Always be cognizant of how your response looks to others. Run it by a few tough critics before you send it to the media. The health club statement may have been refined or reworded if the club’s manager ran it by a few men and women. Maybe he did, but the critics’ voices weren’t strong enough. Yet another reason why you must make sure whoever reads your statement is comfortable giving a dissenting opinion.
Let me finish this chapter with a scandalous, titillating story that also provides a moral lesson. In the winter of 2007, a prominent anchor for a Philadelphia news station visited New York City for a weekend with her boyfriend. The anchor is sexy, beautiful, skinny and rich. Her boyfriend is a popular radio personality for a morning program in Philadelphia, and equally attractive.
During their visit, the anchor and her boyfriend got into a traffic dispute with another vehicle. When they stopped at a traffic light, the anchor’s boyfriend got out of the car and approached the other vehicle, allegedly telling the occupants to drive faster. According to police reports, the occupants told the power couple that they were undercover police officers.
That’s when, according to police reports, the anchor went ballistic.
“I don’t give a f--- who you are, I’m a f---ing TV reporter, you f----ing dyke,” the anchor allegedly shouted.
When it was all over, police accused the anchor of slapping an undercover police officer. It’s never a good idea to slap a stranger on the streets, shouting homophobic rants in a primarily gay area. It’s worse when the choice of your target happens to be an undercover police officer. Police quickly arrested the anchor and booked her on felony charges of assaulting a police officer, which could have put her behind bars for years.
By Monday morning, all of the tabloid newspapers were having a field day with the story, giving the anchor’s tirade front-page coverage. The Philadelphia television station was now fielding calls from the media, asking if management was going to fire the beautiful anchor. Making matters worse, the newspapers pointed out the anchor’s twice-divorced history. The media also reported on how she had emailed bikini-clad pictures of herself to a married man in the past. One newspaper was able to uncover how the anchor allegedly made calls to the Governor of Pennsylvania as soon as she got out of jail, adding even more quid pro quo questions to the story. Reporters now wanted to know if the anchor was trying to curry favor with the law by soliciting help from powerful men. For a woman who needs to be loved by viewers, the situation was quickly spiraling into a public relations nightmare for her image.
A lawyer for the anchor quickly sent out a statement, denying the charges. He said, “(She) never hit or ever said any derogatory comments to anyone.”
Her lawyer also described a different situation. He said the anchor was “accosted by several individuals wearing plainclothes. They attempted to grab her camera to prevent her from taking photographs of an altercation they (plainclothes people) were involved in. (The anchor) was shocked to learn after the fact that these individuals were police officers.”
New York City police officers are not always the friendliest group of people at two in the morning, so I could imagine how this event unfolded and quickly escalated into an argument, especially if any alcohol was involved. Regardless, the anchor could have managed this negative press better by speaking publicly with just one news organization. A lawyer sending out a statement gives the impression that this anchor is trying to buy her way out of the problem. Yes, high-powered lawyers can help most people, but this was a battle of public image. By speaking directly to the public, the anchor could have given her side of the story. And by giving one reporter the exclusive, the anchor wouldn’t have faced a pack of hungry journalists.
Less than a month after this story made headlines, the anchor was fired from her job in local television news. The General Manager of the station released a statement, saying he had “concluded it would be impossible for (her) to continue to report the news as she, herself, has become the focus of so many news stories.”
I’m sure the anchor had many friends within local law enforcement who could have spoken on her behalf and boosted her image within the community. The anchor could have encouraged law enforcement officers to call reporters who were covering her story. The police officers could have vouched for the anchor’s character and temperament, telling reporters she was always professional with them and respected the law. They also could have given the appearance that many professionals inside of law enforcement supported her.
Many people in the gay community were also offended by the anchor’s alleged homophobic comments. Again, the anchor should have had several friends from the gay community call those same reporters, saying they’ve never known her to be homophobic or racist against anyone. Perhaps, they could have cited examples in which she supported their organizations. A few credible sources vouching for the anchor’s temperament could have lessoned the tension in these stories.
Finally, the anchor could have enlightened public empathy to the situation by directly describing the situation she saw. She could have said in her own words why she was afraid these men in plain clothes were about to harm her boyfriend, and that’s why she pulled out her camera phone to document the situation for police. If the anchor did say the alleged derogatory remarks, she should have expressed contrition, saying she was scared and wrong to say such a thing in a moment of fear and anger. But, she never should have used this time to accuse the police officers of any misdoings. Instead, the anchor should have focused her response on the positive, saying she respects all police officers because they put their lives at risk everyday. She also could have made light of the situation by saying she should have listened to her grandmother who always said, “No good thing ever happens after 2am.”
For more tips on how to spin the news into your favor, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Drafting a Statement
In the fall of 1997, I pursued a hidden camera investigation on the airline industry. The story, which aired on the nationally syndicated television program American Journal, looked at how children were being cared for when they traveled alone on planes during the busy holiday season. Many parents spend extra money for a flight attendant to chaperone a child between flights, and this hidden camera investigation put these airline programs to the test.
As expected, a few airlines didn’t let the children out of their sight. The kids were watched closely between flights, and some children were even placed in a private room away from the public. They did a magnificent job of caring for the airline’s most precious cargo. But one airline, made a tragic mistake and it was all documented on videotape.
That airline left the child alone. Making matters worse, the child was able to walk off with another person at the airport. The entire time, the flight attendant assigned to the child was busy helping other customers, paying no attention to the unaccompanied child.
That airline refused to talk on camera. Instead, it sent a written response, accusing American Journal of making up a story and sensationalizing the problem. This was not a good statement because my story contained several children who told horror stories of how they were left alone in strange cities. The children described in their innocent, high-pitched voices how they were afraid when they were by themselves in foreign cities.
The airline’s statement made it look out of touch with the people. In addition, viewers watching this program were accustomed to this kind of undercover journalism, so the statement derailed any empathy viewers may have had for the airline industry. The statement essentially ridiculed viewers for watching American Journal.
If you do determine your business is better off by not responding to a reporter’s inquiry, don’t ever say, “no comment.” It will only make you look guilty. Instead, learn how to say no by saying yes. In some cases, you can agree to an interview with a newspaper reporter or television producer by setting conditions that are impossible to meet.
For example, many smaller and medium sized television stations have limited resources. They don’t have the ability to shoot interviews at night or on weekends. The few crews assigned to the weekend or night shifts are typically dedicated to those weekend or late night newscasts.
Many television stations will discourage a producer from pursuing an interview that is more than two hours away by car. If the response is crucial to a story, many news managers will find a way to accommodate the shoot, but if the interview is nothing more than a 20-second sound bite, the station will prefer a written statement. It lowers the station’s cost for a news story and it makes the story easier to produce.
If you agree to an interview in a nearby town or on a weekend, and the station decides it can’t shoot the interview, the reporter can no longer say you refused to talk on camera. This subtle element will also make you look less guilty in the court of public opinion.
Other ways you can say no to an interview include: agreeing to talk on camera without narrowing down the logistics. It’s possible to say yes to an interview, without being able to agree on a time frame or location. We all know many busy executives have conflicting scheduling issues. This tactic will only work on stories that have a tight deadline and a pending air date.
For more on how to draft a written statement for the media, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
As expected, a few airlines didn’t let the children out of their sight. The kids were watched closely between flights, and some children were even placed in a private room away from the public. They did a magnificent job of caring for the airline’s most precious cargo. But one airline, made a tragic mistake and it was all documented on videotape.
That airline left the child alone. Making matters worse, the child was able to walk off with another person at the airport. The entire time, the flight attendant assigned to the child was busy helping other customers, paying no attention to the unaccompanied child.
That airline refused to talk on camera. Instead, it sent a written response, accusing American Journal of making up a story and sensationalizing the problem. This was not a good statement because my story contained several children who told horror stories of how they were left alone in strange cities. The children described in their innocent, high-pitched voices how they were afraid when they were by themselves in foreign cities.
The airline’s statement made it look out of touch with the people. In addition, viewers watching this program were accustomed to this kind of undercover journalism, so the statement derailed any empathy viewers may have had for the airline industry. The statement essentially ridiculed viewers for watching American Journal.
If you do determine your business is better off by not responding to a reporter’s inquiry, don’t ever say, “no comment.” It will only make you look guilty. Instead, learn how to say no by saying yes. In some cases, you can agree to an interview with a newspaper reporter or television producer by setting conditions that are impossible to meet.
For example, many smaller and medium sized television stations have limited resources. They don’t have the ability to shoot interviews at night or on weekends. The few crews assigned to the weekend or night shifts are typically dedicated to those weekend or late night newscasts.
Many television stations will discourage a producer from pursuing an interview that is more than two hours away by car. If the response is crucial to a story, many news managers will find a way to accommodate the shoot, but if the interview is nothing more than a 20-second sound bite, the station will prefer a written statement. It lowers the station’s cost for a news story and it makes the story easier to produce.
