Blog Archives - Page 6 of 11

Why Jackets Work Well on TV

June 14, 2023/0 Comments/by David Gridley

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.

Secondly, 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.

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 and How Not To Do It

June 6, 2023/0 Comments/by Eric Dixon

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…

High Profile Political Interviews

May 31, 2023/1 Comment/by Lindsay Williams

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

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.

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.

Many Colours

May 2, 2023/0 Comments/by David Gridley

What were the colours of Joseph’s Coat? Well, according to lyricist Tim Rice, in the score of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Coat they started “Red and yellow and green and brown, scarlet and black and ochre and peach, ruby and olive and violet and fawn…” I won’t go on as there are 33 in all. Most people probably don’t think too much about the colour or what they and others wear, but as a producer and cameraman I think about it a lot.

I recently caught that song on TV and marvelled at so many different words to describe different shades. Perhaps I could broaden my vocabulary.

When setting a video shot, even with a modern camera, I still have to consider the level of and positioning of lighting depending on a whole host of variables, including what colours my subject is wearing.

Thankfully modern cameras are much better at handling strong colours and generally we can work with just about any colour. However, when we film people for web or corporate videos at Mediacrews, we are always doing our best to make people look good on camera and it’s still true that there are some colours that will enhance your complexion – and some that won’t. And here’s a brief run-through of our quick guide to what colours work best on camera and why.

In the recent past there were certainly colours to avoid simply because video cameras could not cope with them.

Bright red or yellow for example would flare especially in bright sunlight. There was even something called colour-bleed where colours would merge or spread out across the screen. It could all be very distracting.

Firstly, (although they are not strictly colours) try to avoid wearing either all black or all white. Cameras are looking for a balanced exposure so that the thing that is most important in the shot – your face – doesn’t come out either too light or too dark. If the shot contains either too much white or too much black then getting the face exposed correctly can be very tricky.

Image supplied by Pickpic

A good camera-person should be able to cope in these situations, especially if they are working with professional lighting, but there is nothing wrong with making their life a bit easier. For example, a bright white shirt will work well provided a darker jacket is worn on top of it. The jacket tones down the shirt and the camera can find the correct exposure more easily. Top Tip: a bright shirt or blouse will also reflect light back up under the neck and chin which will help avoid dark shadows and improve complexion.

Colours? Well, almost any colour will work provided you match it with another colour which provides a contrast. Some combinations that work well include: bright pink and navy blue, white and dark grey or yellow and black. But if you are only wearing a shirt, dress or blouse, then pastel shades will always work well on camera. They also tend to be flattering to both men and women.

Pastels are sightly muted versions of bold colours and so have less risk of flaring in bright lights. Pastel blues and pinks are classic colours that are virtually guaranteed to come across well on camera.

But as I have already said most colours will not pose a problem for modern cameras and that thankfully means we have a broader palette to work with.

Or, as Joseph would have said, “Azure and lemon and russet and grey and purple and white and pink and orange and blue.”

What PowerPoint Presenters can Learn from Tour Guides

April 13, 2023/0 Comments/by Eric Dixon

Vic

Let me introduce you to Vic.

He’s a tour guide. And last month I had the good fortune to be part of a group of visitors he was leading around the remarkable Copped Hall in Essex.

It’s an astonishing Georgian mansion in Epping, briefly visible from the M25 as you approach Junction 26 going anticlockwise (shortly after you emerge from the Bell Common tunnel). The house was gutted by fire in 1917, remaining derelict and under threat of development for much of the rest of the 20^th century. But in 1995 it was bought by the Copped Hall Trust with the aim of permanently protecting the site and carefully restoring the house and its amazing gardens for educational, cultural and community benefit.

Copped Hall

Unlike most historic homes which are open for the public to visit, Copped Hall is part country house, part building site. Progress over the last 28 years has been necessarily slow, driven mainly by the funds which have been raised by volunteers, but also by the availability of craftspeople with the traditional skills required. Nevertheless, every time you visit there is something new to see. Another window may have been replaced (at a cost of £5,000) or perhaps an additional tread in the spectacular Portland stone principal staircase (just 17 more to add to the 42 already reinstated, costing a cool £1,850 each).

Portland stone staircase

Vic is Victor Knope a senior guide and trustee, who has been involved with the Trust for over two decades. Tours aren’t short – ours lasted nearly three hours, including a break for coffee and cake. But what struck me as the tour progressed, was that many of the techniques Vic was using to keep us informed and entertained were the same as those which should be used by PowerPoint presenters for their audiences.

Amongst them were these six skills in particular:

Rapport

This is more than just a smile and a few friendly words on arrival (although both of these are welcome too). Rapport is also about good humour, topical references, perhaps spotting something in the crowd and commenting on it. Finding something which connected us all. This made us feel at ease and at home straight away. It was also a relief to discover he was someone who we were happy to spend some time with. People are comfortable in the company of people who are like them.

Pace

Not so fast to prevent you keeping up, and not so slow as to sound tedious. The length of sentences was short and snappy. Nothing too long or convoluted. No sub-clauses up front which you had to try to remember before the subject matter of the sentence was revealed. Coupled with varied intonation – the natural rise and fall of spoken English – it was easy on the ear.

No assumed knowledge

The site of Copped Hall is so vast and varied, visitor interests may be historical, architectural, archaeological, horticultural or all of the above. But you didn’t need to know anything about any of these topics to enjoy what Vic had to say. After all, many of us were just there out of curiosity, wondering what was going on at this massive shell of a property, while whiling away a Sunday morning.

Colloquial language

In a word, he was chatty. No long words used where short ones would do. Vic understood that we wouldn’t treat him less seriously if he spoke more conversationally. In fact – the opposite. As the quote often attributed to Einstein goes “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough…”

Stories

There were plenty of these. From tales of the fire which ripped through the house in 1917, to the deliberate destruction of the stone staircase in the 1950s, and volunteers having to clear the mass of the tangled mass of plants and trees that had invaded by the late ‘90s. Details like this helped us visualise what had happened and put the facts into context.

A clear purpose

Above all, Vic recognised what his tour was for. I walked alongside him as we returned to the car park and complimented him on his approach. “I don’t expect anyone to leave here remembering a dry list of facts and dates,” he said. “I just want them to experience and understand a little more about this remarkable site.” Perfect – and something PowerPoint presenters could take on board too.

There are guided tours around Copped Hall on the third Sunday of every month (except in December), priced at a very reasonable £10 a head (carers / children under 16 are free).

If you go, please send Vic my regards.

A Moderate Voice on Northern Ireland

April 11, 2023/0 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

This weekend I greatly enjoyed listening to Jonathan Powell on this New Statesman Vodcast.

It is easy to assume that measured, moderate voices are inevitably boring. And with our Media Coach lens we would particularly expect ‘boring’ in the use of language. Clients constantly reach for bland almost meaningless phrases because they want to avoid controversy and sound considered. But actually, technical language, boring phrasing and bland generalities are not essential parts of an intelligent analysis.

This interview by the New Statesman’s Rachel Wearmouth and Tony Blair’s Chief of Staff, who was one of the main negotiators of the Good Friday Agreement 25 years ago, shows how it is possible to be a voice of calm reason but still be very interesting.

Of course, while I do believe Powell is wise, calm and measured, he is clearly not non-partisan.

But look at his colloquial (and quotable) use of language:

He asserts the Good Friday agreement has ‘stood the test of time’.
He claims it ‘ended the war” and allowed more normal politics to become established.
He believes the agreement ended a period in which he suggested Northern Ireland had been ‘imprisoned by history’.
He says that Brexit created weakness in the Good Friday Agreement, in particular it put ‘the poison of identity politics’ back into the debate.
Later he speaks about Boris Johnson’s ‘deliberate vandalism of the peace process in Northern Ireland’.

Ok, so perhaps he is not measured or respectful about Boris Johnson (or actually Boris Johnson’s government) but overall this interview feels like a statesman speaking, but in a way that ordinary people can relate to.

That is the trick. Wisdom with a common touch. No jargon. Clarity of argument. And for my taste less shrill than so much of the political debate.

Ten Tips for Sounding More Authoritative When Speaking

April 4, 2023/1 Comment/by Lindsay Williams

My views on how people should sound in a media interview or during a presentation are based on 25 years of broadcasting and 20 years of coaching. When I coach, we nearly always use filming and playback, so that the person being coached can decide for themselves if they like the results. I highly recommend this to anyone trying to improve working on their own.

From this experience, I have distilled these ten top tips:

1. Slow down. More than half the people I train, speak way too fast when making presentations or delivering a media interview. It can be hard to slow down, but the best way to learn is to record yourself and playback – focus on ‘how slow can you go’ and then see what it sounds like. Understand it will feel odd, but listen back and then make your judgement. It took me a very long time to learn this myself.

2. Learn to pause. This is related to slowing down, but in fact, is much easier than learning to speak slowly. Pausing shows confidence but it also gives you thinking time.

3. Avoid smiling too much. Smiling is good, too much smiling undermines authority. If you sound too cheery, try being deliberately ‘grumpy’. Again, film and playback, see what you think works best. Often acting as a bit grumpy, doesn’t come across as grumpy, just more certain.

4. Lower your voice. This is more controversial, as I would not recommend anyone go to the lengths that Margaret Thatcher did. However, if your voice is high you may sound like a lightweight. Often the intention to lower is all that is needed. Again, the real learning comes if you record your presentation or mock interview and playback.

5. Use more energy when you speak, and remember to project your voice. Many people seem to feel uncomfortable treating a presentation or an interview as a performance. Projecting properly can take a bit of training and is partly a matter of muscle in the larynx. Teachers, actors, opera singers and media trainers all have highly developed voice muscles. But even if that is not your background, just using more energy when you speak (without speeding up the delivery) will make you a more interesting speaker.

6. Top tip from my colleague Eric Dixon is, engage with your content. There is a huge difference between parroting it and acting it. Take responsibility for how much of what you’re saying the audience hears and processes…that is down to you the speaker. If you don’t care about the content, this is hard to do.

7. Have evidence for what you are saying. Just adding three numbers to a message can make it sound more authoritative. Evidence can be facts and numbers or anecdote. Bold claims without evidence lack credibility.

8. Make eye contact with the audience or whoever you are speaking to. In a TV interview there are rules about where to look: if the interviewer is with you then look at them not the camera. If the interviewer is elsewhere it is what is called a ‘down-the-line’ interview, and you must look straight down the barrel of the camera. In a presentation you want to make eye contact with everyone in the room equally. If it is a large audience, trace across the audience with a pattern of an M or a W. This helps to address the whole audience and not just the front row.

9. Listen more, say less. In conversation, the most authoritative person in the room is often the person who says the least. Listening respectfully and attentively will give you power. Asking clear, short, probing follow-up questions gives you more power.

10. Don’t fiddle with anything. If you are doing an interview or a presentation you may be nervous, and nerves can make you fiddle. Again, watching a video of yourself performing will tell you what those habits are. Understand you are pulling your ear, flicking your hair, or fiddling with change in the pocket, to comfort yourself. Once you become aware of it, it should be easy to stop.

What did I miss?

Most Common Mistakes in Broadcast Interviews

March 20, 2023/0 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

There are quite a few things to get your head around if you want or need to become a talking head for your company or your cause. Our broadcast media training is designed to help people understand how to prepare ahead of an interview and how to behave during an interview. But in this post, I am just concentrating on a list of common mistakes. The first group of mistakes will ensure you won’t get invited back. The second group of mistakes will likely provoke more negative or even aggressive questioning.

Avoid this list of don’ts if you want to be invited back:

Don’t use jargon and technical language – we’ve blogged about this elsewhere. It is difficult but crucial to change hats before you go on air. Speak in words a 14-year-old would understand.
Don’t constantly plug your company or your product. In fact, we usually advise steering clear of anything that sounds like promotion. Talk about issues. Broadcasters do not want to be seen to allow you to advertise on air.
Don’t offer opinions without evidence. A crucial difference in serious media is between someone who has opinions and someone who has opinions backed by proof points, either facts and numbers, or examples. Preferably both. If you can’t back up your argument, you probably won’t be invited back.
Don’t speak too fast or too slowly. Broadcasters care about their audience and interviewees must be both interesting and easy to understand.
Don’t speak for more than 40-50 seconds in any one answer. In most cases, you will get interrupted if you go beyond this. But next time they may choose someone who is less long-winded. Similarly, don’t answer too short. An interview should sound like an interesting conversation, if you don’t talk they’ll assume you don’t want to be there.

The second list of don’ts is all about avoiding behaviour that will provoke negative questions or aggression.

Don’t be overly positive – no one will believe you and you will sound like a salesperson, this will prompt much tougher questions. Most broadcast journalists want serious debate, not hype. If you sound too positive the presenter will feel duty-bound to ask negative questions.
Don’t ‘open a negative ‘ by which I mean, unnecessarily remind the audience of some previous misdemeanour or some hole in your argument. It is surprisingly common for people to refer to problems or issues that loomed large internally but have either long been forgotten externally, or were never widely reported. Don’t assume the journalist has remembered the slump in profits two years ago or the high-profile departure of a member of the senior leadership team. Have a line ready if it is mentioned, but steer clear of reminding the journalist of a negative. If you do mention it, the journalist will be duty to bound to ask you more about it.
Don’t get personal with a journalist, even if they are being aggressive in their questioning. The broadcast journalist sees themselves as representing the audience…plus they enjoy the theatre of a bust-up on air. If you start saying ‘where did you get that information from’ or ‘the trouble with the BBC is it’s full pinko leftist dreamers’ you will ensure the questions get tougher and more pointed.

RMT leader Mick Lynch is known for having a go at journalists. He is perhaps more comfortable than most people with the aggression that inevitably follows.

Finally, don’t completely ignore questions. Nothing is more annoying to an audience and journalists cannot afford to let it slide. If you are not clear how to both answer questions and get your messages heard, read this previous post from us.

If you would like to be media trained, or want help preparing for a television or radio interview just get in touch: either +44 (0)20 7099 2212 or enquiries@themediacoach.co.uk

Images:
Photo Credit: BBC
Photo Credit: (NASA/Aubrey Gemignani) Flickr

Isabel Oakeshott, a Divisive but Impressive Interviewee

March 6, 2023/0 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

The publication in The Telegraph last week, of a series of stories based on Matt Hancock’s WhatsApp messages, is a very addictive and divisive subject for those of us that consider ourselves journalists.

On the one hand it is an enormous scoop. Whatever you think about how the information came into the public domain, the content is dynamite for people who lost loved ones during the pandemic, or had to say goodbye to mothers, fathers, brothers, etc. on Facetime. Or indeed, for people who were running care homes in impossible circumstances, or those that worked in care homes without PPE, because none was available.

On the other hand, journalists feel disgusted by the idea that one of their own, Isabel Oakeshott, has broken an NDA and not only failed to protect her source but turned on him and generally behaved in a way that appears unethical and self-serving.

One interesting piece by Julia Hartley-Brewer in The Telegraph tackles the question of why journalists have turned on Oakeshott. After suggesting the journalists got it wrong campaigning for more restriction and more lockdowns Hartley-Brewer concludes:

Perhaps if, instead of sitting smugly at home for months on end enjoying their freshly baked sourdough while the country’s finances, physical and mental health were all systematically destroyed, those journalists had done their job properly, then Isabel Oakeshott wouldn’t have to do it for them now.

For me, as an interviewee, Oakeshott is impressive. Her arguments are incredibly consistent. Her prepared lines on why she did what she did, on the financial incentive, on the betrayal of News International (for whom she worked but gave the scoop to The Telegraph) are all logical and well-constructed.

What’s more, she is prepared to take the flak

Asked if she broke a legal agreement to respect confidentiality which she signed … her answer was ‘yes’.

Asked why, she says because ‘it is in the public interest’.

Asked why she wrote the book with Hancock – Pandemic Diaries: The Inside Story of Britain’s Battle Against Covid – which appears to exonerate Hancock – and then a few months later work with The Telegraph to deliver a completely different story … she says she did not have time to read all the WhatsApp messages before the publication date. And the book was based on Hancock’s diaries and his version of events. It was only later that she realised that the WhatsApp messages told a very different story.

Oakeshott has repeatedly refused to speak excessively against Matt Hancock, saying the issue is bigger than just his actions.

She also repeatedly says that if we rely on the public enquiry …the best way to look at these things…we will wait a decade or more, and there could be another pandemic tomorrow.

So, the messaging is good, and her consistent toughness is remarkable

But she behaved in a very bitchy way on Times Radio in an interview with Cathy Newman and then terminated the call… And she was clearly rattled and not at her best in an interview with Nick Robinson on BBC Radio 4‘s Today Programme.

Initially, I was disgusted by Oakeshott, my prejudice is you should never break an NDA because there are times when people need to speak freely, explore different ideas, etc. She looked like a self-publicist, someone on the make.

But having listened to ten-plus interviews on the WhatsApp messages I feel differently.

I have a grudging respect for a woman prepared to walk into the lion’s den of a divisive political issue, with a clear argument, some clear red lines and the guts to face down the critics.

The Media Coach provides media and presentation training sessions and can also help with messaging, podcasting training and speechwriting. Get in touch via enquires@themediacoach.co,uk. More information on our website: themediacoach.co.uk

Please Do Answer the Question in a Media Interview

February 27, 2023/0 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

We are all used to politicians refusing to answer questions but it was quite shocking last Monday on Channel 4 News, to see a spokesperson for junior doctors simply parrot prepared lines without any attempts to answer a question.

Why you should answer the question before using prepared lines.

You retain your credibility
You do not give the journalist the incentive to be aggressive
You do not look as if you have something to hide

Media trainers always get blamed for this sort of interview but very few media trainers train people to completely ignore the questions.

We believe a spokesperson should have a prepared argument for an interview.

We believe that argument should be in normal English, not policy or specialist language, and sometimes that takes some preparation to get right.

We believe it should include some hard evidence (think numbers) and some soft evidence (think people’s experience).

But we also think a spokesperson should answer questions first, and then introduce information that has been pre-planned.

This performance from the deputy co-chair of the BMA Junior Doctors Committee is shocking. She is clear, she is articulate, she explains her case very well and she has her facts and numbers to hand, but she totally ignores almost every question and makes a prepared statement to each one without even pretending to engage.

She is very lucky that Channel 4 News presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy took pity on her and decided not to get tough.