Leveraging localness featurre
Eric Dixon

Leveraging Localness

/0 Comments/by

As I’ve discussed before (Why There’s No Such Thing as ‘Only Local’ Media), we believe interviewees should treat all media appearances – regardless of whether they are local, regional, national or international – equally seriously.

However, there is something special about local media outlets – and this includes regional television and newspapers – which offers the canny interviewee a unique opportunity.

Because localness is the reason why these outlets exist. For them, localness is not just an occasional ‘nice-to-have’ accessory or randomly added embellishment; it’s their very raison d’être.

Leveraging localness

Like it or not, it drives everything they do. Small local stories will often beat bigger national ones purely because they’re local; local ‘angles’ will be sought on national news stories (even if they’re not immediately apparent); stories from just outside the area (in some cases, even by less than a mile) may be ignored completely.

With that in mind, how can a local interviewee use this knowledge to their advantage? There are three main approaches:

  • Personal reference. If you were born locally, went to school in the area, perhaps lived there once or live there now, or had family from the district, etc. For example: “I’ve always loved it in (name of county) – I lived around here for years, and it’s great to come back…” or “My dad was born just down the road and he always said…” etc.
  • Genuine examples. Citing people, organisations, companies from the region. For example: “I was speaking to an employee of (name of business) in (name of local town) only the other day…” or “(name of local football club) understand this – they’ve been doing it for ages…” or “This is a bit like travelling on the (name of major local road) on a Monday morning…” etc.
  • Obviously fictional examples. Using a local placename or reference to illustrate a wider point. For example: “So, if Mrs Miggins from (local placename) was trying to get to work, she’d have to …” or “So, Bloggs Shoes wanting to send their products from (local place name) to (local place name) would have to…” etc.  

You’ll notice that organisations staging awards often exploit this built-in predisposition for localness ruthlessly. First, they hold ‘local’ rounds, complete with ‘winners’ and ‘runners-up’, which can then be offered to local media for interviews and photo opportunities. The ‘winners’ then go through to the ‘regional’ rounds for another batch of the same, and once those ‘finalists’ have been whittled down, they can be offered up to the nationals. One idea, three bites of the cherry: clever!

Leveraging localness

However, an interviewee should always make use of local references with care. My main words of caution are as follows:

  • Don’t fake it. Never lie, exaggerate or twist the truth to fit. The dangers of being found out are simply not worth it. And if you’re fibbing about localness, what else might you not be telling the truth about?
  • Don’t overdo it. Prefer one solid reference to several weaker ones. And limit yourself to one (or perhaps a couple, if they’re both equally good) per interview.
  • Don’t get it wrong. There’s nothing more embarrassing than someone trying to use a local reference but failing to get it right. If you mispronounce a nearby placename (which local listeners will spot immediately, of course), your levels of authority will nosedive. And if you mention a location you believe is in the local media’s coverage area but is actually outside it (a Yorkshire village on Radio Lancashire, for example), you’re wasting your time and theirs.

It’s also worth considering that whilst such references can be like gold dust to a local outlet, they are actually less likely to be used elsewhere. Knowing this, a wise interviewee will provide some local detail, then in another part of the conversation, land a more general truth, stripped of any regional references, which could travel further afield without difficulty.

By the way, the same techniques – and the same warnings – also apply to stage presenters wanting to add a touch of localness to their presentation. (Which live band doesn’t secure an easy cheer from their audience by going on stage and shouting “Good evening (name of area in which venue is situated)!” It’s low-hanging fruit – and why not?)

Tips like this are something we offer in our media and presentation training sessions.

What’s more, we’re happy to travel to your local area to carry them out!

 

Image: Pixabay

Personal Questions feature
Lindsay Williams

Why Journalists ask Personal Questions

/0 Comments/by

Top of the list of questions that throw people in media interviews are personal questions. One example of this came on BBC Radio Four’s PM programme.

The interviewee is Phil Harding, a resident of Saltford, a village near Bath, and active on the Parish Council and the Saltford Environment Group. He feels housing developments are going up inappropriately in his area. A few minutes into the interview (at 25 minutes past 5pm if you want to listen), presenter Evan Davis, asks Mr Harding:

‘Tell me about your home, what sort of house do you live in?’

Personal Questions

Mr Harding appears taken aback by the line of questioning but answers factually that he lives in a four-bedroomed house. It soon becomes apparent that there are now only two people living in the property as his children have left.  Evan Davis makes the obvious point that objecting to housing developments is all very well for those that have generous homes with spare bedrooms, but there is an acute housing shortage and there are thousands of people in the UK desperate to buy or rent homes.

Although Mr Harding dealt with the personal questions in a straight forward manner, he appears taken aback by the line of questioning, and in becoming defensive loses sight of the bigger argument. But in fact, it was a perfectly predictable question. Journalists always have the option of questioning people’s reasons for their views. And in some cases, challenging hypocrisy.

