|
It may sound sacrilegious to say this, but media training that emphasizes bridging to messages as its primary tactic does little to help spokespeople mitigate risk during interviews. In fact, by encouraging people to talk more in an environment in which it is already difficult to stop, the tactic of bridging to key messages actually increases the risk of a spokesperson being misquoted.
There is a significant risk of being quoted out of context during media interviews. This risk can fall anywhere along a spectrum that ranges from mild to severe.
Mild risk occurs when the information included in a media story appears to be less than accurate. If you’ve ever heard a spokesperson complain that reporters never get it right, you’ve probably witnessed this type of risk firsthand.
Severe risk occurs when a portion of what the spokesperson says is twisted or turned, then included in a story to deliberately fan the flames of a smoldering fire. If this occurs, an organization may need to exercise damage control, and there may be significant risk to its reputation.
Risk is greatest in print
The risk of being quoted out of context is greatest with print media, whether in traditional print newspapers, magazines or on a computer screen (e-zines or blogs). This occurs because there is no direct contact between the spokesperson and the audience; journalists gather and interpret information, and present the final version.
There is less risk of being quoted out of context in broadcast interviews. It is a possibility when journalists are seeking a sound bite, but less severe or likely during live interviews.
When a sound bite is included in a broadcast story, the audience does not always hear the original question. The journalist may only use a small portion of the spokesperson’s answer, potentially positioning their comment with something other than what was asked.
With live interviews, in which the audience hears questions and answers with minimal editing or no editing at all (whether played live to air or recorded for later), the entire context is provided, making it extremely difficult for the spokesperson to be quoted out of context. However, ignoring questions during live interviews or bridging from the question asked to messages the spokesperson wants to relate can limit the advantages of these interviews.
By constantly bridging, spokespeople can only reinforce existing opinions for or against their perspective during live exchanges with broadcast journalists. They are less likely to be able to use the interview as a means of changing opinions.
More context equals more risk
The more context a spokesperson provides when answering a print journalist’s questions, the greater the risk of being dangerously misquoted. Spokespeople need to acquire the skill of simply answering a question and stopping.
This underscores the importance of teaching—and constantly reinforcing—the skill of giving concise responses to reporters. As an industry, PR needs to separate the skill of answering questions from the skill of weaving in messages. Only when spokespeople can answer a question and then stop talking should they be taught to weave in messages. Even then, the importance of brevity needs to be constantly reinforced.
Answering and stopping: A risk management technique
As a risk management technique, answering and stopping is nothing new. Consider how witnesses are prepared prior to testifying in court. They are coached to listen carefully, to think before talking, to talk only long enough to directly answer the question and then to immediately stop talking once they’ve answered it.
Lawyers know that short answers provide protection in a court of law. Every litigator I’ve met can tell at least one story about a client who couldn’t stop providing context after answering the question, and the dismal result to which it led.
If the tactic of answering and stopping provides protection in a court of law, it should also provide similar protection in the court of public opinion, particularly when dealing with print journalists.
First line of defense
Learning to pause, answer and stop (P-A-S) is an excellent first line of defense when dealing with journalists. For example, suppose a journalist asks: “Is there mismanagement at your firm?”
It’s a closed-ended question, requiring a yes or no answer. If the answer to the question of mismanagement is “yes,” the organization has bigger problems than we can deal with here.
But if the answer is “no,” the spokesperson should say so and stop talking. Anything else will be perceived as equivocation. Longer answers are open to discussion, prone to debate and ripe for being quoted out of context.
When I speak to groups of public relations practitioners at seminars and workshops, I ask them to get into small groups to determine the best answer to the question “Is there mismanagement at your firm?” It’s rare when a group simply suggests answering “no” to this question, with no further explanation. But if it’s the truth, it’s the safest thing to say, especially when it’s the only thing said.
Other defensive strategies
While P-A-S is an excellent first line of defense, there may be times in which it is inappropriate to answer questions in clear, concise terms. Suppose you’re the spokesperson for a petroleum or chemical refinery. A journalist drives out to the plant, sits down to interview you and asks: “Do you pollute?”
The answer to the question is “yes.” Every refinery pollutes, but most plant spokespeople would not want to say so.
With that in mind, there are at least three other defensive strategies that can be applied. They are:
- Challenge prejudicial (or unclear) language.
- Ask and answer.
- Stay on message.
To challenge language that is prejudicial or unclear, the spokesperson would respectfully ask the journalist: “What specifically do you mean by pollute?” In theory (although you wouldn’t want to point this out to the journalist), driving out to a plant to conduct an interview could be a form of pollution.
Most journalists will change the question to clarify it when challenged. But let’s suppose this journalist decides to stick to the original question.
At this point, it may be appropriate to employ what I call the ask-and-answer technique. The spokesperson turns the original question into a series of questions, which he or she asks and answers. For example: “Does effluent leave this plant? Yes. Is it carefully monitored? Yes. Has what’s in that effluent ever exceeded strict environmental regulations? No.”
This removes much of the inflammatory tone from the original question. It provides additional insight that the journalist can explore if she or he is interested.
But let’s suppose this is a particularly stubborn journalist who brushes aside the other defensive strategies and again asks: “Do you pollute?” At this point, the spokesperson reverts to message: “The effluent leaving this facility is carefully monitored. What’s in it never exceeds strict environmental regulations.”
Managing the risk
If your media relations program focuses exclusively on marketing products, you probably worry a little less about being quoted out of context. Even then, however, one blog entry can change your life.
But if you have to explain your technical operations to the outside world, or if you’re dealing with journalists as a result of a sensitive issue, being quoted out of context is indeed a very real risk.
Before teaching your spokespeople the importance of getting their win (i.e., finding ways to weave messages into the interview), you must first teach them to pause, answer the question and stop talking. They need to know it’s OK to do so.
No one denies there is a time and place for emphasizing your messages. But if the time is “always” and the place is “everywhere” during your media training, it won’t be long before someone somewhere is quoted out of context.
Eric Bergman, ABC, APR, is a media training consultant based in Toronto. He authored Media Training with Excellence: A Balanced Approach, and recently introduced an innovative online media training program at www.AtEaseWithTheMedia.com. |
