The Truth About Public Speaking (and the Media) Blog

But I Repeat Myself

Repeat after me: Repetition is a good thing when dealing with reporters.

The question often arises during a media training workshop: If I have stated my message once, isn't that enough? Shouldn't the reporter get it the first time? In an ideal world, yes. But during my days as a radio reporter, among the news sources I appreciated most were those who reiterated their message numerous times throughout an interview. After the third or fourth time, it finally started sinking through my thick skull.

I am not talking about a robotic regurgitation. Use different words, examples, and proof points. Just make sure your main theme resonates throughout your entire interview.

Reporters are a busy lot, moreso these days with newsroom cutbacks the order of the day. They may be working on several wholly unrelated stories at one time. They may be thinking about that spat this morning with their editor or news director. They may be thinking of what they need to pick up at the supermarket on the way home tonight.

The easier you make it for them, the better the chances your story appears in print or on the air in a way that is positive for you and your organization. I repeat: Whether it's an interview with a newspaper reporter or as a guest on a radio talk show, reinforcing your message time and again is smart strategy.

Recipe for Media Relations Disaster

Any organization seeking to torpedo its own media relations efforts need do only one thing: Keep the communications staff out of the loop.

According to two reports in today's Washington Post, that was the approach taken by Vice President Cheney's office in the Valerie Plame leak affair. Former VP communications staffer Cathie Martin testified in court, reports the Post, "Everybody was sort of in the dark . . . There had been a decision not to have the communicators involved."

At one point, then-VP chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby handed Martin a set of talking points dictated by Cheney that she was expected to feed to Time's Matt Cooper. Martin made no mention of any role she had in vetting them. Communicators are there to, well, communicate. Strategic advice on how to frame a message should be a strength. If your principals don't trust your communicators' abilities, fine, get rid of them. But freezing them out is a recipe for disaster.

Without doubt, there is much more to the veep's poor press relations. A stance that shuns cooperation, is perceived as stonewalling, and proves generally unhelpful doesn't help. Nor does a principal who is overtly (and, indeed, proudly) hostile toward the media (witness the verbal and visual daggers Cheney tossed at CNN's Wolf Blitzer in their contentious interivew earlier this week).

Martin expressed some frustration that reporters didn't call her office for comment. Gee, I wonder why they avoided it. Any press office whose first line of defense ranges reflexively from "no comment" to borderline hostility should expect nothing less.

Expanding the discussion, I note with disappointment that too many PR types view reporters as adversaries. That is a most unhealthy point of view. In no way do I mean to suggest that the relationship is going to be a lovefest. But a healthy respect from each side of the fence is vital. I believe much of this adversity springs from ignorance. The fact is anyone who handles media relations should have logged some time in a newsroom.

Help Wanted Ads

This isn't your dad's job market. I am struck by the parade of job ads demanding solid presentation skills. From librarians and sales people to commercial real estate brokers and information technology workers, employers view effective communication skills as paramount.

The lesson is simple: If you are in search of a new job or are a first-time job seeker, time spent sharpening your communications edge puts dollars in your pocket.

Even an ad for a Senior Payload Systems Engineer in the space program requires "excellent presentation skills." Hey, maybe this is rocket science, after all.

Can't This Wait Until Tomorrow?

Procrastination is a fact of life for many of us at one time or another and in one area or another. A new study on the subject by University of Calgary professor Piers Steel got me to thinking.

My foot dragging most often manifests itself when it comes time to pick up the phone. This even applies to those times when I need to call reporters, a task I enjoy. Still, my strong preference is to deal face to face rather than get on the horn. I generally am not inclined to navel-gazing, but in this case I think it stems from the fact we humans lose roughly half of the communication signals we receive when we cannot see somebody. Those nonverbal traits -- a blink of the eye, a gesture of the hand -- mean so much both to senders and recipients.

Testimonial -- You Don't Always Need Slides

I have written previously about the need to think twice before deciding to use PowerPoint when speaking in public. A colleague of mine was kind enough to affirm that viewpoint.

When I ran into her the other day, she told me about a recent presentation she had delivered in Atlanta. Shortly after she accepted the engagement, she read an article I wrote suggesting that too many speakers default to slide presentations rather than consider if the medium fits the audience. So she decided to follow that advice and ditch the slide show.

She admitted to some trepidation ahead of time. But once she arrived on site and saw everyone else using PowerPoint, she knew she had made the right decision. Her session proved much more interactive (and her audience much more alert). She stood alone as the one presenter who actually connected with those in attendance and, as a result, got rave reviews.

Press Freedom Around the World

Reporters Without Borders and the National Press Club plan to issue an annual report concerning press freedom throughout the world on Feb. 8 in Washington, D.C. The document compiles and analyzes offenses against freedom of the press in over 168 countries.

What are the most dangerous nations, according to advance word from the groups? Iraq (no surprise there) and Mexico. Even the United States comes under scrutiny for the scraping away of freedoms that shield confidential sources.