Another more high-profile example came a couple of weeks ago. When talking about the crisis in the NHS, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was asked whether he used private, paid for, health care.

As is clear from the clip, Sunak refused to answer one way or the other. A few days later, he was forced to admit he did use private health care.

Sunak gave in, once it became clear that refusing to answer had not worked, and journalists were digging around trying to find the truth. A more direct answer the first time might have been wiser. Again, for a journalist or a PR person, the question was entirely predictable and those that prepare the Prime Minister’s reactive lines could have done a better job.

Why do journalists chase these personal angles? Sometimes because they suspect foul play as we have seen in the Nadhim Zahawi story. Sometimes because they doubt the authenticity of those telling the rest of us how to live, and sometimes because there is a high chance they will uncover hypocrisy or self-interest driving policy decisions.

Personal Questions

It should not be a surprise to any interviewee that this might happen.

By the way, journalists are certainly not immune from hypocrisy and while certain members of the fourth estate are quick to report outrage (or fake outrage), no one has the job of questioning their private lives!

Do journalists make good press officers? feature
Lindsay Williams

Do Journalists Make Good Press Officers?

/7 Comments/by

My short answer to this is: rarely

I had a furious row with a neighbour over New Year because he believed categorically that the United Nations is a waste of space and it has achieved very little in the last 40 years. Having worked extensively with the UN this makes me really mad.  The world is far from perfect and solving a vast array of global problems – via cooperation – from climate change, to clean water, from the provision of education to devastating food crises, is phenomenally complicated. But the truth is, huge progress has been made over the last 40 years, and the UN is at the heart of that progress.

So why is this not widely recognised? There is plenty to discuss here but my prejudice is the UN is particularly guilty of hiring only ex-journalists for their press offices and as their spokespeople. Journalists are trained to concentrate on the negative. Tell them about a success and they will consider it their duty to say ‘Yes, but…’. As spokespeople, they will spend hours planning how to answer the inevitable tough ’you failed’ and ‘you compromised ‘ questions. What they always seem reluctant to do is tell the good news story.

Do journalists make good press officers?

So really, I am not surprised that my neighbour and many others, have such a misguided view of the reality of the huge progress in development across the globe, led by the UN.

[Bill Gates, while not necessarily promoting the UN, also became aware that good news on development was not getting out and for a while had a project to address the damaging misconceptions. And we should never forget the wonderful work of the late Professor Hans Rosling.]

The reluctance to embrace and tell the positive stories of the UN is just one of many similar examples I have seen in 20 years of Media Training. And that is just one of several issues.

For organisations, there are hidden pitfalls in hiring journalists as PRs. First and foremost, PR is a profession in its own right, although barely recognised as such. Professional PRs have knowledge of how things play out, how to balance an organisations’ objective with the news agenda. They know how to manage upwards (not something that is likely to come naturally to a star reporter), they have experience of dealing with internal executives who are all stakeholders (as opposed to the newsroom mantra of ‘no editorial interference’). PRs understand the timelines and the processes of being ready for news coverage: that might be getting the photos, pulling together the facts, finding the examples and of course, ensuring spokespeople are safe and trained. Journalists prefer the adrenalin rush of a breaking story.

And if there are problems for organisations, there are also challenges for the individual. It is extremely hard for most journalists to switch to PR. Getting the job is the easy bit, doing it is much more challenging.

There will always be journalists who decide to give up the daily grind, earn a lot more money and move across to PR.  A journalist’s CV is a huge selling point when they are looking for a PR job. Specialist journalists stuck in trade press roles can easily be tempted by better paying PR jobs in their target sectors. A journalist with TV facetime, or a familiar radio voice will similarly command a premium in the market. They are likely to go in at a senior level with a much bigger salary, often with a team of PR people reporting to them. And yet it is a job they are not at all trained or suitable for.

Working journalists often believe they are the truth tellers, they have integrity, (as captured in the phrase ‘publish and be damned’). But PR can be all about project planning (an anathema to a journalist), about stakeholder management (ditto) as competing concerns within organisations try to influence press releases and messaging. It’s about compromise and sometimes it’s absolutely not about telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Turning out press releases is very different and much more boring than writing newspaper copy. What is more, working experienced journalists have often only one pair of eyes checking their copy –in broadcast possibly no one at all.  Emily Maitlis famously delivered an on-air monologue about the behaviour of Dominic Cummings. The apology from the BBC came after it aired, it’s likely no one read it before the microphone went live.

But, in PR several less well qualified people than you will check and ‘improve’ your carefully crafted press release. They will take out all the interesting bits, rewrite any quotes to make them much more boring, and even more annoyingly will hold the whole process up so that sometimes the relevance is lost.

