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 over the weekend (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001gws3 – from 44’05” in). 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.

 

Gotcha feature
Eric Dixon

How to cope with ‘Gotcha’ questions during media interviews

/0 Comments/by
Gotcha

Presenter Noel Edmunds used to hand out ‘Gotcha’ awards

“Gotcha!”

For those of us of a certain age, it was the triumphant cry from Noel Edmonds on primetime Saturday night TV, as he presented yet another fellow celebrity with the award of the same name, after secretly filming them being pranked.

“Caught you,” those two syllables meant, “and what’s more, we’ve got it on film! Ha – more fool you!”

In the world of media training, those same six letters are used to describe interviewer’s questions which are designed to catch the interviewee out – particularly by asking them something to which they already know the answer. The theory is that rather than the journalist revealing the damaging information, it’s more embarrassing for the interviewee if they are forced to reveal it themselves. I know this to be the case: when I was a national BBC radio presenter, I used to do it too.

There was an excellent example of an attempt at the genre with Kay Burley on Sky News last week, when she was interviewing the new Secretary of State for Digital, Michelle Donelan. But as you can see from the clip, it backfires:

 

 

To find out why this was less successful for the interviewer than she hoped, it’s worth analysing the dialogue moment by moment, to examine exactly what happened:

KB: Talk to me about when you were at education; I mean, you weren’t there very long, were you?

MD: Well, I was – I was there for over three years.

No doubt, Donelan knew what was happening here. Back in July she had resigned from her position as Education Secretary after less than two days, in protest over the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s reluctance to resign after the Chris Pincher scandal. But the vagueness of Burley’s phrase “at education” meant she could bring her entire time in office into play (she had been Minister of State for Higher and Further Education, and Lord Commissioner of the Treasury before that).

KB: As the Secretary of State, how long were you there?

MD: Well – as you know the answer already, Kay, it was 36 hours. But I was serving in the cabinet for ten months and before that, a minister in two different roles – so I was there for over three years.

The phrase “as you know the answer already…” is key here. It’s Donelan’s way of indicating to the interviewer that she knows exactly what is going on. She then goes on to succinctly reveal the short amount of time Burley is looking for (“36 hours”), before ending her response by reiterating the length of her entire time in office.

Undeterred, with that attempt over, Burley tries again:

KB: OK – £17,000 is what you got, apparently, as a payoff – which you said…

MD: And you know the answer to that one as well, Kay, I didn’t take that…

KB: OK – you said you were going to give it to a charity…

MD: No, I didn’t – I said that if I wasn’t able to reject the money, I would give it to a charity, but I rejected it, as you already know…

Notice the repeat of “and you know the answer to that one as well…”. But most impressive in the clip is how calm Donelan remains. She recognises what’s happening and knows she’s on firm ground. Therefore, she can continue to appear relaxed and smiling throughout:

KB: Oh, OK – I didn’t know that…

MD: And that’s on the record…

KB: I didn’t know that – that’s why I asked you the question. I’m surprised you didn’t give it to a charity, but there you go…

Oof – another dig! And at first glance, it seems Burley might have a point; charity is clearly a good thing, therefore giving money to charity must be a good thing to do – perhaps even a better thing to do. However, increasingly sure of herself in this interaction, Donelan gives an appropriate and perfectly-judged answer:

MD: Well, it was taxpayers’ money – so I think it would be wrong for me to take taxpayers’ money, then decide which charity I wanted to give it to. So, I was very clear that if I was able to reject it, I would reject it – and I did.

It’s a highly assured performance from Donelan – and a less successful one from Burley, who The Spectator magazine describes as being “clearly disappointed” by how the interview was going, in an article written shortly afterwards linked here.

Mind you, not every broadcaster is keen on this approach. During last month’s Conservative Party hustings, newscaster Alastair Stewart – formerly with ITN, now with GB News – said: “It is not our style to go in search of ‘gotcha’ moments or high-octane arguments between the candidates…”

Nevertheless, it’s a style which is sometimes used. And if you ever find yourself on the receiving end, here are my three tips to cope:

  • Maintain integrity. Continue being searingly honest – and this means avoiding exaggeration, ambiguity, or saying something which could be misinterpreted, which may later come back to bite you.
  • Keep calm. There’s no need to demonstrate your frustration or anger to the interviewer with the way the conversation is going; indeed, they’d probably like that! So, it’s more effective if you can remain cool and collected – and your authority will rocket as a result.
  • Stay smiling. There’s no better way to exude confidence than putting on a smile. It also indicates that you’re enjoying the experience – and the audience are more likely to remain on your side that way, too!

Dealing with ‘Gotcha’ interviews is just one part of our Media Training sessions, along with explanations of a whole host of tricks and traps that interviewees may fall prey to. You can find more details here.

And not a Noel Edmonds award in sight…

 

Images:
Noel Edmonds picture: Montage Communications CC BY-SA 2.0
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Noel_Edmonds_2006.jpg

dealing with presentation nerves
Lindsay Williams

Dealing with Presentation Nerves

/0 Comments/by

Lots of people suffer some presentation nerves. Some suffer terribly. There are dozens of strategies for dealing with the stress of presenting, speaking in public or doing a media interview. Here are mine.

Dealing with Presentation Nerves

Simple steps

  • Rehearse aloud
  • Research your audience as much as possible
  • If it is a media interview, read what the journalist has written or listen/watch the show you are appearing on
  • Arrive early
  • If you are presenting, check the room and the tech

These above are the basic tips for a professional approach to either a presentation or a television or radio interview. However, for some people this will not be enough, so here are some more ‘off-the-wall’ ideas.

