Everyday PR

Will the news media ever stop feeding the public’s frenzy for salacious gossip that has nothing to do with the average American who’s facing his or her own set of problems? And will some consumers ever quelch their appetite for watching others make poor judgment calls, if not downright fail?

Breaking news to some people: Kate changes her hair.

From Jesse James’s philandering to Kate Gosslin hair updates, these unworthy “news” news items take up time and space for real issues facing this country.  (And another thing: why are women so attracted to “bad boys”?  I’ll opine on that at a later time.)  By now many of you know my view about TV programming, but I challenge you to stop elevating the bad boys and girls of the world to headline news.  If consumers would at least reduce their interest for such meaningless pablum, maybe the media would at least reduce their quest for scoops on who’s doing what to whom and what they are wearing.  In the meantime, children in Haiti are still hungry, war veterans aren’t getting the help they need, and people need jobs.

Am I overreacting?  Please let me know your thoughts.

Ambush interviews have long been a weapon in the broadcast journalism arsenal. You know the type – the reporter waits patiently outside the building for the unsuspecting CEO or government official to emerge. While one can argue that this is shoddy journalism, the truth is that this tactic gives reporters get exactly what they were after – a juicy story.

Last week, a local investigative reporter ambushed the County Clerk’s office on a tip about slot machines in the break room to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day (no joke). Take a look at this video – it is rife with examples of what not to do:

It goes without saying that shoving a reporter is always a bad idea. But what would you do if this happened in your office? Here are some tips: 

• Be prepared. Although ambush interviews are quite rare, it is important to prepare for such occasions. Be aware of potential issues that the media might want to pursue and develop potential responses should the media come calling unexpectedly.
• Develop protocol. Make sure that your company knows what to do should a reporter show up at your door. If your company doesn’t have a designated spokesperson or public relations professional, identify someone to serve in this role and instruct employees to send inquiries to this person.
• Return phone calls. Reporters sometimes resort to ambush interviews if they are unable to get information or if people don’t return calls. Ambush interviews are used to force the person’s hand. Don’t let it come to this. Even if you don’t want to do an interview, return the reporter’s call. By being responsive, you may prevent an ambush interview later.
• Don’t run. Reporters love to get footage of someone dodging a camera or putting their hand in front of the lens. Avoidance tactics only make the situation worse. It is much better to stop and address the reporter.
• Try rescheduling. Instead of answering questions right then and there, tell the reporter that you would be happy to sit down and talk at a time that would be more convenient. This accomplishes two things – you give the reporter the opportunity to ask questions and it allows you to prepare and respond in a more controlled environment.
• Answer the questions (or state why you can’t). If the reporter insists on continuing right then and there, calmly answer his or her questions if you can. It is better to say “I don’t know the answer, but I’ll be happy to look into that” than to avoid the questions or run away from the reporter.
• Remain calm. It’s easier said than done, but perhaps the most important tip for handling an ambush interview is to remain calm. Reporters create these situations to invoke your temper or take advantage of your nerves. Don’t let them.

How would you have handled this situation? What additional tips would you offer?

Laura Click is a marketing and public relations professional in Nashville, TN, who works in state government by day and in PR/marketing consultant by night.  Check her out at www.lauraclick.com or follow her on Twitter @lauraclick.

Sheriff Jim Alderden’s strategy to be less than forthright with media about last week’s balloon incident gives authorities the last laugh.   The Larimer County Sheriff apologized yesterday to media for disseminating “misleading” information to reporters in order to investigate the Heene’s story about a runaway helium balloon having their six-year-old son in it. Initially, the sheriff publicly supported the accuracy of events before revealing what authorities really suspected.

Law enforcement deflates TV dreams for the Heene family.

Granted, issuing less-than-candid beliefs and statements wasn’t exactly transparent.  Unlike most elected officials, publicly traded executives and nonprofit leaders, law enforcement officers can’t always be totally open while still in problem-solving mode.  From my experience in the corrections industry, I learned that good police work involves analytical skills, the process of deduction, specific interviewing techniques, astute observer of human behavior and role playing.  As a former journalist, I know that most, if not all, of those same skills apply to members of the media.

So while the Heenes believe they’re launching a career in reality TV, law enforcement ensures that the last laugh will be on the parents.  Tossing in a little contradictory messaging to throw the perps off track is just part of the punch line. 

Am I missing something here, or should we insist on transparency all the time, regardless of the strategy?

UPDATE – August 18, 2009 – There’s nothing like parody, especially from Jon Stewart, to highlight my point, which is to stay on point.  Watch this video.

UPDATE - July 30, 2009 -  A new poll by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 41 percent disapproved of Obama’s handling of the Gates arrest, compared with 29 percent who approved. The poll also found that nearly 80 percent of Americans said they are now aware of Obama’s comments on the matter.  The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

July 27, 2009

From a public relations perspective, President Obama’s recent remarks that Cambridge police “acted stupidly” regarding the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Gates just flies in the face of message consistency.  Healthy public debate was just beginning on the President’s health care ideas, and he alone stopped it dead in its tracks.

Why is he answering questions completely unrelated to his health care messages of the news conference anyway?  Our commander-in-chief isn’t unfamiliar with staying on message. It helped get him elected.  Like most elected officials, the President fully understands the bridge technique taught in the most basic media training.  In such training, I always advise my clients to only speak on matters on which they are accurately and intimately familiar.  When the conversation is about Topic A, don’t switch to unrelated Topic Z when there’s no reason to – it just dilutes your message on Topic A.

Hopefully, the President will learn from this experience.  His agenda for this country is extensive and far reaching.  None of us have time for unnecessary distractions that take away from that agenda.

Legendary journalist Helen Thomas nailed White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday regarding the process of asking President Obama questions for an upcoming town hall meeting.

Focusing on the White House requirements to electronically submit  questions for consideration by the President (more likely his staff) BEFORE a public meeting, Thomas expressed amazement at what she termed “tight controls” for “you people who call for openness and transparency”.  She told Gibbs she sees a pattern of controlling the press, stating “formal engagements are pre-packaged…by calling reporters the night before to tell them they’re going to be called on. That is shocking.”

Gibbs’s flippancy, combined with his sarcasm and rude laughter, in the press conference produced no answers.  And talk about a pattern – his behavior toward the press should no longer be tolerated.  Yes, he has an extremely difficult job that became painfully noticeable when Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination in February for Secretary of Health and Human Services. But his shuck-and-jive, in-your-face, weak-attempt-at-humor banter with reporters needs to stop. He’s not doing himself or the President any favors.

In the meantime, as we celebrate our country’s independence this weekend, let me say “Thanks, Helen Thomas” because you remind us to let freedom of the press ring.

To some, bad publicity is better than no publicity at all.  To others, no news is good news.  And many are just happy to have their name spelled correctly.

Letterman Interviews Blagojevich

In the case of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, correct name spelling should be the least of his concerns.  Things like a political career, personal character and future employment should be foremost on his mind.  Hard to tell, though, with all the media blitz. A barrage of interviews aired about what he did or didn’t say; what he said the tapes said vs. what the FBI said the tapes said; and what he was or wasn’t thinking.  Like a star celebrity on a press junket promoting his latest film, Blagojevich went from mainstream news shows to late night television for interviews that ultimately starred the interviewer, not the interviewee.  Sarah Palin – make a note.

As with most headlines, the producers, editors, reporters, news anchors and talk show hosts will quickly move on to other stories.  But their work will forever remain in their electronic files from which to retrieve the next time Blagojevich is in the news so we can all look forward to reliving that.

While the media move on, what about the decision makers who count?  Audiences like future employers, universities, think tanks, history writers and the general public.  These are the people who will likely affect his future. Of course the FBI may be the best determinant of that. It’s not every day that a former elected official gets thrown into the pokey, but then again, many federal institutions do allow for media interviews.  Producers – make a note.