Of course, I generalise, but PR moves more slowly and is way more controlled than most journalism.

Many journalists have successfully make the switch, eventually. Many continue as square pegs in round holes and others give up and go back to freelancing.

You have been warned.

Such as what?
Eric Dixon

Such As What? The Journalists’ Question that Must be Answered

/0 Comments/by

“Such as what?”: The plea from presenters and journalists to their guests, which often goes unanswered…

When interviewees are searching for evidence to help prove that what they are saying is true, they tend to reach for facts and statistics.

This is understandable – after all, this type of evidence does a lot of ‘heavy lifting’ when presenting an idea, thought or theory, convincing the audience of its validity in the moment.

However, the downside is that facts and statistics are frequently quickly forgotten. So, it’s useful also to have some memorable illustration of what you are saying, to linger in the audience’s mind for longer – which is where stories, anecdotes and examples come in.

But after more than thirty years of helping people to communicate effectively on radio and TV, I’ve discovered it’s clear that most interviewees are rather reluctant to offer up this sort of ‘soft’ evidence – perhaps fearing that it’s ‘merely anecdotal’ (whereas in fact that’s the point; that’s what makes it so effective), or because they have failed to identify in advance which illustrations to use that will help them support their line of argument most powerfully.

Such as what?

Robert Uhlig

An unusual but glaring illustration of this was broadcast on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. Unusual, because the interviewee is something of a professional. He’s Robert Uhlig – an award-winning journalist since 1986 and a best-selling author since 1997. He’s collaborated with the best – Billy Connolly, James Dyson, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough to name but a few. He’s an esteemed wordsmith and I’m a fan.

Robert is also now the founder and programme director of the Bude Climate Partnership – set up to consider environmental challenges in the Cornish town, which the Environment Agency has judged to be particularly highly sensitive to sea level rises. The area has recently been awarded £2m by the National Lottery, to mitigate the impact of climate change.

Such as what?

Uhlig had already explained on-air that even if all emissions stopped tomorrow, a foot or more of sea level rises are still expected over the coming decades, because the effects of climate change were “baked in” (a decent metaphor). Consequently, the kind of flooding that now happens every 100-200 years is expected to become an annual event (a powerful statistic). So, he was asked by presenter Simon Jack to go into detail about the partnership’s plans – not surprising when there’s £2m of lottery players’ money at stake:

SJ: OK, £2m – what are you actually going to spend that on, and over what time frame?

RU: Well, the first thing to say is that we’re incredibly grateful for the money – it came from the lottery and ultimately from lottery players. So, we’re going to spend it on six different projects, the biggest one of which is a sustainable tourist project, where we’ll bring together businesses and the community and visitors to build resilience so that, you know, we know that if there are impacts of climate change which are inevitably coming in the next five, ten years’ time, that we are prepared for them and we have plans…

The trouble with this response is that it’s so vague. There’s mention of a “sustainable tourist project” (whatever that may be), the intention to “bring together businesses” (sounds sensible) and the claim “we have plans” (like what?). There’s nothing concrete; nothing you can put your finger on – which prompts Simon Jack’s next question:

SJ: What do you mean by bringing together businesses? To do what? Talking about sustainability… all use, you know, get rid of plastic forks or build a wall around the city…

RU: No, it needs… it needs… it needs a little bit more than… than – hah – you know, a little bit more… er… recycling’s not going to cut the mustard, is it?

So, we’ve discovered what’s not going to happen, but are still no wiser as to what is. So – perfectly reasonably – Jack tries again:

SJ: What is – I don’t quite understand – what are you going to do with this group of businesses?

RU: Right, well, OK, so…  what we will do… you know, there are already businesses that are doing amazing things in this area. But most businesses look at climate change now, and they’re very concerned about it, but they don’t know where to begin. So, it’s about getting these businesses collaborating. We’ll be looking at all sorts of things, you know, that we could possibly do here…

What stands out a mile from these responses is the abstract nature of what’s being promised: “businesses that are doing amazing things… getting these businesses collaborating… we’ll be looking at all sorts of things…”. You can hear the exasperation in Jack’s voice as he presses his guest further:

SJ: Such as what? I’m just trying… this is meant to mitigate the impacts of climate change. What’s going to come out of this meeting of businesses that will do that? I just… if you can be a bit more specific…

RU: That… that… that we will build the resilience. I mean, we can’t… if you want physical… so there’s various different things…  one of the things that this community needs to think about is what the effects of sea level rise is going to be. That… if nothing is done, then we will have flooding, and, you know, our community assets will be destroyed.

