Tricky media questions
At one time politicians were the only ones who suffered third degree questioning. Today businessmen are as likely to be on the sharp end of such treatment. The reason for this is because of the rise of ‘ethical’ issues in business.
The recent crisis caused, so we are told, by the banking community has made businessmen fair game. This along with greater scrutiny over issues such as bonuses, salaries for senior executives, corporate social responsibility (or irresponsibility) and questions over ethical trading are creating a new and aggressive atmosphere.
Here we try and prepare you for some of the tricks of the trade that will be used if the journalist decides to get nasty.
Journalists like to apply some of the ‘catch you out’ techniques that help to create that sensational story. Here are just a few examples for you to consider:
- Opening attacks on a TV or radio interview
Designed to throw you off balance and make you wriggle. Probably one of the best was Jeremy Paxman against the then Health Secretary Ken Clarke when he opened the interview by saying:
“Well, you seem to have made rather a mess of this dispute haven’t you?”
The unfortunate Ken Clarke was forced to defend his position. The only defence to such questioning is to answer with a question.
“Well before I answer, I wonder if you could clarify what you mean by that remark”.
- Putting words into your mouth – “So what you are saying is…”
Always beware this very simple but effective technique. Once you have spotted it you should repeat your answer and make it entirely clear what it is that you are saying.
“So what you are saying Dr Hussein is that your clinic has also taken illegal organs.”
“No, what I am saying is that on one occasion our usually high standards dropped. Since then we have put in place the most rigorous tests to ensure it never happens again.”
Notice the NO rebuttal first. That is making a clear and unambiguous statement. Then he goes on to explain as simply as possible what happened.
- Hypothetical questions – “So if a member of the public was to sue for compensation you would pay up without question.”
Hypothetical questions are exactly that, they are hypothetical and as such can be as wild as the reporter wishes to make them. Don’t allow yourself to be taken down the hypothetical path – it can only lead to trouble.
“So it is possible that your clinic could have taken other illegal organs unknowingly.”
“No, that is not possible because our systems are now so tight that every organ has to be traced back to its donor with all the relevant medical records.”
- Silence . . . . .
This is designed to keep you talking. People have a horrid habit of filling silence with words. If you have finished what you have to say then remain silent and wait for the reporter to ask the next question. If they maintain the silence in the hope that you will break then it is their interview that will look silly and not your silence.
- Wrong backdrop
Having the wrong backdrop ie: standing with back to chimney belching out smoke talking about your environmentally friendly service won’t help
You decide where you are comfortable holding the interview. If it is on location then make sure that you see what is behind you before photographs are taken or the camera starts rolling.
- The machine gun approach – asking one question before you complete the answer to the first
This is designed to unsettle, confuse and provoke you. You have two options here; ask the reporter which question they would like you to answer first. The second option (and by far the better) is to wait silently until the reporter has finished and then start answering your first question.
“As I was saying, the answer lies in better controls, more registration of organs and all organs having a medical record for the surgeon to refer back.”
- Interruptions
A bit the same as above but usually it goes from a friendly approach to a more hostile approach. The idea is to fluster. Do as above, wait until the reporter has finished and then go back to answering the original question.
It may be possible to take the interruption and expand your original answer.
- In the public interest – anything is in the public interest if the media want to know about it!
Most commonly used with politicians. The answer is that it is best to be honest unless there are any genuine restrictions such as closed meeting rules that prevent you from answering.
- Do you deny . . .?
Yet another attempt to put words into your mouth; don’t deny, simply explain the situation and what you have done to rectify this.
“Do you deny that it was due to your incompetence that the illegal organ was used in the first place?”
“I take full responsibility for what happened, I did at the time and nothing has changed. What I sought to do afterwards was to put in place rigorous systems that would prevent such a thing from happening ever again.”
- “A company spokesman is reported as saying …”
Always a ‘try on’, simply ask for the company spokesperson’s name for clarification. If they refuse to give it, then you cannot confirm the accuracy of what they are supposed to have said.
“Obviously if you can’t give me their name then I can’t confirm whether they would have the correct information with which to make a comment such as that. But I can tell you that . . “
And then go straight back on to your original point.
Variations on that theme are; “I understand that . . “ or “Many people are wondering . . .”.
- Appearing to end the interview
The journalist will close their notebook or perhaps end the interview on radio or TV, but they continue to talk. It looks as though it is a friendly chat at the end but you should assume that it is on the record and never allow your guard to drop.
“That must have been a nasty moment when you realised that you had used an illegal organ?”
The unguarded response might be:
“Yes, it really was sloppiness on our part, but these things happen”
The guarded response might be:
“We were disconcerted that our usually very high standards had failed. An immediate investigation was held to ensure that it never happened again.”
There is a big difference between knowing the theory and making it happen. For help in implementing your communications practices email us now.
