Archive for category: Blog

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.

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

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