Still no clarity. Just a reference to “various different things” again. But such as what? An example or two would do the trick beautifully here. But none was forthcoming:

SJ: But isn’t… isn’t that precisely the point… this £2m is to try and mitigate the impact of it… you know, having the Bude Chambers of Commerce to think more about sustainability is not going to hold back the waters…

RU: It’s not going to hold back the waters – that’s why we have to adapt. I mean, you know, we can’t… we can’t beat nature. We need to think of ways in which we can be more resilient [pause]. You know, so that when… when the impacts come, we can deal with them.

Unfortunately, time was now up. There had been several opportunities to illustrate what was being considered, but not one of them was seized – leaving Jack to end the conversation, clearly frustrated:

SJ: OK. Alright, Robert, we’ll have to leave it there. Robert Uhlig, founder and programme director of the Bude Climate Partnership.

What this interaction serves to prove is how often interviewees – however experienced – often fail to provide a simple story, anecdote or example to help illustrate what they are trying to say.

I’m not sure why Uhlig seemed so reluctant to flesh out his argument in this way – unless he felt that offering examples might define and delimit the sort of conversation that might take place amongst the businesses of Bude. But would that have been so very bad? It would, perhaps, have got discussion between them off to a start…

For what it’s worth, it seems that from what Robert is saying, future climate disasters are “inevitable” in the area – after all, as he clearly states, they have been “baked in” – so it’s not about preventing them, but coping when they happen.

And if this is about business resilience, there are surely plenty of potential examples to offer here. Perhaps an agreement between local businesses to share computer systems if one of them gets flooded? Or an early warning alarm system that high water was on its way? Or providing a single office building out of town and on high ground which local businesses can decamp to when their premises are flooded? Or constructing future buildings on stilts, well away from the waves?

It might be about any of these. Or all of them. Or a mixture of some of them but not others. Or something else entirely. The truth is, even now – and despite a cool two million pounds of lottery players’ cash being tied up in this project – I don’t know.

Most importantly of all, even with a primetime interview on Radio 4 (and not for the want of trying), no listener is any the wiser either.

You can read more Media Coach blog posts on similar topics here and here.

 

The elegant put down
Lindsay Williams

The Elegant Put Down

/0 Comments/by

Reporters ask stupid questions all the time. Sometimes they have to ask stupid questions because either their boss has told them to and sometimes it’s because they feel it is the question that their readership or viewership will be asking. Stupid or offensive questions are a challenge to the interviewee: an overreaction loses public sympathy and under reaction maybe letting down others in the same group.

Racist questions have perhaps gone from journalism in most countries (but not from a conversation as we saw last week as details emerged of how 83-year-old Lady Susan Hussey repeatedly asked charity boss Ngozi Fulani where she was really from). But sexist questions are still rife: What’s it like being a woman in a man’s world? How did you cope with sexism on the way up?  What’s it like being a woman boss with a majority of male colleagues?

As a leader, you may not want to show your exasperation or frustration at such questions, but you might also want to be clear that they are not acceptable.

New Zealand Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern had just such a situation last week. She was standing next to Sanna Marin, Prime Minister of Norway. The image was striking: women of a similar age, both young to be prime ministers, the same long dark hair, etc. prompting a sexist question by a reporter.

‘Are you meeting because you are a similar age and have other things in common?’

While Marin’s face looked rather frozen (silently fuming perhaps) Ardern adopted a comically puzzled look and then, without being patronising or rude, pointed out no one would have asked Barrack Obama and former New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key if they were meeting because they were the same age.

I have written before about how Ardern is, in my view, one of the best media performers on the world stage. Read one blog from several years ago here and a more recent comment here. Ardern represents a new, more open, generation of leaders who are comfortable showing emotion and who connect to their electorate less formerly than previous generations.  Ardern continues to appear sure-footed as well as approachable. This incident was just another example of her skill.

Dealing with un-PC questions without being pompous or patronising is perhaps something many of us should study.

Logical Fallacies feature
Lindsay Williams

How Journalists Use Logical Fallacies

/1 Comment/by

There are a number of well-known logical fallacies, tricks or devices used by journalists to get a better story, or a more interesting interview.

If you are going to be a media spokesperson and haven’t heard the term ‘logical fallacy’ it’s worth getting to grips with its meaning. A fallacy in this context is the use of an invalid argument or faulty reasoning.

I have not studied the debating rules of Ancient Greece but I know enough to understand they are often very relevant to my work. Wikipedia tells me that Aristotle created a list of thirteen ‘tricks’ used by debaters to mislead or misrepresent. His list was called Sophistical Refutations or De Sophisticis Elenchis, but they have been added to since. Indian debaters also worked on a similar list in the 6th century BC.  And an English scholar, Richard Whately (1787-1863) produced his own list and some further categorisation.

logical fallacies

I am tempted to conclude there is nothing new under the sun, but that would itself be a logical fallacy. The three examples above do not prove ‘there is nothing new’ in this world, in any way at all.

