Corbyn does not dodge questions
Corbyn’s authenticity is therefore catching the public zeitgeist. And it is very evident in the way he conducts interviews. He does not dodge questions. He seems very comfortable with his record on controversial subjects such as being ‘friends’ with Hamas, wanting to talk to Sinn Fein back in the 1990s and the fact that he would prefer the UK to be a republic with no Royal Family. He always accepts these things before moving on to what he wants to say.
Calm and considered
Corbyn thinks Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes
Secondly, the Corbyn style is always calm and considered and never vitriolic. He may be suggesting that Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes but he does it quietly and in a way that deliberately avoids making it personal: ‘all those who made decisions that were illegal should be prosecuted.’ He is happy to work with people who disagree with him. He repeatedly defuses tension in an interview by being quietly spoken and reasonable. (Compare this to Liz Kendall’s response to being asked about how she managed her weight. Something my colleague blogged about last month.) He also constantly insists political debate should not be personal.
Corbyn makes more use of specifics
Thirdly, analysing what Corbyn says versus the other candidates, there is much more use of specifics. He doesn’t lose sight of the big picture, ‘We need a fairer society’, but he backs it up quickly with detail ‘we need to reboot council house building and cap private rents’. he is particularly fond of reciting the specifics of his experience on a particular topic. Interestingly he doesn’t use numbers very often but he does dive down to specifics much more readily than his rivals. This makes his arguments convincing and it plays into the authenticity card.
This calm, detail focussed style is in stark contrast to what most people think of as good political rhetoric but again Corbyn seems to be catching a mood. Many people don’t trust politicians, are scathing of spin and are quick to assume anyone is self-serving. Many more have felt disenfranchised by the political system and now suddenly feel their moment has come.
Win or lose Jeremy Corbyn is teaching us all something important about post- crisis Britain.
[Pictures are used under a creative commons licence via flickr, the Corbyn picture was taken by Gary Knight.]
https://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Corbyn-CC-Gary-Knight-.jpg696926Lindsay Williamshttps://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-media-coach-logo-300x137.pngLindsay Williams2015-08-25 13:41:392017-06-23 06:52:39Corbyn, Authenticity and the New Mood
People are always overly worried about what to wear if they are to be interviewed on television so here are a few simple guidelines.
Don’t let the image distract
The overarching principle is don’t let your image distract from your message. We train business people to do media interviews so in our world punk hairstyles, piercings, revealing clothes or garish colours would only get in the way of a message. The audience would be commenting or thinking about the image rather than engaging with the argument.
Guidelines for men
– Typically male interviewees wear a suit.
– Some prefer a shirt and tie with no jacket, some a jacket and shirt with no tie. Most normal is jacket and tie. Which you chose will depend on the type of organisation you represent.
– Wearing a tie will give the studio engineers somewhere easy to attach a clip-mic.
A loose tie can be distracting and look unprofessional
– If you wear a tie, ensure it is not too garish and that the knot is all the way to the top. Getting either of these wrong will be distracting.
– If you are wearing a jacket pull it down at the back or sit on the tails to ensure it does not bunch around your neck.
– Just in case you are on a soft, low seat, avoid brightly coloured or distracting socks and ensure they are long enough to cover your legs if you sit low. Four inches of hairy leg between sock and trouser is again distracting!
Check your hair
– Check your hair before you go on camera; in particular ensure it is not sticking up at the back. This is easily missed when you look in a mirror.
– Facial hair needs to be neatly trimmed.
– In the old days shirts or tops that were black or white were best avoided. With modern cameras and studio lighting this is not really an issue but it is generally considered that pale blue or pink shirts are the most flattering colours.
– Do not wear high contrast checks. These are likely to make the picture ‘strobe’. You will look as if you have been standing in a nuclear bunker.
Jorge Ramos WNJU/47 illustrates a good on camera look
– Don’t turn down make-up, particularly if you have a receding hairline as the light will bounce of the pate unless it’s powdered.
– If you normally wear glasses, wear them on TV. If you leave them off you may squint, feel disorientated or there may be a mark on your nose where they normally sit.
Guidelines for women
– Most professional women in Europe will wear a skirt, pant or a dress suit on television. Jackets are almost essential, again providing an easy place to clip a microphone. In the US and Asia jackets are less de rigueur and sleeveless or short sleeve tops are more common.
– T-shirt tops rather than collared shirts are usually better, keeping the image simple and clean at the neckline. A jacket designed to be worn done-up without a blouse or top is fine.
– Scarves tend to look fussy.
– Limit the jewellery and in particular don’t wear dangly earrings. The audience will be watching them move as you talk.
– Anything too revealing will be distracting, for obvious reasons.
Avoid ‘green-screen’ green as it may show projected images.
– Again the rules on colour mostly no longer apply. However, there is a particular green-screen colour that might pick up projected video and should be avoided. For an example of what happens when a news anchor forgot this rule watch the video below. The problem is only visible on some shots and not others.
– Hair needs to be tidy and off the face, in particular you do not want your hair flopping in front of your eyes while your talking. Constant movement tucking hair behind the ear etc is again distracting.
– Most women would avoid overly short skirts in a studio, just in case you end up on a soft low seat. You don’t want to be worrying about how much leg you are showing.
Jackets help avoid mic embarrassment
– Without a jacket, shift dresses are particularly difficult to mic. Most professionals don’t care that an engineer will need to watch them pass the wire up from the hem to the neck of a dress, but visiting interviewees find it intensely embarrassing. Not a good way to start an interview.
– Wear make-up. Even if you don’t normally wear make-up our advice is make an exception for a TV interview. Foundation, and eye make-up are the most important and without them you will look as if you have had a rough weekend!
– As with the men, if you normally wear glasses, wear them on TV. If you leave them off you may squint, feel disorientated or there may be a mark on your nose where they normally sit.
Last minute checks
Check make-up hair, tie knot etc just before you go in front of a camera and then forget about the image and concentrate on a performance.
Most importantly
While it’s sensible not to let your image distract from your message, we at The Media Coach think good credible messages are the key to a good interview of any sort. Spend five minutes thinking about what you will wear and a couple of hours on working out what you want to say and how to say it.
https://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/greenscreenexample.jpg600800Lindsay Williamshttps://themediacoach.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/the-media-coach-logo-300x137.pngLindsay Williams2015-08-11 13:43:102016-04-07 16:55:12How to dress for a television interview
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
You can adjust all of your cookie settings by navigating the tabs on the left hand side.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
3rd Party Cookies
This website uses Google Analytics to collect anonymous information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages.
Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!
