Blog Archives - Page 7 of 11

Is There Such a Thing as Voice Privilege?

February 20, 2023/5 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

I was rather taken aback to read an article in the FT this week about ‘voice privilege’. It really annoyed me. Read the article here but as it’s behind a paywall, here is a quick summary.

The author argues that having a nice voice is a huge advantage in life, and Boris Johnson is a prime example of someone who has been successful because of his voice. Janan Ganesh writes:

His voice is beautiful. I don’t mean his accent. I don’t mean his choice of words or his arrangement of them: what is called “eloquence”. I mean his voice. Deep and textured, raspy without crossing into sibilance, I can see (or hear) why people want to be around it. And why those cursed with a squeak or a murmur go through life hamstrung?

Why is this annoying? Because, as is so often the case, there is an element of truth in this, but it is grossly exaggerated.

And as a presentation trainer, worrying about the beauty of someone’s voice is not top of my list of things to work on.

Some people, it is true, naturally have lovely voices. For a variety of reasons that boil down to luck: social class, school, parents, ethnicity, etc. And as you would expect, some have voices that lack authority, are too squeaky, or too quiet to be instantly attractive.

But this is true surely about everything in life. Some have lovely hair, some bad teeth, some are born into money while others have a natural ability to connect with people. All of us have a share of both positive and negative.

As someone who coaches public speakers, I would say, use what you are lucky to have and work to improve that which you don’t like. But don’t get too hung up on it because, actually your audience will judge you on many things, not just something as superficial as your voice.

As humans, we do make snap judgements and have unconscious biases as Ganesh argues, but we also do a very good job at overcoming those biases, once we have more exposure to someone or their ideas.

There isn’t one hidden trait that will make you a great speaker against all the odds just as there isn’t one advantage in life that will ensure you get to the top, whatever that means.

Demosthenes

The crucial thing that will make you a successful speaker is working on it. The evidence is that all successful orators worked on their communication skills. Churchill famously battled with public speaking and a natural lisp. We recently learnt that Joe Biden has always battled with his stutter. A Greek statesman, Demosthenes famously overcame his speech impediment by speaking with pebbles in his mouth. Warren Buffet was terrified of public speaking. The list goes on.

The biggest handicap you can have in this area is to think nothing can be changed. If you believe that you are the way you are and that’s your lot, you will probably be proved right.

In my experience as a professional coach, most of us underestimate our ability to adapt and change. Neural plasticity is the scientific term. We all have the ability to adapt and modify our voice, amongst all the other things we can modify if we decide to.

And as presentation coaches (as well as media trainers) we see this every day. Coaching helps a client to focus on what matters to them. Working with a video camera, recording and playing back presentations or interviews, we can make people aware of the unconscious behaviours that can then be tackled. People can lower their voices, they can slow down, they can become more animated, they can learn to articulate more clearly.

The second handicap is to believe your fellow human beings, your audience, will never be able to see past your less-than-perfect pitch. They won’t make allowances for your nerves, they won’t take you seriously because you are short, or bald or overweight or you have a light voice. But it is just not true.

If you have interesting things to say, and you care about communicating them clearly, audiences will listen. It just takes a bit of effort.

Learn to be Quotable and You Will Control the Headlines

February 14, 2023/0 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

As a media trainer, I am constantly urging people to be a little more creative or adventurous with their language…for the simple reason that it will ensure journalists report the things they say.

In recent days I have been looking for some new examples to prove this point and I offer five here. I am deliberately looking in the serious media and trade press because so many believe being quotable is only relevant for the red-tops (popular press).

So, I start in Japan where the appointment of an unexpected candidate as Governor of the Bank of Japan has made headlines in the business news. A political advisor, asked to comment on the race before the result, urged people not to jump to conclusions and said ‘there is still the possibility of a dark-horse candidate’. The use of the English idiom was repeated in a subsequent headline in the FT. We will never know but perhaps the advisor would not have made it into the piece if had been more cautious in his use of language. If he was a named independent consultant the quote in the FT would have been good for business.

In politics coming up with a good metaphor cannot just get you the quote but hi-jack the public debate, or as PR people like to say ‘change the conversation’. One labour commentator talking about the recent reshuffle said Levelling Up Secretary, Michael Grove had ‘had his piggy bank stolen’: just a more interesting way of saying ‘lost control of his budget’. But such interesting phrases are currency in public debate. And they make quotes and headlines.

A couple of weeks ago our own Central Bank Governor Andrew Bailey wanted to announce some cautious good news on the economy. My guess is he wanted to make sure people got the message but he did not want to be too optimistic. Picking the right phrase was crucial. He said ‘the corner has been turned on inflation’. As you’d expect, this phrase has been repeated many times by journalists and pundits since then. Job done.

In motortrader.com, a trade news website, Matthew Davock, director of Manheim Commercial Vehicles, Cox Automotive stepped out behind is metaphorical desk when he said to a reporter: “The wholesale LCV market is off to a flying start at Manheim…” It was enough to ensure he was quoted, and his company’s success was a headline.

Mark Caddle, partner and trademark attorney at IP firm Withers & Rogers promoted himself and his work in Grocer magazine, whilst commenting on an important High Court ruling on ‘copycatting’…where cheaper brands deliberately make a product look like a more expensive competitor.