If you are likely to face aggressive or difficult questioning in a media interview, there are a few logical fallacies you might want to look out for: spotting them might give you a more convincing rebuttal and stop you being distracted by unhelpful lines of argument.

The Strawman

This occurs when an interviewer exaggerates the interviewee’s position and the consequences, in order to provoke a denial.

Logical Fallacies

For example: ‘Rishi Sunak is a multi-millionaire, he knows nothing and cares little about how ordinary people are coping with the cost-of-living crisis.’

A rather more robust version of this exact argument is used by Rosie Ramsey in this ‘Shagged, Married, Annoyed’ podcast (37 m 25 seconds in). Thanks to Politico for sharing this with me. Where would I be without their morning briefing!

In either iteration, this is a logical fallacy because there is no genuine connection between Sunak’s wealth and what he knows or what he cares about. He may not care, or know, but his wealth does not prove this either way.

In an interview, it is tempting to jump to the defensive, ‘I do care’ for example.

But it can help to unpick the fallacy: ‘Let’s concentrate on what Sunak says and does rather than how much he has in the bank…’

‘You are at fault’ fallacy

This is not one I have read about elsewhere but which I see regularly. The journalist will make it sound as if the interviewee is responsible for some awful thing.

Examples of this pop up all the time when I am training UN spokespeople. In a large programme of assistance, for example in Haiti, where earthquakes, cholera, poverty, government collapse and gang violence are making life utterly miserable for thousands, many UN agencies will get questions along the lines of ‘how can you let this happen’.

What is even more interesting to me is that decent people who work night and day to help in these situations, genuinely feel guilty for their ‘failure’.

As a media trainer, my job is to remind them that they are helping: the situation is not their fault. I must also train them to appropriately point this out to journalists.

So rather than say ‘We could do better, some mistakes have been made’ it may be more advisable to remind the interviewer and listener that there are many factors creating the humanitarian crisis that is Haiti today.

Unhelpful generalisations

Again, a typical example of this is where an interviewer generalises in a way that sounds plausible.

For example: ‘Those who voted for Brexit want to see an end to immigration. They will be pleased to see illegal immigrants deported to Rwanda.’

Here it is clear that some people who voted for Brexit may indeed want an end to immigration, but there are many other reasons why people voted for Brexit. And the Rwanda policy is far from likely to have the support of all Brexiteers.

As an interviewee, you may wish to ensure the audience and the journalist is made aware of the incongruence, before dealing with the complications of immigration policy.

Personal attack

The core technique here is to assert that an argument is undermined by the personal history or record of the person making the argument.

A very familiar version of this would be:

A: ‘I believe that a well-funded, comprehensive, state education is best for the child, best for the family and best for society.’

B: ‘Well clearly, you don’t, you are sending your children to a private or selective school.’

At first sight, this seems obviously true: but a student of logic would quickly point out that you can believe in working for one idea while, in a particular set of circumstances, choosing to do something else.

In many ways, these are very difficult questions to answer. Huge amounts of effort go on behind the scenes, to find phrasing that will work to neutralise this type of question, without needing 20 minutes to explain the realities.

You need a short sentence such as: ‘When public policy fails, everyone is left making difficult choices. That’s why we want …. ‘

The false dichotomy

A false dichotomy is an example of one side oversimplifying to ensure there is a black and white argument. At its simplest, it is ‘if you are not with us, you are against us.’

For example: ‘If you want free trade you vote Conservative, if you care about the Welfare State you vote Labour’.  A clear case of a false dichotomy. Voters do not have two choices but many. It is also possible to hold both beliefs or neither, and have some other important issue help you decide which way to vote. Journalists love to simplify complex arguments and often just for effect.

There are many more logical fallacies, and I would love to hear your stories of some that journalists have used in interviews.

At The Media Coach, we stress-test messages and reactive lines in realistic, mock-interviews. We do this online and in person. We have plenty of clients who would not face the cameras without our training.  If you think we might be able to help, please contact us +44 (0)20 7099 2212 or enquiries@themediacoach.co.uk.

 

Strawman picture attribution Ard Hesselink on flickr

 

 

The eyes have it feature
Eric Dixon

The Eyes Have It: Where to Look in Media Interviews and Presentations

/0 Comments/by

Whether you are being interviewed on camera, giving a presentation in the room, or involved in a live video conference, where you choose to look can make all the difference.

What you do with your eyes – which the old saying would have you believe are ‘windows to the soul’ – not only indicate how confident or professional you are, but also help you connect with your audience.

The eyes have it

Nevertheless, how you use them depends which environment you are in.

Here’s a quick guide with all the answers…

Media interviews with the journalist present:

The simple rule of thumb is as follows: if the journalist is with you, you should look at them.

In other words, ignore the presence of the camera and stare directly at the journalist instead; the bridge of their nose is a good place to aim for. Admittedly, this can feel rather odd after a while (remember to blink normally, though), but it’s the best way to look professional and relaxed.

The problem is that from the audience’s perspective, letting your eyes dart around all over the place (as many people are prone to do while they’re thinking) can make you look nervous and shifty. So, try to think of what you want to say next whilst keeping your eyes fixed in the same place as much as possible.

Similarly, according to the grammar of television, looking at the camera in this situation appears to turn you into a ‘presenter’. That’s what the audience are used to seeing, and they can find this apparent change in role quite disconcerting.

Media interviews with the journalist in a remote studio:

Often known as ‘down-the-line’ interviews, as there is no journalist around, you should look directly into the lens of the camera.

Again, you should keep your eyes fixed in the same position throughout – even if looking down the lens for any length of time can feel quite awkward. Continue blinking as usual and from the viewers’ perspective you will appear at your most calm and considered that way.

If there is a monitor nearby, showing a live image of what is going on (not helpful), ignore it. You’ll find it extremely off-putting if you catch sight of it, and your eyes will no longer be looking into the camera – which is where they should be!

The Eyes Have it

Eric Dixon speaking directly to camera

Presentations in the room:

The key thing here is that you should spend more time looking at the audience than you do at your script or PowerPoint slides.

If you are constantly looking down at notes or to the big screen behind you, the audience will get an excellent view of either the top of your head or your profile respectively, but not your eyes. If this is the case, you will also not be able to see them. The best presenters constantly adapt what they are doing and saying according to the audience’s reaction – and if you aren’t looking at them you won’t know how they are responding.

With big audiences, let your eyes scan across the room while you’re talking, trying to glance at each section of the audience for around three seconds at a time. Some people find it helpful to imagine a giant ‘W’ or ‘M’ positioned over the heads of the audience, and to let their eyes trace the general shape of the letter as they’re talking.
Occasional glances at your notes, laptop or the screen behind you are OK, but the vast majority of your attention should be directed at the people you are talking to.

Being interviewed or presenting via video call:

The rise in popularity of Zoom, Teams and Webex means that this is the way some media interviews and presentations are now carried out. If this is the case, treat the situation exactly like a ‘down-the-line’ interview in a professional studio, and keep your eyes fixed on the camera throughout, or if a long meeting, as much as possible.

Ideally your camera should be above the main screen you are using (rather than on a separate screen to one side). Try to avoid the temptation to watch images of yourself or the people you are talking to on the computer screen below – from the audience’s perspective, your gaze will be slightly ‘off’ if you do this. Instead, the camera lens needs your full attention.

So that’s it!

The position of your eyes – or what we call ‘eyeline’ – is absolutely crucial to get right, and, as we’ve illustrated, is not difficult to carry out.

It’s also part of what we offer in our media training and presentation training sessions.

Remember – in short:
• Is the journalist or audience present? Look at them.
• Is the journalist or audience operating remotely? Look at the camera instead.

 

Image:

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license.

The most important media interviews this year
Lindsay Williams

The Most Important Media Interviews This Year

/0 Comments/by

Anyone who thinks learning to manage a media interview is a rather self-indulgent and unnecessary skill should pause and consider the pressure on Jeremy Hunt in the last couple of days.

On Friday, he was apparently resigned to a quiet life on the back benches: on Saturday he was doing live TV interviews, knowing that the entire UK economy was finely balanced on every word he said.

I have studied two of his interviews: the live one on Sky News on Saturday and the sit-down with Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday, which was pre-recorded.

 

On Saturday, all his key messages were already in place and he did well but looked nervous. By Sunday he had hit his stride and, in my opinion, gave an almost textbook ‘good’ interview with only one ‘slip’ that I spotted.

 

I think Jeremy Hunt’s messages were:

I need to be honest with people – tough decisions ahead
We are compassionate Conservatives, we will remember the needs of the vulnerable
No specifics today, we need to look at everything
Remember we are a strong country, 4th largest economy in the world

These message come across and are repeated in both interviews.

Of course, we all understand that the tone is as important as the words. Hunt’s tone has everything I ask for in training: he spoke with ‘warmth, authority and animation’. He is a politician so good performance does not mean people ‘believe, like and trust’ him: but he is certainly more credible than his new boss.

For those of you who speak fast in interviews, please note Hunt’s very measured speed. He needed to stay in control and weigh every word, whilst sounding in control and confident. You can’t do this if you gabble. Also, by speaking slowly we get no filler words or sounds: no ‘you knows’ and ‘ums’ or ‘ers’. It gives the impression of confidence.
Read Eric Dixon’s blog: Getting Rid of Ums and Ers here.

Hunt had also clearly planned answers to tough questions. The one that brought a smile was when asked if he wanted to be leader he said: “Having fought two leadership campaigns and lost two, the desire to lead has been ‘surgically removed’.”

