Robert Webb has a problem with it – but commenting on newspaper columns is a good thing

Robert Webb, the comedian and columnist is giving up his column in the Telegraph because, he says, he can’t stand reading the online comments he receives. Poor Robert. As someone working in the media and teaching communications skills I’m tempted to post my own comment about heat and staying out of the kitchen.

On the other hand, I have to say, as a journalist, I’ve been shocked and yes, even rather offended by some of the vitriolic responses I’ve received to columns and articles I’ve written that have appeared online.

Anything I’ve written which features a contention or an argument is naturally most likely to receive an outspoken comment. What is most noticeable is how writing online, probably with no more than a username and no reference to address or any other personal details allows people to be so much more strident, or perhaps just plain offensive with their views.

However, alongside these rude, sarcastic and sometimes utterly bizarre replies, on other occasions I’ve actually received comments which have been thoughtful and intelligent. It’s quite flattering to think that someone has been so inspired or even moved by what I’ve written that they’ve wanted to take the time to comment on it.

I was very impressed recently to read the exchanges that the writer and editor Bill Emmott had with various readers of a piece he had written in The Times. His patience and politeness was impressive.

To that extent, the rise of online comments is great and anyone interested in communication skills should consider using it.

Editors and online publishers are constantly looking for intelligent comment for their sites – and it’s usually sorely lacking. So, as I explain to people on my PR training courses if you want to raise your profile and create some useful online content which might encourage people to visit your site then providing some intelligent, thoughtful and well written comment on a newspaper or magazine website is a good way in which to do it.

To get media coverage you need to be trendy

Anyone wanting to know how to handle journalists, how to do media interviews and how to improve their communications skills with the media, should be thinking about trends.

As I explain when I’m running a media training course, when it comes to what makes a story, one person or a single organisation doing something is great for us because it’s unusual. Anything that is unusual or any event that bucks the trend is almost always newsworthy. If we have two people doing it, though, we’re not terribly interested.

But when we’ve identified three examples then – bingo! It’s officially a trend. Any more than three and we feel that it’s already too well know. Been there, done that, bought the diet and exercise video. According to journalistic arithmetic three is a trend.

Earlier this month I was asked to write an article for Raconteur Media. One of my regular and most favourite clients, they produce high quality supplements and reports on a wide range of issues for The Times and The Sunday Times. This particular commission was looking at how hotel restaurants are focussing on the design as well as the taste of their food. Now, I was, I have to say, a bit sceptical initially. Were chefs really making their food look as beautiful as it tasted? Would I find some examples to back up the hypothesis? Could I genuinely establish a trend here?

I made a few calls, spoke to some PR contacts, did some online research and, joy of joy, I discovered that more and more hotels are in indeed doing this. Everyone from the celebrated Design Hotels group to the big names such as the Ritz Carlton and the ultra-luxurious Dorchester Collection hotels are creating some stunning looking dishes to match the ambience and architecture of their hotel restaurants.

Talking to chefs I discovered why and how and I got some great examples. In terms of communications skills and thinking of PR skills, identifying a trend is a great way to grab the interest of journalists and get some useful, positive media coverage for company or your client.

The power of examples

“Let me give you an example,” said Danny Alexander on the Today programme this morning. “Yes”, said John Humphrys. I know! The Arch Inquisitor agreeing with a guest. Amazing! Anyway, Humphrys continued: “Give me a nice concrete example.”

And the Chief Secretary to the Treasury promptly did. He was talking about giving the public more control over public services and he mentioned the example of local people deciding to take over the running of the local community centre in their town or village.

In fact the subject matter of the interview isn’t really important. It’s the idea of the example that I like. Here Alexander actually offered one to help explain this concept and Humphrys jumped on it.

Anyone who is interested in improving their communication skills should take note. When I do media training with groups, whatever business they happen to be in, I spend so much of the session asking people just to give me an example. When I’m working as a copywriter I will always use an example in a brochure, website or speech.

Examples, anecdotes or stories – this is what good communication is all about. We use them automatically in everyday conversation when we’re talking to family and friends. So, if you want to improve your communications skill in the workplace then use them there too.

Johann Hari’s predicament and what it means for communications skills

The media loves nothing more than a story about the media and the recent fuss over the Independent’s Johann Hari is a prime example of this. Hari, in case you haven’t been following every word of this saga, has been accused by some commentators of unprofessionalism and even plagiarism, charges which he strenuously denies.