Reporters (and, yes, I used to be one) too frequently are subjects of knee-jerk negativism. I hope this report helps shed some light on the sometimes difficult conditions journalists face and the courageous judgments they must make.

The Iraq Omelette

Someone as experienced in dealing with the media as the president of the United States really ought to be more savvy when confronted with a trap door of a question.

In an interview set to air on this evening's edition of PBS's Newshour with Jim Lehrer, the anchor asked Bush whether he believed Iraq to be a broken egg. Bush stated his belief that it was not a broken egg, but was more like a cracked egg.

Media sources with far less experience can sense this trap door from a mile away. Why Bush stepped in it is anyone's guess. The point I want to emphasize is that he did not need to buy into the egg analogy in any way, shape, or form. This type of question is fairly easy to navigate. A simple phrasing like, "I'm not sure I buy into that analogy. Let me share my view of the situation in Iraq . . ." would have got the job done and got him back on his desired message track.

Once you repeat a reporter's loaded words, you take ownership of them. As a result, Bush is now forever on record claiming Iraq to be a cracked egg.

The Doofus with the Blackberry

Personal digital assistants (PDAs) have their place. I admit to carrying one, finding it convenient to have a phone, e-mail inbox, calendar, etc., all in one device. But there is a time and place for everything. And a time not to access your PDA is when listening to someone deliver a presentation.

Like the guy I sat next to in an audience last week. He was like a kid with a shiny new toy, constitutionally incapable of putting it down so we could concentrate on the speaker. His plaything would vibrate with a new message every so often. Even when it didn't, he couldn't resist picking it up to check, just in case.

This was highly distracting, not to mention inconsiderate and insulting to the speaker and to fellow audience members. If you want to play with your e-mail 24/7 (ugh!), stay in your office. Don't inflict your annoying habit on the rest of us who prefer to interact face-to-face whenever possible. Make the decision: Is this presentation important enough to receive your undivided attention or do you have other, more pressing matters? It's fine if other issues take precedence. But commit one way or the other.

What is to be done? Had I realized his attention deficit problems ahead of time, I would have chosen another seat. But the organizers bear some responsibility here, too. They neglected to ask everyone to turn off their phones and other electronic gadgets. When I speak to various groups, I provide a written introduction that includes a firm request to do so.

Could I have asked the guy to put his toy away? Yes, but I did not want to run the risk of creating a scene. Addicts are sometimes not the most understanding people.

In the end, this is a matter of simple consideration. Rare is the time when you are the most important person in the room. Be considerate of others just like mom taught you. Yes, even in business situations.

Move that Camera, I Can't See

Did you ever wonder why, when you watch proceedings from the floor of the House of Representatives on C-SPAN, you can see only a fraction of the action? It's because House rules forbid the camera panning to see the floor which is often barren of members.

The new Democratic leadership and its proclaimed spirit of openness seemed to offer hope for change. After all, shouldn't we citizens be able to see the same picture we would witness if we were sitting there in the gallery live and in person? Forget about it.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied a request by C-SPAN to widen its birds eye view, citing a need to maintain "dignity and decorum." Reports indicate that the Speaker later backpedaled a bit by offering to meet with C-SPAN Chairman Brian Lamb, but it does not appear that meeting has yet occurred.

No matter what happens now, Pelosi has a perception problem. If she holds to her first reaction, she loses credibility points in the battle for openness. If she changes course and allows cameras to pan the chamber, savvy communicators will ask why she didn't do that in the first place and avoid the entire flap.

It's the same lesson all organizations wrestle with at times, no matter how small or large, or how high a public profile they maintain. Make the right decision the first time and save yourself a potential world of pain later.

Passion, Yes; Unbridled Zeal, No

Any time you talk to the press, you need to demonstrate that you care about your topic. But you risk losing the battle of the message when you allow your emotions to boil over.

Witness deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs Charles "Cully" Stimson, who went off on a talk show last Thursday on Washington's Federal News Radio. The administration official is now under fire from lawyers' groups and others for suggesting on the air that corporate CEOs should think twice about hiring law firms that work for prisoners detained at Guantanamo Bay. In fact, he called out a dozen firms, suggesting a boycott by corporate chieftains.

My guess is that his emotions and political leanings got the better of him. He may have entered the interview with the intent of delivering a measured message, but let his heart overtake his head. Another assumption: He neglected to practice sufficiently. If you tend toward hotheadedness, you would be well-served to have a colleague toss inflammatory questions at you. If your answers prove too hot and off-point, you have three choices. One, rehearse until you are comfortable sticking to your desired message. Two, get someone else to do the interview. Three, pass on the interview altogether.

The Pentagon is distancing itself from Stimson's comments. The end result is yet to be determined. Promotion? Not likely. Trip to the woodshed? Possibly. Firing offense? Who knows? At the very least, I doubt we will be hearing Cully Stimson's voice on another radio talk show -- or in any other media outlet -- any time soon.