The ability to deal effectively with the media is now a prerequisite not only for political leaders but also for senior leaders in industry, commerce, law and most other important areas of life.
Accordingly, anyone who aspires to senior level leadership must simply accept the media as a fact of life and must be prepared to deal with them.
University and media studies tend to attract very bright entry level students, because of the glamour associated with journalism and the media. Journalists also tend to be inherently skeptical.
Further complicating the picture is the fact that more senior journalists also have well developed sources of information.
In fairness to the media, it is their job to try to find things out. At least some of them will try to be fair. Like most human beings, members of the media tend to appreciate being treated with genuine courtesy and consideration and being accorded the respect to which all individuals are entitled.
Since the media are not about to go away, wise leadership invest considerable time in planning how best to deal with them so as to get the best possible relationship with them.
Spending many years dealing with, and being part of the media in various leadership positions, the best advice I can offer in this area is largely common sense.
Obviously, the media should be treated cordially. There is no sense starting off on the wrong foot.
It should always be assumed any information provided to them will enter into the public domain. If a company wishes to keep information off-the-record, the approach is not to disclose it at all.
My advice is that it is wise to provide prompt answers and reasonably open access.
Any failure to do so will tend to confirm suspicions that there is something to cover-up. Moreover, keeping answers short and crisp reduces the chance of confusion concerning the answers given.
Both ambiguous and detailed answers are fraught with risk. At least that’s what I have learned when I was given extensive media training when I worked for the government.
One of the first rules that should be followed is that the answers should always be honest. If a mistake has been made, or there is strong evidence that one has been made, it is pointless to attempt to convince a reporter that this is not the case.
From a potential liability perspective, however, there will often be risks in admitting publicly that an issue exists or that a problematic event has occurred.
Answers such as “we are reviewing all available evidence and trying to get definitive statements from witnesses in order to determine what actually happened” cannot normally be challenged and rather than appearing defensive appear proactive.
If the reporter persists, a statement “it would be pointless to speculate while the inquiry is being made,” should bring matters to a close.
Avoid statements such as “I intend to get to the bottom of this,” since a statement of this sort suggests wrongdoing. A statement that any complaint or allegation of wrongdoing will be carefully investigated shows a responsible attitude, without suggesting that allegation is necessarily considered true.
Always remember an interview with a reporter is not a debate.
It is not necessary to prove that a reporter is wrong in his or her suspicions and it is certainly not necessary to convince the reporter this is the case. By the same token, while the press is as entitled as anyone else to express opinions on matters of public policy or interest, it is not their role to dictate what public policy should be.
Stephen Bauld is a government procurement expert and can be reached at swbauld@purchasingci.com. Some of his columns may contain excerpts from The Municipal Procurement Handbook published by Butterworths.
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed