Media Relations (Part 1 of 2)
The term "media relations" historically referred to dealing with reporters and other professional interviewers, issuing press releases and holding press conferences.--everything except using social media. The use and misuse of social media are fertile grounds for a future post, for sure, especially in light of their current popularity at the White House, but not today. Instead, there are several practical thoughts I'd like to make for those who use media relations from time to time to communicate a message to others.
This post, Part 1, covers dealing with reporters and media outlets whose objectivity is questionable and about never, ever, going "off the record". Part 2 will cover preserving your reputation and credibility, making your key points effectively, and a few do's and don'ts during interviews.
When media objectivity is suspect: I'm being polite here. The Walter Cronkite's of the media world are few and far between today, especially at the national level. At the state and local levels reporters and interviewers are better at being objective, but at all times the interviewee needs to be aware of potential prejudices and biases of the interviewer. Words can get twisted when published, headlines can be misleading, and points you made can be misconstrued or misinterpreted. Which means listening carefully to questions, asking for clarification if necessary, and being unambiguously clear in answering questions are critically important in a successful interview.
Whether or not you are concerned about an interviewer's objectivity, never, ever speak "off the record". You might be tempted by the reporter to show off your insider's knowledge, or just get caught up in the moment, but for whatever reason do not go off the record. Always assume everything you say is on the record, because it is.
If you shouldn't go off the record, you might think "no comment" is the next best alternative, but it's not. Saying "no comment" to a specific question leaves wide open the door to speculation why you will not answer. It implies the answer you would have to give, assuming it's the truth, is one either you or someone above you does not want given out because it is not good news. There is no easy way to respond to a question you are unwilling to answer while simultaneously preserving your credibility. You might say something like "Answering this question is above my pay grade" or "the answer to your question is confidential for the time being because we have two more weeks until we need to publicize our decision"...something along those lines. If you are unable to answer because you don't know the answer it is easier to say "Anything I say would be speculative because the final decision has not been made."
It is unfortunate that in Washington, D.C. it has become standard practice to say "Here is the answer to your question. But you cannot identify me because I am not authorized to give the answer." How often is that supposed disclaimer used following a direct quotation from a political insider? Translation: "I am leaking confidential information. I am an insider with privileged access to this sort of confidential information. I am violating my position of trust with my supervisor, my employer, the U.S. Government." It is a terrible working relationship that now exists between "insiders" and the media in Washington, D.C. To me it's criminal, probably legally so, as well as unethical, and certainly not anything to be emulated.
This post, Part 1, covers dealing with reporters and media outlets whose objectivity is questionable and about never, ever, going "off the record". Part 2 will cover preserving your reputation and credibility, making your key points effectively, and a few do's and don'ts during interviews.
When media objectivity is suspect: I'm being polite here. The Walter Cronkite's of the media world are few and far between today, especially at the national level. At the state and local levels reporters and interviewers are better at being objective, but at all times the interviewee needs to be aware of potential prejudices and biases of the interviewer. Words can get twisted when published, headlines can be misleading, and points you made can be misconstrued or misinterpreted. Which means listening carefully to questions, asking for clarification if necessary, and being unambiguously clear in answering questions are critically important in a successful interview.
Whether or not you are concerned about an interviewer's objectivity, never, ever speak "off the record". You might be tempted by the reporter to show off your insider's knowledge, or just get caught up in the moment, but for whatever reason do not go off the record. Always assume everything you say is on the record, because it is.
If you shouldn't go off the record, you might think "no comment" is the next best alternative, but it's not. Saying "no comment" to a specific question leaves wide open the door to speculation why you will not answer. It implies the answer you would have to give, assuming it's the truth, is one either you or someone above you does not want given out because it is not good news. There is no easy way to respond to a question you are unwilling to answer while simultaneously preserving your credibility. You might say something like "Answering this question is above my pay grade" or "the answer to your question is confidential for the time being because we have two more weeks until we need to publicize our decision"...something along those lines. If you are unable to answer because you don't know the answer it is easier to say "Anything I say would be speculative because the final decision has not been made."
It is unfortunate that in Washington, D.C. it has become standard practice to say "Here is the answer to your question. But you cannot identify me because I am not authorized to give the answer." How often is that supposed disclaimer used following a direct quotation from a political insider? Translation: "I am leaking confidential information. I am an insider with privileged access to this sort of confidential information. I am violating my position of trust with my supervisor, my employer, the U.S. Government." It is a terrible working relationship that now exists between "insiders" and the media in Washington, D.C. To me it's criminal, probably legally so, as well as unethical, and certainly not anything to be emulated.
Comments
Post a Comment