Media Training

June 14, 2022 — Witness enough news conferences, especially the televised variety involving high-ranking company and public officials and journalists looking to make a name for themselves, and you’ll likely hear the question that makes spokespersons sweat.

The question usually comes in the wake of an unfortunate event, whether it’s a product defect, a municipal snow removal in response to a surprise blizzard or an environmental spill or release.

The question goes something like this: “Can you guarantee that (insert name or brief description of unfortunate incident) will never happen again?”

Guarantees not always possible

Of course, the answer in most of those situations is, “No.” Despite the best of intentions, guaranteeing that a pipeline will never rupture or that your ice cream production line will never experience another listeria outbreak is simply not possible. As much as society has accomplished in minimizing defects and improving quality, it’s highly unlikely there will never be another unfortunate incident.

Truth be told, most journalists know this. In fact, so do most readers, viewers and listeners. But reporters crave the headline or soundbite that says something to the effect, “Mayor says she can’t guarantee there won’t be another water pipeline break.” It begs audiences to read the article to learn why. It’s a great tease going into a commercial break.

No one can control the questions asked in any interview, and that authority should always remain with journalists. As spokespersons, however, we can control the answers we provide in these situations. In doing so, we can deny journalists the “gotcha” moment they want.

Turn table on question

The key is to talk about the steps your organization can and will take to prevent a similar occurrence. Moreover, you should begin your answer by saying that your organization will “guarantee” to take certain measures, emphasizing the word “guarantee” in a diplomatic and nonconfrontational manner.

By using the word “guarantee” in their answers, spokespersons can minimize the appearance they are avoiding the question. More important, they position their organizations as leaders because they are doing something about the problem.

In most cases, when bad things happen, most people want to know that an individual or organization is taking the lead to make things better and/or prevent a recurrence. This begins the healing process and moves attention to the future while lessening the focus on the past.

Don’t make matters worse

Of course, when guaranteeing to take certain measures, it’s incumbent on an organization to follow through on those commitments. It’s a great way to rebuild any lost trust. And you can be sure the journalist who asked for a guarantee will likely publish a follow-up story on whether your organization lived up to its promises.

Though it’s tempting, issuing a guarantee that a certain event won’t happen again, especially when circumstances are beyond your control, will only make matters worse. At a minimum, journalists will pepper you with questions about how you can make such a claim, which as mentioned before, they know is a virtual impossibility. At worst, and at an even higher level, making an unfounded guarantee will damage your credibility with key stakeholders who either know such a guarantee is implausible or will be angered if the event repeats itself.

May 9, 2022 — The debate over both-sides-ing or both-sides-ism seems to have subsided since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war likely because an overwhelming majority of Americans agree Moscow’s narrative is often utterly devoid of truth. But with the midterm elections nearing, I suspect complaints against the mainstream news media’s insistence on obtaining both sides of news stories will soon resume.

According to Merriam-Webster, both-sides-ing is a “critique leveled at the media and public personas referring to the practice of finding a second angle on a story in an attempt at appearing ‘fair’ to each side, which can often be seen as lending credibility to a side or objectionable idea that has none.”

From my internships in high school to my days in journalism school to my work at two Pulitzer Prize winning newspapers, I was instructed to always search for the second side or as many sides of every story to ensure the coverage was fair and balanced. In fact, one of my employers listed the failure to obtain the multiple sides as grounds for dismissal.

Public deserves the ability to make its own judgment

As a result, the suggestion that journalists should somehow be dismissive of any point of view strikes me as malpractice at best and dishonesty at worst. At the risk of oversimplifying the issue, journalists should apply to critical thinking to the views of all responsible parties, no matter the credibility of each perspective.

Yes, it’s more work to vet multiple views, especially at a time when the number of journalists and the resources available to them is in rapid decline. But that’s no excuse for shortcutting the reporting process.

If one side’s version of events lacks credibility, then it’s the reporter’s job to document it, not simply label it so. Readers, listeners and viewers deserve to evaluate the evidence for themselves that supports or casts doubt on all points of view.

Shed light in all directions

As a young journalist, I remember seeing the Scripps Howard corporate logo for the first time. It was a black line drawing of a lighthouse at night with light beaming out of the tower in both the left and right directions. The tag line was, “Give light and the people will find their own way.”

That should continue to be the objective of journalism. Provide the public with the facts and let them make up their own mind. Unfortunately, too much of what is billed as journalism today is merely commentary. That trend has only flourished with the advent and growth of 24-hour cable news.

Shedding light on all views and subjecting them to critical review is the cornerstone of journalism and an informed public. Simply ignoring or dismissing positions that don’t meet a journalist’s biases or preconceived notions of the truth is advocacy, not journalism.

April, 15, 2020 – It’s early, but there’s little doubt 2020 will be remembered for COVID-19.

That’s saying a lot because earlier this year, for the only the third time in history, a U.S. president underwent a Senate impeachment trial. The coronavirus has been so all-consuming that the fact it took 24 days for the Iowa Democratic Party to announce the winner of its presidential caucus seems like a distant memory.

Nonetheless, all three crises have something in common: a lack of transparency.

Chinese officials attempted to suppress news of the COVID-19 outbreak only to see the disease spark a pandemic.

The U.S. Senate acquitted Donald Trump, only after voting not to subpoena witnesses and documents and the administration refusing to comply with House requests for the same.

Party officials in Iowa, meanwhile, were nowhere to be found on election night as reporters and the nation awaited results, announcing in the early hours of the next morning only that the delay was the result of “inconsistencies” in the data and not a “hack.”

Silence isn’t golden

In all these cases, the lack of disclosure made bad situations worse, which serves as a critical lesson for leadership engaged in issues management and crisis communications.

Imagine if the Chinese had promptly notified the world about the outbreak of the coronavirus. Maybe the disease could have been contained in Wuhan or, at a minimum, the search for a cure or vaccine could have begun earlier.

Imagine if the U.S. Senate had agreed to hear from witnesses or if the administration had produced the documents requested. Maybe there would be fewer questions about the impeachment process.

Imagine if party officials in Iowa had been forthcoming on election night about the technical difficulties with an app in tabulating results. Maybe the reputation of the caucus process could have been spared.

Instead, leadership presumably wanted to avoid delivering bad news and hoped it would simply go away.

That’s the kind of mentality that existed not so long ago when, for example, a company would issue a new release saying an executive left to pursue other career opportunities … and a nondisclosure agreement to keep the inappropriate behavior a secret.

Transparency is a must

America’s declining trust in government and each other, however, has created a greater demand for transparency. As a result, today companies are more likely to disclose investigations into CEO indiscretions.

When McDonald’s fired CEO Steve Easterbrook, the company explained the move in a news release, saying he “violated company policy and demonstrated poor judgment involving a recent consensual relationship with an employee.”

When BlackRock fired two executives for romantic relationships with subordinates, the company announced it in memos issued to approximately 16,000 employees.

No doubt McDonald’s and BlackRock realized that, if not disclosed, news of their executives’ misconduct would spread, especially on social media.

Moreover, both companies likely realized any attempt to cover up their scandals would escalate the reckless personal behavior of executives into reputational harm and the possible loss of trust, confidence and, consequently, sales.

All too often leaders fret about the impact if certain uncomfortable information is made public. They should be equally concerned if it isn’t.