Media Training Blog

There are some things in life that annoy the hell out of you: a dripping bathroom tap, despite you doing the right thing and putting in a new washer; SBS TV adds incessantly flogging insurance for “motoring enthusiasts, and our Prime Minister’s terrible recent habit of repeating things three times within 15 seconds when interviewed.

In a recent Radio National Radio AM interview on the new flood levy a typical exchange went like this:

ALEXANDRA KIRK: “They’ve taken that into account. “

PRIME MINISTER JULIA GILLARD: “Well I respectfully disagree. I’ve made a different judgement call and I’ll stick by my judgement call.  And my judgement call is with an economy that will be running near capacity, near full capacity in 2012/13 we’ve got to manage demand. “

Sadly this incessant repetition from our Prime Minister  has become far too prevalent in media interviews and is now a barrier to effective communication. Repeating your key messages is important to make sure we all get it, but not at the expense of driving us all to distraction. There is an art to it.

I suppose if this happened occasionally, then fine. But it’s become all too familiar and formulaic like the start to many of her interviews: “Can I just say . . .”. No you can’t – just say it!

The recent WikiLeaks controversy demonstrates two interesting points – check your facts before speaking publicly about an issue and be careful of what you say in private.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard found out the importance of the former recently when she accused WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange of an ‘illegal act’ in publishing classified US diplomatic cables on his website.

The Prime Minister said Australian Federal Police were investigating the Australian citizen’s publishing of 250,000 confidential documents from the United States State Department.

“The foundation stone of it is an illegal act,” Ms Gillard told reporters on December 6. “It would not happen, information would not be on WikiLeaks, if there had not been an illegal act undertaken,” she said.

Senior legal silks then disputed the Prime Minister’s claim, with the Federal Opposition legal affairs spokesman, George Brandis, accusing Ms Gillard of being “clumsy” with her language on the issue of illegality.

“As far as I can see, he [Mr Assange] hasn’t broken any Australian law,” Senator Brandis, QC, told Sky News. “Nor does it appear he has broken any American laws.”

Ms Gillard was then strongly criticised in the media for her apparent mistake. SBS World News Australia reported “Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been slammed for labelling the actions of the WikiLeaks website and its founder Julian Assange ‘illegal’…” (Dec 7). The Herald Sun headline read “Julia Gillard fails to name law broken by Wikileaks or Julian Assange”.

If the US have their way, the legality of Mr Assange’s actions will be hotly debated in a court at some point. But whatever the verdict, Ms Gillard’s experience clearly demonstrates the importance of being absolutely clear on the facts before speaking to the media.

The Opposition Finance Spokesperson Barnaby Joyce’s widely criticized claim that Australia is in danger of defaulting on its sovereign debt shows how critical it is to think and prepare before speaking to the media.

The incident closely followed an incoherent rant by Joyce at the Canberra Press Club, where he mixed up his millions, billions or was it squillions!

Both media interactions have damaged his personal reputation and the Coalition’s at a time when they were making some headway. Suffering from “loose cannon” syndrome, as reported by The Sydney Morning Herald, is how Joyce is now perceived in many quarters.

It’s one thing for Abbott to claim the Coalition is a broad church that doesn’t censure free speech, but it is another to have your Finance Spokesperson publically ridiculed.

So easy to avoid putting yourself in this position and yet so difficult to dig your way out of it.

So you’ve just got off the phone after being interviewed by a journalist. You’re not happy.

Maybe the tone of the journalist suggested he/she might pursue a particular angle to the detriment of the whole picture.

Maybe you doubted the journalist’s ability to record your quotes correctly; or to accurately record the facts you provided.

Maybe you just didn’t get across your most important point/s.

Maybe the journalist was aggressive/rude/dismissive/inappropriate and you felt it had been an unprofessional experience.

Maybe the problem lay with you and you were defensive, dismissive, evasive, unsure, ill-informed and unhelpful.

And so on. There are many ways to feel dissatisfied after an interview.

So, do you have any rights before your interview is published or broadcast?

Consider these points:

By participating in the interview, you have a major stake in it. Your role is not passive. Be pro-active.

The journalist ‘owns’ the eventual story and so you are not entitled to ask for the story to be read back to you.

But you ‘own’ your quotes and any factual information you provided. Therefore you are entitled to ask for your quotes to be read back to you. You are also entitled to check the facts that you have provided.

But remember, if you do want something corrected, the journalist may report that you called back. This may or may not be a good thing for you.

You can’t change a quote because you’ve changed your mind. For example, if you described someone as a windbag and then rang back to retract that, a good journalist will report that you rang back and wanted to retract ‘windbag’.

If you parted on bad terms with a journalist and you believe he/she was unprofessional, don’t hesitate to speak to their superior.

Keep your complaints within the realm of editorial: Nothing irks a journalist and an editor more than someone who complains to management. If you’ve exhausted editorial complaints and are still unhappy, then speak to management.

Russell Eldridge

Spokesperson Media Training

An interview by a print journalist, like a broadcast interview, is a conversation with an aim. However, whereas in a broadcast interview the audience are listeners or viewers who ‘eavesdrop’,  in a print interview they are readers.  In other words, the journalist is more of a filter in a print interview: you are relying entirely on what he or she writes. You can’t hope to convince readers if you haven’t convinced the journalist, and so the aim of this conversation is to do just that – to convince the journalist.
You and the journalist are both there to do a job.  His/hers is to get information; yours is to give it.  The journalist wants you to perform as much as you do.  The only difference is that your agenda may differ from his/hers. You need to use the subject of the questions to make the points you want to make.
The trick is to steer the interview down a middle path, so that the journalist’s questions are answered and your own objectives are achieved.  If you don’t manage this, only one of you is likely to leave happy – maybe neither of you!
Luke Roberts, Founder Spokesperson Media Training