He admits, though, that after interviewing some people he has quoted sections of books that they’ve written in the finished article and that it might appear as if these quotes were given during the interview. Personally as a journalist this isn’t something I’ve ever done because these additional references will inevitably occur out of context.

So what are the lessons for anyone interested in improving their communications skills and handling the media? In my work as a media trainer I’m often asked about this kind of issue. The good news is that Hari’s habit is very unusual, in fact I’ve never heard of it before.

But you can’t control exactly what a press journalist quotes you as saying. Live TV and radio might be frightening but at least you know that your audience will hear your words exactly as you say them. A press interview is not so intimidating but a surprising number of people on my media training courses pick up on the fact that I can paraphrase, edit and tidy up what they say.

A 10 minute interview, for instance, might involve the interviewee saying around 2,000 words but only perhaps 20 or 30 of these words might actually appear as a direct quote in the final piece. So, my advice to anyone thinking about how to handle media interviews is to stick to two or three messages and don’t say anything that you don’t want be quoted as saying.

How Fiona fell at the first hurdle with the Duke

It might be unfashionable to say it but as a journalist and copywriter I quite like the Duke of Edinburgh.  He’s outspoken and irascible but he’s always good copy. You know you’ll never get any bland, corporate boloney or politicians’ pointless drivel from him.

So, why was Fiona Bruce’s interview last week so awful? Almost every reply by the Duke was negative and dismissive. Even the most anodyne question was closed down. Any media trainer, something with which I’m experienced, would have their head in their hands at this performance.

As a journalist too, I’ve done a number of interviews with people who seem determined to say as little as possible and to reject every point that is put to them, however innocent, uncontroversial or even complimentary.

One managing director I had to interview for The Sunday Times seemed to be so determined to disagree or dismiss everything I put to him that I ended up asking, “You run a very successful company, don’t you?” True to form, he paused, frowned and the said, “No, not really.” I put his quote near the top of the piece.

This problem with the Bruce/Duke encounter was that although Fiona Bruce is experienced and competent, she asked the wrong questions. Emotion, introspection and insight are great for any interview – even a business interview.  When I’m advising people on media training I’ll often suggest that they include these elements to make the interview more interesting. Certainly as a journalist they are things that I’m always looking for.

The problem is that 90 year-old, aristocratic men, with a life of service don’t do what they regard as touchy feely stuff. They deal with facts and simple, obvious statements. Not great copy normally, I’ll admit. But then any good interviewer has to strike a chord quickly with their interviewee if they’re going to get a good story.

Perhaps the BBC will learn in time for his 100^th.

Ed makes a balls up

Ed Balls is one politician who can give as good as he gets and, as anyone interested in communication skills can verify, he can certainly defend himself during a hostile interview.  But as a media trainer I noticed that he made a fundamental mistake during a BBC interview today when explaining his position following the leak of memos around the campaign to replace Tony Blair with Gordon Brown.

There was during that time, he said, “no nasty edge,” and he went on to reject allegations that “there was a plot, that there was nastiness, brutality.”  Full marks for rebutting the allegations, Ed, but zero for repeating all those negative words and phrases associated with them.

Like many millions of viewers what sticks in my mind is the image of Ed Balls, known as a political bruiser, talking about “a plot,” “nastiness” and “brutality.”  The fact that he was looking to distance himself from these ugly, unpleasant concepts has largely got lost.

So, what is the lesson for anyone wanting to communicate effectively with the media?  Yes, of course, you should rebut unhelpful allegations firmly and promptly – but don’t repeat them when you do so, because these negative words and phrases are what will stick in your audience’s minds.

Poor Nick Clegg – even senior politicians can underestimate a journalist

Poor Nick Clegg.  He feels as if he’s a punch bag and he cries in response to certain pieces of music.  You’d almost feel sorry for him – if he wasn’t a politician!  His recent interview to the New Statesman was certainly odd – emotional, honest and apparently impromptu.

So, what are the lessons for those wanting to improve their communications skills or learn about handling the media?

The first is preparation.  Normally, when politicians do interviews, even more general profile pieces, they have planned carefully with their spin doctors what they wanted to say – their key messages.  The pretence amongst the both parties is that this is a relaxed, general chat.   In fact the politician has a clear idea of the headline that they want to see and the journalist knows this.

It’s the same for anyone who wants to handle a media interview successfully.  Plan your key messages – two or three, no more, and stick to them.

The second point is to be on your guard.  The interview doesn’t only start when the reporter gets out his or her notepad or starts a tape machine.  With this kind of arrangement – and with many others – from the moment we journalists arrive at the venue, be it the interviewee’s office or home or a restaurant or café and even a train, in this case, we’re on the look out for details and little events, which we can incorporate into the story.