Humble, funny but also, we might note, not an absolute commitment not to run for leader again.

The one slip?

I think Kuenssberg was the first to say ‘off the table’. She asked directly is anything ‘off the table?’ when considering cuts in public spending. Hunt did not pick it up immediately, but by the end of the answer he said ‘nothing is off the table’. This is something we specifically teach people not to do.

How many times have we heard that one phrase referred to in the last 48 hours? My observation is – he said it by accident. He picked up Kuenssberg’s language and in fact, despite his preparation and control, it is her words (her sizzle to the initiated) that have led the bulletins, not his. That doesn’t mean he did not mean it but she wrote the quote, not him.

 

 

 

Communicate Risk Feature
Lindsay Williams

Don’t Trust Journalists to Communicate Risk

/1 Comment/by

Sharing a risk assessment with the media must be one of the most frustrating PR missions there can be. You can guarantee you will not like the headline!

Communicate Risk

Here are a selection of headlines prompted by the National Grid sharing it’s Winter Outlook report.

Daily Mail: Britain Battles to Keep the lights on – National grid warms of winter blackouts.

The Sun: Lights out: brits to face blackouts this winter – and power could be cut () three hours per day

BBC:  Homes face winter power cuts in worst case scenario says National Grid

Guardian: Homes could face three hour power cuts this winter, warns National Grid

Times: Why National Grid still can’t bring itself to talk about blackouts

Telegraph: Inside the ‘civil emergency’ planning for blackouts this winter

Sky News: Energy crisis: how worried should we be about the lights going out

Reading only the headlines, you would certainly get the impression that Britain is heading for a winter of power cuts. Only the BBC mentions worst case scenario in the headline. And yet, the authors of the report were at pains to explain very clearly, that only one of their modelled scenarios might lead to blackouts, and only in a worst case scenario.

This is not a one-off example of the exaggeration of risk.  Any risk is almost certain to be misrepresented by news headlines. And that makes any meaningful communication of risk to the public, extremely difficult.

I have written before about the nub of the problem:

Scientists and statisticians understand risk as a probability. There is a 20% chance of x happening means: possible but not very likely while an 85% chance means: really quite likely but not certain. However, most people do not think as clearly as this. And in general, they are encouraged by journalists, especially tabloid journalists, to read low risk as a likelihood. 

I have pulled out the two key paragraphs from the National Grid report that deal with the risk of blackout.

In the executive summary on page 3 is the following paragraph:

A second, more extreme scenario, looks at a hypothetical escalation of the energy crisis in Europe such that there is insufficient gas supply available in Great Britain (in addition to no electricity available to import from continental Europe as per above scenario). In the unlikely event …this would …. potentially lead to interruptions to customers for periods. All possible mitigating strategies, including our new measures, would be deployed to minimise the disruption.

There is further clarification on page 10

In the unlikely event we were in this situation, it would mean that some customers could be without power for pre-defined periods during a day – generally this is assumed to be for 3 hour blocks.

My view is that the authors of the report made every effort to signal that power cuts are unlikely. And it is true that if you read beyond the headlines, the ‘worst case scenario’ line is widely reported, but the headlines were wildly misleading but totally predictable.

The exaggeration or risk in this case created it’s own news cycle as various people came to the microphone to counteract the ‘blackouts’ hysteria, among them Cabinet Minister,  Nadhim Zahawi (linked here and here) who used the phrase ‘extremely unlikely’.

Communicate Risk

We are not going to change the British media in a hurry, so I have a couple of suggestions, if you find yourself needing to communicate risk to journalists.

  • Only talk about worst case scenarios if you feel you absolutely have to. (Of course, the National Grid does need to share their planning, but many commercial organisations do not need to publish full risk assessments).
  • Use quotable language around the caveats: if National Grid had said ‘there is a very small outside chance’ or ‘only if we are extremely unlucky’ or ‘we need to plan for a one in a hundred chance’ it would have been hard for the journalists not to write something that indicated this was an unlikely set of circumstances.
  • Put someone up for interview who is prepared – over and over again – to put the whole report in context.

My previous blog on reporting risk can be found here and for anyone interested in the complications of reporting data Tim Harford’s BBC show More or Less, is an excellent topical primer. I also  recommend Nate Silver’s book The Signal and the Noise, which deals in depth with the problem of understanding and reporting data and risk.

Given I have a large number of professional communicators amongst my readers, it would be great to hear your take on the pitfalls of, and tips for, communicating risk.

 

 

Why there's no such thing as local media
Eric Dixon

Why There’s No Such Thing as ‘Only Local’ Media

/0 Comments/by

Before Liz Truss’ now famous series of local radio interviews last Thursday, many media commentators were cynical.

Cynical not just about what the Prime Minister was going to say, but also how effective presenters from smaller stations would be at getting to the heart of the issues and give her the grilling a politician of her stature deserved.