His quote as reported was:

“With the memory of the battle of Colin and Cuthbert the caterpillar cakes still fresh, this should send a warning that a line in the sand is forming”. And the headline:

Day in, day out, we spot these examples. Some are pedestrian ‘storms approaching’, ‘gamechanger’, ‘out of the woods’ for example and some are fun and creative and memorable such as Boris’ ‘I’d rather be dead in a ditch than delay Brexit’.

There may well be push back from colleagues worried about ‘tone of voice’ but they should be reminded of the clear benefit of using interesting language, the currency of the scribbling classes.

Robert Caro: 20th Century Journalism and How to Tell a Story

February 7, 2023/0 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

All my serious reading is organised by my son, who is way more intellectual than me. I am currently enjoying Working by Robert A. Caro and have found lessons and examples that can inform our very different work in a very different century.

Caro was a journalist in the late fifties and sixties working mostly in regional media but with a six year spell as an investigative journalist on Newsday (Long Island and New York). However, he is best known for his exhaustive biographies of two men: Robert Moses, an American urban planner who shaped New York and Lyndon B Johnson. These have won him many awards and considerable fame in political circles. (My son is reading the LBJ biographies, but he rightly judged these are likely too weighty for me.) The awards include winning the Pulitzer Price for Biography twice. Caro is now 87 and is still working on the fifth and final volume of the LBJ biography. The existing four volumes took him 40 years.

There is much to say about Caro’s short book about his work, and the insight it gives into investigative journalism before the internet. Working describes the hours, days, the years, of going through the papers generated by these two men and the people they worked or butted heads with. Endless writing and rewriting: starting a manuscript longhand, and then typing it on a typewriter. This is not the sort of journalism I was ever involved with, and may no longer exist. And while Caro learnt his craft in a newsroom, he is really a writer and a biographer rather than being a journalist in the modern sense of the word.

Working tells the story of one man’s obsession with getting to the bottom of things and understanding how political power really works in a democracy. It is also about the thought process behind incisive, factual but beautiful writing.

For further insight, here is Rachel Cooke’s write up about her fairly recent interview with Caro for The Guardian.

I am going to pull out just one example from this little book that made me want to sing and laugh out loud.

Daily I harangue corporate spokespeople to use stories and examples. To illustrate their ideas with human experience, not just conceptual language. Built into my Message House formula, as all my students will know, is space for the story or anecdote or example. I want to force speakers to find the story that will make it all real. I all too often fail. I worry that I do not really communicate the power of this element of messaging. And then in this little book from a writer dealing with a former age, I find the perfect example. Storytelling that burns an idea into your subconscious.

Caro heard from a former colleague of LBJ that when first in Washington, the future president walked to work from his rather shabby digs to the House Office Building on the other side of Capitol Hill. But he always arrived breathless and could often be seen running the last stretch. A young, driven, hugely determined man who was newly in Washington after growing up in rural poverty in the Hill Country of Texas, he still got up with the sun. Apparently every morning, he would start running at a certain point on the journey to work, and sprint towards the office. Researching these early years, Caro many times retraced the steps of that walk. He wanted to know why the young Johnson broke into a run. Finally, he decided to do that walk at 5.30am as Johnson would have done. And suddenly, he understood.

“Veering along a path to the left he (LBJ) would come up Capitol Hill and around the corner of the Capitol, and the marble of the eastern façade, already caught by the early morning sun would be a gleaming brilliant almost dazzling white. A new line of columns – towering columns, marble for magnificent and Corinthian for grace, stretch ahead of him…. And columns loomed not just before him but above him – columns atop columns ….and the huge dome that rose above the capital was circled by columns.”

And he would run.

“Well of course he was running”, writes Caro in Working: “from the land of dog-run cabins to this. Everything he had ever wanted, everything he had ever hoped for was there. And that gigantic stage lit up by the brilliant sun, that façade of the Capitol – that place – showed him that. Showed him that, and if I could write it right, (I) would show the reader as well.”

It took Caro weeks if not months to get that story, to find the right imagery. But once he got it, he wrote it and brought to life the raw determination of LBJ to move away from poverty and towards power and majesty. How the morning light on the marble columns made him sprint towards his future.

Since I have read those words, I have pictured that run again and again. I even dreamt about it. I have never seen the Capitol building except on TV. But the power of that story, the image of the sun on the marble, the desperation to escape poverty, is likely to be the most insightful thing I will ever know about LBJ.

Understanding the power of a story, one that you can picture, is essential to influence. I have been at his game over 20 years now and I hope that there are today people out there who say, “I had a great media/presentation trainer, she taught me to tell stories”.

Other blogs I have written on the power of stories.

The Most Powerful Element of any Message

The Stories Leaders Tell

The Power of The Specific

Capitol Building Images: Credit Louis Velazquez

Unsplash

Leveraging Localness

January 30, 2023/0 Comments/by Eric Dixon

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.

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!

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

Why Journalists ask Personal Questions

January 23, 2023/0 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

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?’

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.

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?

January 16, 2023/7 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

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.

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.

The Elegant Put Down

December 5, 2022/0 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

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.

How Journalists Use Logical Fallacies

November 1, 2022/1 Comment/by Lindsay Williams

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 6^th century BC. And an English scholar, Richard Whately (1787-1863) produced his own list and some further categorisation.

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.

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: Where to Look in Media Interviews and Presentations

October 24, 2022/0 Comments/by Eric Dixon

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.

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!

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

October 17, 2022/0 Comments/by Lindsay Williams

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, 4^th 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.