Finally, call me sexist, but did Clegg perhaps underestimate a pretty woman who, far from being a professional hack, is best known as a socialite?  Very possibly.  If so, more fool him.

So, if you want to improve your communications skills, be wary of journalists, prepare for your encounters with them and stick to your key messages.

 

Clegg is outed with open mic – the lessons for good media relations

Nick Clegg is the latest politician to be caught out by an “open mic”, in other words a microphone, which has been left on.  Gordon Brown, John Major and John Prescott have suffered similar embarrassments over the years.

Following a Q&A session in Nottingham, as Clegg and David Cameron were walking off the stage, the Deputy Prime Minister seemed to forget that he was wearing a microphone and mentioned to Cameron: “If we keep doing this we won’t find anything to bloody disagree on in the bloody TV debates.”

Ooops!  Whenever I’m teaching communications skills and doing media training I always advise participants to sit still and say nothing following an interview.  The temptation so often is to say “Phew, thank God that’s over,” or even “Oh no, that was rubbish,” or simply to leap up and make good their escape.

Frankly I don’t blame them.  A TV interview, even one carried out during a session on how to handle the media, is rarely a pleasant experience and the immediate temptation is simply to get out of there.

But it’s important to sit still after the interview has finished so that the producer or floor manager can unclip your microphone and possibly your earphone.  More importantly you don’t know whether you’re perhaps still in shot or whether a microphone will catch your words.  Even if the technology is switched off and you’re no longer in the studio, an ambitious runner, researcher or junior producer could easily feed your negative comments or embarrassing admissions back to the reporter or presenter.

So for during media training interviews and especially if you’re doing the real thing, wait until you get back to your car to relax and let off steam.  Even senior politicians forget this from time to time.

Judge hits out at jargon – well done, your honour

Three cheers for the Coroner in the 7/7 inquest.  Lady Justice Hallett launched a ferocious attack on the emergency services for their use of jargon when giving evidence in the inquiry into the 7^th July 2005 terrorist attacks in London.

She had just heard how a “management conference demountable unit is on the way from the management resource centre.”  (This is a portable incident room, in case you wondered)

When I’m running media training courses and doing communications skills workshops I’m constantly challenging people about jargon.  Since when did dinner ladies become “meal operatives,” for instance?  One of my favourites cropped up when I was working with a pharmaceutical client.  One participant mentioned “loose stool urgency”.  Any ideas?  It’s diarrhea to you and me.

Not only does jargon often prevent your audience from understanding what you’re saying, it distances you from them.  You literally don’t speak the same language – and therefore, by inference, you don’t share the same value or have the same concerns.

People also reach for jargon and convoluted language when they feel threatened or foolish – or even when they need to hide something.   No wonder, then, that we’re naturally suspicious of it.

A system called the Flesch Readability Tests indicates how comprehensible and easy to read a passage of English is.  It was developed by Rudolf Flesch, who was actually Austrian but fled to the US at a result of Nazi persecution of the Jewish population.  The use of his tests for the simplicity of English soon became widespread and some US government departments are required to apply them to any information they release.  I often mention Professor Flesch during my media training courses and bear his basic idea in mind when working as a copywriter.

Flesch died in 1986, but as Lady Justice Hallett’s outburst demonstrates, his work is more relevant than ever.

 

 

 

We receive 174 newspapers worth of information everyday

According to a new study, we are bombarded by enough data every day to fill 174 newspapers, thanks to the growth of the Internet, email and texting. Anyone concerned with communications skills might also be interested to know that each person is also now producing enough information to fill six newspapers, compared to just two and a half pages in 1986 – a near 200 fold increase.
The findings come from the University of Southern California and they are in line with other research. For professional copywriters like me this is a challenge to say the least – how to do you cut through this noise to get your message across? This trend makes the job of effective copywriting even tougher. During my public relations training courses, I also quote similar frightening statistics.
Another University of Southern California study discovered that we now receive around 100,000 words of information every day, for instance. So, how do you grab people’s attention when they’re being subjected to so much other information?
Well, the short answer is to aim for quality not quantity. Carefully defined messages which resonate with a key audience, which start with a striking, attention-grabbing introduction and which use simple, punchy language combined with vivid examples will help your communications work effectively in this increasingly competitive field. Everyone interested in communications skills should understand this.
For any copywriter it’s a challenge – but it’s one that we relish.