You but on a good day feature
David Gridley

How to Perform on Camera: The Berocca Way

/0 Comments/by

Working with The Media Coach and other Mediacrews clients, I often find myself coaching people on how to come across well in front of a video camera. Everyone needs both energy and confidence or as Lindsay often explains,  ‘Warmth, Authority and Animation’. To do that on camera requires an unfamiliar set of skills.  

You but on a good day

David Gridley, Mediacrews

When you perform on video, the technology tends to ‘flatten’ you, making the playback appear uninspiring and rather dull. For this reason, I tell people that to compensate, they must add extra energy to their delivery. Our fellow trainer, Eric Dixon, often uses the analogy of the energy drink, Berocca, whose tagline was “You, but on a really good day!” This is what is needed. 

Think of it as adding an extra 30 per cent to your delivery and you will be getting somewhere close to the kind of energy you need to throw at the camera lens, to come across well. The downside of adding extra energy is that most people naturally speed up their delivery – they start talking too fast – and that makes it harder for the audience to follow. The crucial trick to master is: energy up, speed down.

In the beginning, this will feel strange as the natural tendency is to lose energy when you speak more slowly.  But what TV requires is the opposite. Mastering the technique of slowing your pace while at the same time upping the energy, is the key to unlocking many of the other techniques that will improve your overall delivery style. Things like: emphasis, signposting and adding light and shade to your performance are all only really possible once you get to grips with the energy/speed conundrum. But once you do get the hang of it then all things are possible and your on-screen performance will improve massively. And then it really will be “You, but on a really good day…”

If your job requires you to speak to camera, and you want coaching to improve your performance call or email The Media Coach on 020 7099 2212 or enquiries@themediacoach.co.uk.

Merope Mills
Lindsay Williams

Merope Mills: A Brilliant Interviewee with a Terrible Story

/3 Comments/by

A moving account of the death of a 13-year-old in an NHS hospital aired for 22 minutes on Radio 4’s Today Programme on Monday morning.   The teenager who died was Martha Mills and her mother Merope Mills is spearheading a campaign to change NHS rules so that calling for an urgent second opinion is the right of all patients. A right that has been called Martha’s Rule.

The first half is an account of the tragedy; a thirteen-year-old girl, in hospital after being injured on a bike ride, caught sepsis and went downhill.  Her parents were at her bedside throughout the final days and constantly sounded the alarm. Despite being in a children’s ward at Kings College Hospital, one of the top London hospitals, the parents were ignored and opportunities to save Martha Mill’s life were repeatedly missed. It is such a calm, vivid account, that the interviewer, Mishal Husain, barely interrupts with a question.

The tragic story makes the call for Martha’s Rule instantly relatable. But what we also hear is a brilliant spokesperson, calmly weaving a personal story that is beyond compelling.

In the second half of the interview, the focus shifts from what happened, to what needs to change. Again, Merope Mills is a superb interviewee. She is working with the Demos Think Tank and it may deserve some of the credit for the detailed work that has been done to prepare for the launch of this campaign. But it could not have found a more articulate champion.

Mills speaks slowly, she uses examples, she provides evidence, she uses the correct names and she lists other places in the world that have the ‘right to a second opinion’. She even has the details of how many calls are made on these systems. And all this is delivered in a way that is slow, deliberate and crystal clear. She is never shrill, although she is often passionate.

I have no way of knowing whether Mills was coached or whether she is naturally highly articulate. But this was a standout ‘performance’ and that, of course, is why she was given a barely interrupted 22 minutes on Radio 4’s Today programme, to make the case for Martha’s Rule.

Photo: From BBC Radio 4, Today Programme

half-hearted apology feature
Lindsay Williams

A Half-Hearted Apology is a Kiss of Death

/0 Comments/by

‘The Kiss’ has dominated news headlines around the world, sadly overshadowing the remarkable and laudable victory of the Spanish Women’s football team in the Women’s World Cup.

half-hearted apology

As ever, we comment on the media lessons rather than the rights and wrongs of an argument.

And the media lesson from this debacle is as old as the hills: if you are going to make a public apology you have to be contrite and make it credible, otherwise, you are simply throwing fuel on the fire of public outrage.

On 21st August Luis Rubiales the Spanish FA President, put out a video in which he appears contrite and in which he apologises – sort-of – for grabbing and kissing player Jenni Hermoso on the lips, in the moments after the Spanish Women’s Team won the Football World Cup in Sydney.

An Apology Of Sorts

It is quite difficult to find a full version of that apology video, but the Daily Mail provided this clip with a helpful translation.

As we can see in this early reaction, Rubiales says the words ‘I was surely wrong’, but then goes on to say ‘it was spontaneous without bad faith’ and that he has ‘no other choice but to apologise’. He also eventually says, ‘I am sorry because this has tarnished the celebration.’

It is an unscripted, rather rambling video, and while the tone is somewhat regretful, the words clearly seek to mitigate and minimise the offence. And in the end, he apologises for tarnishing the celebration of the victory, not for the kiss itself.

You do not need to be a PR genius to know that this apology will not draw a line under the affair, but instead will give it another round of frenetic news coverage.

Had it been a full genuine apology, with the explanation of being carried away in the moment, there was a chance the storm might have passed.

Car Crash Press Conference

However, Rubiales’ next public move, an extraordinary press conference in which he speaks for 30 minutes, ensures this story will run and run. In front of a large and apparently mostly embarassed audience, the President of Spain’s Football Association explains the moment of euphoria that prompted him to kiss Hermoso, but in the next breath launches an attack on ‘false feminism’. He says he has been accused of sexual assault and that he will defend himself in court. Then after 17 minutes of what again seems a rambling and self-pitying monologue, he says that he is being ‘hunted’ for something that was consensual. With incredulity he reports he is being asked to resign, despite having delivered the best management in the history of Spanish Football! And then we get angry repetition of ‘I will not resign’, followed by reports of social assassination and (presumably metaphoric) murder.

Everything in this press conference tells the world that there is no genuine apology. Luis Rubiales does not believe he has done anything wrong and, what is more, he is prepared to turn on the woman he grabbed so publicly, in order to distract from the storm. A car crash of a speech.

The Lessons

So my takeaways, for anyone unfortunate enough to have to make a public apology are as follows:

  • Make the tone of any apology contrite
  • Use a script, don’t allow yourself to ramble and get carried away
  • Keep it short
  • Do not seek to dilute the apology or the offence
  • Resist the temptation to blame everyone or anyone else
  • Put away the arrogance that allows you to think you are so clever, important or successful that the offence does not matter. If you have to apologise in public it does matter.
  • Don’t show your anger

Last week I wrote about a different Press Conference Playbook. This Press Conference had no playbook. Or if it did the key speaker tore it up. It could not have been more disastrous: for Mr Rubiales, or for The Spanish Football Federation. I am not sure I have witnessed a more public car crash.

The Fallout

That same day, August 25th,  81 players declared they will not play for Spain again with Rubiales still in post — including all 23 players in the Women’s World Cup squad.

The following day Rubiales was suspended for 90 days by the international body FIFA. On the 27th the Spanish FA announced an internal investigation and on 28th Spain’s top criminal court announced an investigation into whether the kiss amounted to a count of sexual assault. And just for good measure Rubialis’ mother began a hunger strike. At the time of writing there are a few more chapters to play out but the conclusion appears inevitable.

Photo credit: YouTube

 

 

 

New Press Conference Playbook?
Lindsay Williams

Have you Spotted the New Press Conference Playbook?

/0 Comments/by

Playing with one of the generative AI apps last week I put in: how to run a good press conference. In a few seconds it generated a creditable if bland 500 words which basically covered be prepared, maintain your composure and be respectful to the journalists.

Three protocols that were exactly the opposite of what the Australian Rugby Coach Eddie Jones did at an informal press conference as he departed Sydney airport for the Rugby World Cup last week.

When this came up on my newsfeed I was really puzzled as to why someone leaving for a major competition should break the rules so spectacularly and unnecessarily. It did not seem to me that the journalists were being even the slightest bit provocative.

Asking around, I got a couple of insights from friends who follow sport more closely than I do. One said:

“Eddie has always been a feisty devil and their results have been poor since he took over. I think he is using the press conference to build a siege mentality and try and unite the squad against the press!”

And another:

“Jones is an increasingly curmudgeonly figure who after a previously successful career has had a string of bad results in the past few years. He’s shooting the messenger. Whether that’s a conscious attempt to establish esprit de corps – or populist politician style – isn’t clear. I suspect he’s just a misery guts who is losing the plot. “

Both my commentators, it seemed, thought the combative tone may have been planned.

The reference to populist politician style sent me back to my new toy and I asked what is Donald Trump’s Press conference style?  And got this list:

– Combative tone
– Lack of decorum
– Dominating the spotlight
– Informal – Trump’s press conference style was freewheeling and casual
– Attacking both journalists and adversaries

Pretty much exactly the style adopted by Jones. It seems there is an alternative Press Conference Playbook out there, and the Eddie Jones presser was just evidence that this is gaining ground way beyond a few populist politicians.

If you would like training for your spokespeople on how to handle a formal or informal press conference, call 020 7099 2212 or email us on enquiries@themediacoach.co.uk. All our sessions are bespoke, so we will design a training specifically to fit your organisation’s requirements.

Media Interview feature
Lindsay Williams

First Media Interview for a While? Our Basic Checklist

/0 Comments/by

‘I have been media trained but it was a long time ago. The trouble is I only talk to the media once or twice a year. I have forgotten most of the do’s and don’ts.’

We hear this all the time and while, of course, you would be better off having a quick media training refresher session (we can do 2 hours online, often at short notice), here is a list of things to bear in mind.

  1. Don’t wing it! Set aside an hour or two to work out what you want to say. If you have been trained by us draw a Message House and consider the content for each of the boxes.Media Interview
  2. If you have PR support, do not fly solo. Professional PR people know the journalists and the landscape. It is their job to make sure you are prepared and mitigate any risks.
  3. Ask who is the journalist? And who is he or she writing for, or broadcasting to? Once that is clear you should ask yourself what useful information or insight you can provide for that audience. Journalists are not there to do your advertising for you, but if you share useful insights, you and your company will win valuable publicity.
  4. Look for evidence for what you are saying. This is what PR people call the proof points. It may be facts and numbers, or it may be anecdotal evidence. Ideally, you will have both. For example, if you have spotted a new trend, have you got numbers to evidence the change, but also can you give one example or tell one story that illustrates it?
  5. Once you are clear on the substance of your interview, check the language. Journalists hate jargon and technical language. You will get better coverage and be invited back if you keep it simple.Media Interview
  6. Consider whether there are any likely difficult or unhelpful questions. Plan the answer to these. It’s important to consider the wider context: what else is going on in your company or your industry? Has your boss been fired? Has a competitor launched a new product? You may not want to answer these questions but you should at least consider how you will respond. Always be prepared to say (where appropriate) ‘That is not my area of expertise’ or ‘That is not a question for me’.
  7. Once you are in the interview, be on the lookout for journalists putting words into your mouth. It is best practice not to agree or repeat the quotable language they offer you.

Of course, this list is not exhaustive, and would not be useful if you are considering a particularly difficult or negative interview. But it is a solid starting point for most trade press interviews or similar low-risk encounters.

If you would like to discuss Media Training with us, either online or in-person phone +44 (0)20 7099 2212 or email enquiries@themediacoach.co.uk

the Urge to Gossip
Lindsay Williams

A Journalist, a CEO and the Urge to Gossip

/0 Comments/by

The fallout from the mishandling of the closure of Nigel Farage’s Coutts bank account is multifaceted and likely to continue for months. But the media training lesson is as simple as it comes and is included in even the most basic of media training courses. Don’t gossip with journalists. Don’t assume comments are off the record. Remember the mantra: always a journalist, sometimes a friend.

The Urge to Gossip

Former UKIP Leader Nigel Farage has been at the centre of controversy over debanking

In this case, the CEO of NatWest (which owns Coutts) sat next to the BBC ‘s business editor Simon Jack at the BBC Correspondents Charity Dinner on July 3rd.

While neither appears to have revealed the exact conversation, it is safe to assume he asked her what the real story is behind Farage’s debanking and she said something bland about it being a commercial decision based on the reduced amount of funds in Farage’s Coutts’ account.

the Urge to Gossip

Dame Alison Rose

Unfortunately for Dame Alison Rose, there were two problems with what I am sure at the time felt like a diplomatic and unsensational response. First, as we now know, it wasn’t the truth, (I suspect she thought at the time it was) and second she spoke about a named customer and about how much money he had in his account, breaking all the rules of client confidentiality.

The following day, Simon Jack published an exclusive story headlined “Nigel Farage bank account shut for falling below wealth limit”. He quoted unnamed sources familiar with the Coutts move. But, in the circumstances, there was little question about where the titbit came from. Dame Alison Rose subsequently confirmed the information came from her.

It may be worth speculating about why someone as senior and as smart as Alison Rose might make this mistake.

First it was a social event, not an interview. She would likely assume there was off-the-record protection to their conversation. And in fact, Simon Jack did respect the circumstances by not naming her.

Second, I would speculate that Simon Jack, who I don’t know, is great company. On air he is self-effacing and with a slightly bumbling manner that reminds me a bit of Boris Johnson. From my point of view, he is an excellent business editor because he explains complex issues very clearly and without sounding as if he is a city insider.

(The reporting of some of his competitors – naming no names – often make them sound like they have membership of a rather superior gentleman’s club.)

Third, never underestimate the urge to show you are in the know. It is a strong human instinct. If someone asks you a question you know the answer to, it is ridiculously hard not to demonstrate your knowledge.

But the thing I always warn those I train is, journalists understand that human instinct, and they know how to exploit it. A lot of the stories told about modern journalism are around aggressive interviews, and they do happen. But most interviews appear friendly and mostly enjoyable.  Journalists are social animals who are good at getting people to talk.

I suspect Alison Rose, having been lulled into a false sense of security by a seasoned operator, succumbed to the very human urge to show she was across what was happening in her business.

I also suspect that Simon Jack wasn’t out that night to get a scoop, Rose wasn’t the target of a Machiavellian plot. He probably just did what he always does in company and got lucky with a titbit of information that sounded bland in context, but moved the story forward – and therefore gave the BBC a scoop.

If you think your team need reminding about the rules of engagement when dealing with journalists email us on enquiries@themediacoach.co.uk or phone 020 7099 2212.

Images Credits:
Nigel Farage: This image was originally posted to Flickr by Gage Skidmore at https://flickr.com/photos/22007612@N05/33149372715. It was reviewed on 28 February 2017 by FlickreviewR and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-sa-2.0.

Dame Alison Rose: YouTube

 

Kuznets curse
Lindsay Williams

Kuznets’s Curse and a Cautionary Tale about the Power of Simplicity

/0 Comments/by

Simon Kuznets invented modern GDP, or the way to measure the health of an economy using Gross Domestic Product. To explain further, as an economist he found a way to measure the production or output of a nation and track it as it went up or down. He came up with this idea during the Great Depression of the 1930s because he was concerned to measure how the country was recovering from the bust that followed the boom of the 1920s. He was later awarded a Nobel Prize for his work.

The huge benefit of GDP as a metric was that it summarised, in one number, the economic strength of the entire nation. By the end of World War II GDP had become the standard metric used by economists across the globe, to measure the economic health of an economy.

Very clever stuff.

Kuznets curse

But there’s always a price to be paid for simplicity. Something is lost. Kuznets himself warned that GDP was of limited use as a policy tool because it did not measure the well-being of the workforce or society, and nowadays we might also add that it doesn’t account for increasing inequality, contribution to climate change or environmental degradation.

Despite Kuznets’s warning, the simplicity of GDP meant it became the dominant way to measure and compare economies and to assess the benefit or harm of any policy. Is a motorway good for GDP? What impact will paternity leave have on GDP? And with almost all government policies assessed against the economic output of a country …well that is Kuznets’s Curse. Policymakers targeted one measure above all others.

There is so much written about the limitations of GDP these days that we can expect it to wane in influence over the next 25 years. There was this article in the FT just this week entitled There is more to life and death than GDP. But there are plenty more. Here are a few:

The Guardian 2019: It’s time to end our fixation with GDP and growth

Harvard Business Review in 2019: GDP is not a measure of human well-being

Scientific America in 2020  GDP is the wrong tool for measuring what matters.

The Wire in January 2023 Sorry, GDP. There Are Other Ways to Measure a Nation’s Worth

And it would be remiss of me not to mention Kate Raworth’s 2017 book Doughnut Economics which discusses at length what might replace GDP.

So, while progressives are now counting the cost of Kuznets’s Curse, GDP as a policy-making metric has influenced almost every policymaker globally for almost a century. Its prominence completely eclipsed the person who invented or refined it.

So, what are the wider lessons from this for those of us in the communication game? For me, this demonstrates the power of simplicity. So many I work with are reluctant or unable to simplify. They feel it seems, that it is a little beneath them. So often it is referred to as ‘dumbing down’. And yet simplifying an argument makes it memorable and useable. It can also be a first step or a primer for a deeper understanding. And while we should be mindful of the consequences of simplifying, we should never forget that it is such a powerful ‘tool’.

We should all get better at simplifying.

And I do love a quote, so here are a few on simplicity collected by Margaret Molloy and published on LinkedIn.

“Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that’s creativity.”
Charles Mingus

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Albert Einstein

“A little simplification would be the first step toward rational living, I think”.
Eleanor Roosevelt

“Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance.”
Coco Chanel 

If you need help codifying and simplifying your organisation’s messaging, give us a call.  It is something the Media Coach team can help with. Book one of our message-building sessions and bring along your key stakeholders. Together we will work on a simplified Message House that can be a foundation for your future media, marketing or public affairs engagement. Contact enquires@themediacoach.co.uk or ring us on tel: +44 (0)20 7099 2212.

why jackets work well on tv
David Gridley

Why Jackets Work Well on TV

/0 Comments/by

During broadcast media training with The Media Coach one of the most common questions a cameraman will get is, “what do I wear on TV?”

That usually means what colours work best, should I wear a patterned blouse or shirt or (for men) should I wear a tie, etc.

But I can tell you, the single most useful garment for anyone appearing in front of a camera is something quite simple – a jacket. A jacket with lapels works for multiple reasons.

Firstly, jackets tend to add a slightly more formal and authoritative touch to an interview and this can help boost your authority on-screen.

why jackets work well on tvSecondly, it gives the camera person somewhere to attach your microphone without invading your personal space by fumbling around trying to hide the wire. We don’t really want to see trailing wires on screen and so I sometimes have to explain to a woman wearing a one-piece dress that she is going to have to pass the microphone up through the inside of her dress so that we can hide the cable! This is not ideal. But wear a jacket and I can have the mic attached to you in seconds.

And finally, a jacket will allow you to wear a brighter colour underneath without running the risk of the colour ‘flaring’ on-camera and distracting your audience. For example, a bright pink or white shirt or blouse will always work really well when combined with a black or dark blue jacket; whereas those garments will run the risk of becoming too bright on camera if worn on their own. You can even get away with a shirt with a tight pattern, like checks or herringbone, provided you can tone it down with a jacket. And so for all of these reasons I think a jacket is the single most important garment you can wear for any TV interview or piece-to-camera.

The fourth reason is a bit ugh but should not be ignored. No sweat marks if you wear a jacket. Studios can be warm!

All of this applies equally to men and women. In this clip Yvette Cooper looks professional and neat in her jacket whilst Beth Rigby …well it is not a style choice I would recommend.

Sophie Raworth is one of the news presenters who broke the mould on jackets. She prefers flowery dresses. Here she is wearing a shift dress which looks smart but if the wire from that mic has has gone up inside the dress from the hemline. Quite a performance and one that might easily add to the stress of someone not used to being in a TV studio.

 

why jackets work well on tv

Sophie Raworth

Advice on where to look, what to wear, how to sit and stand is all part of the Media Coach Broadcast Media Training. To understand what we can do for your organisation email enquiries@themediacoach.couk or ring on tel: +44 (0)20 7099 2212.