Journalist Paul Mason summed-up the views of many in a tweet on the morning of the broadcasts:

only local

And in case anyone was in any doubt about what he meant, Mason accompanied the tweet with a picture of Steve Coogan’s character Alan Partridge, the hapless and cringeworthy presenter from Radio Norwich (a fictional station, although supposedly operating from the same city where the BBC’s Radio Norfolk is based – one of the outlets asking questions of the Prime Minister that day).

But how wrong he was. The questions were far from ‘soft’. Radio Leeds, Norfolk, Kent, Lancashire, Nottingham, Tees, Bristol and Stoke and their presenters Rima Ahmed, Chris Goreham, Anna Cookson, Graham Liver, Sarah Julian, Amy Oakden, James Hanson and John Acres did a superb job of making pertinent, difficult and tricky enquiries, which often led to some embarrassingly long pauses from their interviewee before she replied.

In fact, the quality of the interviewing was as strong as anything you would expect from Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme. So strong, in fact, that the following meme quickly started to circulate on social media:

Only local

As for highlights, you could find those on Twitter – which featured:

Only local

“Liz Truss embarrassing herself on local radio, condensed down to three awful, squirming, awkward, delicious minutes. Everyone should hear this…”

A few local radio interviews had gone viral on the world wide web within hours. And this whole experience – the huge gap between cynical expectation and hard-hitting reality – serves to illustrate just how careful PRs and interviewees should be about underestimating any media outlet.

Local does not necessarily mean soft. Or amateur. Or of so little consequence that serious preparation is unnecessary. Presenters can be just as hard-hitting as journalists. The national BBC stations often mine the audio from local BBC radio stations to fill their 24-hour news operation. In fact, even though Radio Leeds’ interview with the Prime Minister had taken place only minutes previously, Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme used a clip from the local broadcast to introduce their own national guest – Chris Philp, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury [2 hours, 10 minutes and 26 seconds in]:

Mishal Husain: “Liz Truss has been Prime Minister for three weeks and two days… But this morning she has just begun a series of planned BBC radio interviews with our colleagues in local radio and in the regions. Those began a few minutes ago, starting with BBC Leeds Breakfast presenter Rima Ahmed asking how Liz Truss thought last week’s statement had gone…”

Later that day – and, flicking between the stations at about the same time – I heard James O’Brien playing salient extracts from all the interviews on LBC, and Matt Chorley doing much the same thing on Times Radio – both national outlets.

And if you missed those programmes, or any of the interviews for that matter, the BBC Newscast podcast helpfully and conveniently assembled the full set.

But this is not just about broadcast interviews. The same warning would apply to local and regional papers too. It may not feel as exciting talking to the Saffron Walden Observer as it does to the Financial Times, but you risk treating the former as inconsequential at your peril.

Local hacks – and not just the ones who carried out the original interview – can make useful pin money by picking up local stories, rewriting them and selling them to the nationals. I know; I used to do it.

So, an interview which you expected to exist solely within the confines of the Kent Messenger can be in The Guardian later that day. Or on either of their corresponding websites within minutes. Or something which starts life as a local radio interview is picked up by a regional newspaper and then seized upon by the nationals. With this in mind, Press Gazette also listened to the Prime Minister’s local interviews and produced a full round-up of what happened.

But it doesn’t stop there. An original story about (say) a beachcomber finding valuable treasure on a Cornish coastline in the Western Morning News might get picked up by BBC Radio Cornwall, who do their own report, which then gets featured on Radio 2’s ‘’Jeremy Vine Show’, which then gets reported in The Daily Telegraph, which then initiates a feature on BBC1’s ‘The One Show’, and prompts another BBC local radio station (say) in Lincolnshire – 350 miles away – to use a clip from Radio Cornwall’s earlier interview to ask the question of their own listeners “what’s the most valuable item you’ve ever discovered on a Lincolnshire beach?”. It’s a never-ending media cycle of report and repeat – and as an interviewee, you could appear anywhere in it.

Similarly, at The Media Coach, we believe you should reduce any absolute distinction you might be tempted to make between print, radio and TV encounters. These days many newspapers and magazines also film their interviews (for edited highlights on social media or as a vlog) and many radio stations – both local and national – have cameras rolling during their programmes. Indeed, the majority of the output of what started out as Talk Radio (a digital radio station) is now broadcast simultaneously as Talk TV (a digital TV channel). For much of the time, one has morphed seamlessly into the other.

So, the take home message from all of this? It’s simple: treat every interview as seriously as any other, and expect them all to be filmed (because some of them will be).

Local, regional or national? Print, radio or TV? Hard copy or digital? The interview may originate as one thing, but there’s often no saying where it will end up. So, by way of preparation and managing expectations, it’s simpler – and safer – to assume all of the above.