Master your mind

  • I am a long-term user of self-hypnosis and guided meditations. They work for me. You can literally borrow a hypnosis recording from a library. You probably need to listen two or three times in the days before the stressful event. Here is a taster from YouTube.

  • If you don’t fancy an off the peg solution, you can do this for yourself.  Just get into a relaxed state (first thing in the morning as you wake up is good) and imagine the interview or presentation going really well. Imagine enjoying it and imagine other people afterwards telling you how good you were. This is usually remarkably effective for reducing my nerves. If like me you have done a lot of meditation, it’s relatively easy to get into the zone. Others may find it more difficult. What is the zone? Well if you want to get technical you need theta brain waves, this  should feel like relaxed day dreaming. The idea is that you are programming your unconscious mind to deliver the result you want: a great presentation.
    dealing with presentation nerves
  • Just before the event. You could try the Power Pose. This technique is supposed to have been debunked, but I suspect it depends on the individual. Anyway, you could try it. Go stand in the loo, or somewhere private and adopt the Power Pose (illustrated in this photo by Wonder Woman and Amy Cuddy) for at least a minute. Cuddy gave a Ted Talk on this idea in 2012. The theory is, that while we all accept the mind can influence the body, the opposite is also true. If you stand confidently, you will feel confident.
  • Deep breathing is not recommended. Holding your breath is. Apparently, you don’t want to increase the oxygen in your system if you are stressed, you want to decrease it. There is loads on the internet and written about this. If you want to deep dive read Breath by James Nestor.  If you want to give it a go, try this instructional video.
  • Another physical exercise comes from the work of neuroscientist
    Dr Andrew Huberman. He has two tricks for reducing stress that I use daily. One is look at the horizon. That’s it! just take a few seconds to focus on the horizon. Monitor your body: if it works for you, there will be a palpable physical change.
  • The other is to focus on a fixed point but turn your attention to your peripheral vision. What can you see at the periphery of your vision without moving your gaze. If you alternate between these two mindfulness exercises for just for a couple of minutes, my experience is you can feel your stress melt away. Dr Huberman has a large internet presence to explore but here is a starter video.

Finally, It may also help to understand stress is normal ahead of public speaking. Many people who appear in public regularly continue to suffer from nerves, but they do it anyway. Pay attention to it and you will see it is working to ensure you take the event seriously and do the preparation. Rehearsing aloud is essential.

Images: IStock, Flickr, Unsplash

Leaders Should Show Emotion
Lindsay Williams

Official: Leaders Should Show Emotion (Sparingly)

/0 Comments/by

My 91-year-old mother was not impressed with King Charles III’s first address to the nation last Friday.

‘What was wrong with it?’ I asked

‘Not very kingly.’

‘You mean too emotional?

‘Yes. Sentimental and emotional. That is not his job!’

My mother belongs to a dying generation where a stiff upper lip really meant something. It was the way she was raised. It was what she expected from her Monarch.

But times have changed and now showing you are human, moved and that you care is not just acceptable, it is de rigueur.

The Royal Family we know, learnt this the hard way. Hiding themselves away (with the exception of the then Prince Charles) when Princess Diana died in a car crash in Paris. Their struggle with an absolute requirement to show some emotion – as portrayed in the film The Queen in 2006 – was a turning point. Eventually, they did come out and we could see they were as shocked as the rest of us. The Queen made a television address that, whilst not exactly emotional, showed she was deeply affected. What was widely seen as a crisis for the Monarchy, quickly passed.

Prince Philip appeared never to have accepted the need to show emotion in public. He would likely have agreed with my mother that his son’s television address was much too sentimental. I can’t help speculating that Princess Anne probably thought the same.

King Charles’ broadcast on Friday evening, was calm and controlled but towards the end he was visibly moved. It is what modern Britain expects.

If you are a leader, and something shocking, sad, or threatening happens, you will be called upon to capture the moment and set the way forward. Nowadays, you are best advised to show that you, like others, are affected. But crucially the emotion must appear controlled.

Of course, your short timely speech will have other considerations: You must also remind everyone of what will outlast the death or the crisis, and what the path ahead is. You will want to give the impression that everything is under control.

Getting this balance right is not easy, and although our new King has had 60-plus years to plan for that moment, most leaders find themselves having to pull together a speech in under an hour.

The one I remember from my own career was in a regional BBC newsroom 35 years ago: we came into work expecting to hear good news about the birth of a baby to one of our colleagues. I remember knowing almost instantly that something was wrong, there was a terrible atmosphere. But no one knew what had happened. At 9 am, a relatively new editor (who also had young children) called a building-wide meeting, and we gathered very solemnly. He told us that mother and baby were doing fine but the child had Down’s Syndrome. He said that flowers had been sent in the usual manner. He acknowledged it was a shock but reminded us that the couple were resourceful and given time would adjust and cope fine. He asked us to refrain from talking about it in these first few hours and then made it clear he expected us to get on with the job of getting that day’s bulletins out in the normal way. I remember at the time thinking it was a remarkable mini-speech, portraying firmness and compassion, done without notes, at less than an hour’s notice.

It hit all the marks of showing he himself was affected and cared, but also reminding us it was not a tragedy, giving us guidance on how to behave and telling us to get on with the job.

Here are thoughts from other writers, on the issue of leaders and showing emotion.

Entrepreneur – Why it is Important Critical for Leaders to Show Emotion at Work

Forbes – Great Leaders Never Show Emotion, Until They Need to