To book David Gridley for Corporate Video or production work visit his website mediacrews.co.uk

 

 

doorstepping
Eric Dixon

Doorstepping and How Not To Do It

/0 Comments/by

Dealing with ‘doorstepping’ is difficult.

But giving a flippant answer to a serious question is not the way to do it.

Let’s not deny it, dealing with ‘doorstep’ questions from journalists is difficult.

This is the name given to the journalistic practice of ‘ambushing’ your interviewee, usually when they are leaving their home (hence ‘doorstepping’), to see if they can provide answers to quick-fire questions, often shouted from the street.

But a clear example of how not to handle such an approach came this week – surprisingly – from a man who should be one of the smoothest media operators of all.

He’s Martin Frizell, the editor of This Morning – the programme at the centre of the current media interest in the behaviour and subsequent resignation of Phillip Schofield from ITV in particular and, it would appear, from television in general.

When approached by a journalist outside his home, asking if there was “a toxic work environment at This Morning”, Frizell responded:

“I’ll tell you what’s toxic; I’ve always found toxic: aubergine. Do you like aubergine? Do you?”

Despite the journalist (quite sensibly) ignoring his question and repeating their original enquiry, Frizell continued:

“Do you like aubergine? Because I don’t like aubergine. It’s just a personal thing.”

Then he walked out of camera shot.

What are we to make of this reply?

It would be easy to dismiss such flippancy as simply a light-hearted way of dodging the question. But then we remember the two men at the centre of the crisis: one who wants his identity to remain a secret and is being provided with legal help, and the other a fallen celebrity who’s lost a sparkling career and is now said to be on suicide watch. Hardly the subject matter for flippancy, you would think.

Indeed, an SNP MP has already criticised Frizell’s approach, saying on Twitter “This is a deeply inappropriate and disrespectful way to respond to questions about safeguarding vulnerable staff and bullying in the workplace at ITV.”

So, what’s going on?

Frizell’s answer was significant for seven key reasons.

  • It’s downright bizarre. The comment either simply doesn’t mean anything or is so impenetrable that we’re left none the wiser. I’m reminded of footballer Eric Cantona’s famous line about “when the seagulls follow the trawler” at a press conference in 1995. No clarity; just more questions than answers. It’s not clever, it’s just weird.
  • Was he attempting to equate a personal dislike for a certain food with toxicity? Could he be suggesting that some people might find the workplace toxic, whilst others don’t? But as one is a subjective taste and the other is an objective poison, the comparison fails.
  • He should know better. Frizell’s career has been steeped in the media. He was a correspondent for Thomson Reuters and GMTV, where he became editor. He’s had roles in PR and Australian television, before becoming an editor for Loose Women, which led to his role on This Morning. He is a shrewd and wily media operator, fully aware of what speaking to the press involves and the impact that quotes can have. As a journalist, it’s likely he would have doorstepped interviewees himself. But now, as an interviewee, he’s falling into the very same trap he would have despised or ridiculed in his former career.
  • He repeats the negative word “toxic” from the question in his answer – not just once, but twice. Come on, this is Media Training 101: don’t amplify the negative by using the same ‘unhelpful’ word in your response, even if you are doing so to deny the suggestion.
  • This was an unforced error. Nobody brow-beat him into saying what he said. His answer sounds like something he had planned; he’d actively thought it through previously, even if he hadn’t anticipated the specific question (which seems unlikely since it has been central to the controversy, particularly considering his role in management).
  • As an editor of This Morning, this sort of response would have provided content for a programme feature. You can imagine a replay of the footage and a segment involving two guests brought in to discuss the topic of workplace bullying, with calls invited and a caption on screen reading: “Does your boss treat your concerns seriously?” He seems to have gone out of his way to provide exactly the sort of unwarranted reply on which his own show would thrive.
  • Finally, it runs counter to the professed aims of the programme, as voiced by presenter Holly Willoughby on her return from holiday this week, that “what unites us all now, is a desire to heal for the health and well-being of everyone” in order to “start this new chapter and get back to a place of warmth and magic that this show holds for all of us.” What, with a flippant line about aubergines? Really?

Whatever your views of the controversy, wherever you place the blame, it’s important to note that no crime has been committed. As a result, Piers Morgan has said it’s time to stop the “relentless persecution” of Phillip Schofield. Jeremy Clarkson has agreed, saying that he has “never seen a witch hunt like it”.

But what’s so odd is that a seasoned media professional, operating at the very heart of the story, could have chosen to calm troubled waters when doorstepped by a journalist.

Instead, he chose to stir them further.

If you’d like to learn how to deal with doorstep questions from journalists – and a whole host of other media training tips and tricks – you know where we are…

Political interviews feature
Lindsay Williams

High Profile Political Interviews are only Vaguely Relevant to Standard Media Training

/0 Comments/by

One of my clients alerted me to this Podcast from Politico: The Art of the Political Interview.  It is a great listen and speaks to both sides: the journalists and the politicians…some who have experienced unhelpful coverage. And it unpacks the stereotypes. Explaining the difference between interviewers who start by thinking ‘Why is the b****** lying to me?’ a style much loved by Jeremy Paxman and now Beth Rigby, to those with a more softly, softly approach.

political interviews

Sky’s Political Editor Beth Rigby interviewing Labour’s Angela Rayner in January 2023

While it is full of fun titbits, my main takeaway from the podcast was a firm reminder that most interviews are simply not like political interviews. Here is why:

First, the senior journalists in the podcast stress the depth and breadth of research, the honing of questions, even the role-play of interviews. I know this happens, but as a financial journalist both at the BBC and Reuters and a freelancer at CNBC and Bloomberg, I can tell you it happens rarely. Generally, research and preparation are squeezed and remarkably superficial; the news machine is intense and relentless with little time for deep research. In fact, one of the things that defines a good journalist is spending large amounts of their own time reading newspapers and other news sources. This not only means they have instant perspective on any new story, but it also means they need little briefing or prep time.

Another key difference is that in most political interviews the facts of the case are known. You rarely get a real insight into something new in a political interview. Policies or potential policies have been floated, leaked, chewed over in parliament or select committees, dissected by the opposition, etc. You might get a new insight into something that has just happened, but we are talking small developments as part of a bigger story. On the occasions something really new is announced, it will have been trailed in the media already and will be a well-managed media event.

This is very rarely true for an interview with a business leader.  The world of business is much less transparent and gets less attention than the world of politics so there is much more to discover. As a journalist, the chance of coming across something genuinely fascinating is much higher! It is slightly different with think tanks or others delivering genuine thought leadership, but again as a journalist conducting these interviews, you are most often looking to advance a story much more than a small step.

And that makes a huge difference to the interviewee. It is much less likely to be a ‘gotcha’ type of interview. If almost everything is known about say, the efforts to stop small boats crossing the channel or the industrial action by NHS staff, any interview is about nuance. The Westminster journalist is looking for a misstep or a phrase that might be used to prove disappointment or failure; hardening or softening of intention. Whereas, if the interview is about how your profits doubled in the last 12 months, it’s much more genuinely a conversation of discovery.

A problem we have to quickly deal with in Media Training is that most people’s perception of journalists is influenced heavily by political interviews, usually broadcast interviews. Whilst it is always good to be on one’s guard when speaking to journalists, in general far too much effort goes into avoiding potential ‘gotcha’ moments and far too little in preparing an interesting and clear explanation of something.

The one example from this podcast that is instructive, is trailed at the beginning but comes at the end. In 2016 the then Tory leadership candidate, Andrea Leadsom left the contest after a disastrous interview with Rachel Sylvester of The Times. You may remember her claim that as a mother she has more of a stake in the future than the childless Theresa May. This is an example of what can so easily happen if the interviewee has not thought through an answer before an interview, and continues to respond to a line of questioning while trying to stay out of trouble.

If you need to remind yourself what happened here is a contemporary news report.

We blogged about this at the time and, as Andrea Leadsom acknowledges in the Politico podcast, it was her naivety that led to embarrassing headlines.

To pick this up in the podcast listen from 33 minutes fourteen seconds in. (The link should take you straight there but you’ll have to wade through the adverts first.)

As you would suspect, our view is that if you are in a high-profile position you need media training ahead of any interview, preferably from people like us who live outside the Westminster bubble, and prepare people for a more relevant type of media engagement.