If you agree to an interview in a nearby town or on a weekend, and the station decides it can’t shoot the interview, the reporter can no longer say you refused to talk on camera. This subtle element will also make you look less guilty in the court of public opinion.
Other ways you can say no to an interview include: agreeing to talk on camera without narrowing down the logistics. It’s possible to say yes to an interview, without being able to agree on a time frame or location. We all know many busy executives have conflicting scheduling issues. This tactic will only work on stories that have a tight deadline and a pending air date.
For more on how to draft a written statement for the media, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
A Crisis Communications Situation
In December 2007, a story circulated in the newspapers involving a man who was suing a Las Vegas Athletic Club for gender discrimination. The 45-year-old man filed a complaint with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission, alleging the health club was giving special discounts to women, which he claimed was illegal under state law. The story held larger ramifications across the state of Nevada. The complaint had the potential to end all “Ladies Nights” at bars and nightclubs that offered free drinks to women as a way of luring them into their bars.
The gym member made a decent argument when talking to reporters.
“Imagine a whites-only country club or whites-get-in-free deal or something like that,” the gym member said. “When things are based on race, we have kind of a knee-jerk reaction because we’ve had poor race relations in America for 400 years now. But when it comes to treating people the same based on sex, that’s much more recent in our memory.”
The gym member made a logical argument that most men would probably support. He simply wanted the same membership price that his wife paid. The gym should have quietly given him the price break, and the problem would have gone away. Instead, a manager at the health club refused the discount and resentment began to brew within the disgruntled customer. Now, the health club had to deal with national negative exposure that could potentially alter the pricing structure for all bars and nightclubs in Nevada. The owner of that gym made many enemies with just one refusal. And to think it all would have gone away with just one small discount.
The health club could have diffused the tension by saying they were trying a new marketing approach to get more women into their health club. Management could have said they were reviewing the policy to see if the pricing structure was equitable for men and women. The club could have said they were researching a similar discount that appealed just to men, like discounts on weight trainers. Instead, the health club took a combative approach and attacked the alleged victim in the press. This is the club’s statement as published in the New York Times.
“Our men are very, very happy with how we conduct our business,” the vice president of the company said. “This particular person is the only one who has had a problem with it. There are legitimate discrimination issues out there, and I wish he’d spend his time addressing those that really need addressing.”
How do you feel reading that statement? After reading how the health club tried to demonize the complainant, I want to side with the customer over the health club. I don’t want to pay more than women for a gym membership. Subconsciously, it’s a David versus Goliath battle. One man had the strength to take on a large company over principal, and most people will rally for the little guy in those types of situations. There was no reason to demonize this customer in the public domain. The statement practically forces you to choose sides, which is never a safe approach when your reputation is at stake. You don’t want to give people an opportunity to root against you.
For more tips on how to spin the news into your favor, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
The gym member made a decent argument when talking to reporters.
“Imagine a whites-only country club or whites-get-in-free deal or something like that,” the gym member said. “When things are based on race, we have kind of a knee-jerk reaction because we’ve had poor race relations in America for 400 years now. But when it comes to treating people the same based on sex, that’s much more recent in our memory.”
The gym member made a logical argument that most men would probably support. He simply wanted the same membership price that his wife paid. The gym should have quietly given him the price break, and the problem would have gone away. Instead, a manager at the health club refused the discount and resentment began to brew within the disgruntled customer. Now, the health club had to deal with national negative exposure that could potentially alter the pricing structure for all bars and nightclubs in Nevada. The owner of that gym made many enemies with just one refusal. And to think it all would have gone away with just one small discount.
The health club could have diffused the tension by saying they were trying a new marketing approach to get more women into their health club. Management could have said they were reviewing the policy to see if the pricing structure was equitable for men and women. The club could have said they were researching a similar discount that appealed just to men, like discounts on weight trainers. Instead, the health club took a combative approach and attacked the alleged victim in the press. This is the club’s statement as published in the New York Times.
“Our men are very, very happy with how we conduct our business,” the vice president of the company said. “This particular person is the only one who has had a problem with it. There are legitimate discrimination issues out there, and I wish he’d spend his time addressing those that really need addressing.”
How do you feel reading that statement? After reading how the health club tried to demonize the complainant, I want to side with the customer over the health club. I don’t want to pay more than women for a gym membership. Subconsciously, it’s a David versus Goliath battle. One man had the strength to take on a large company over principal, and most people will rally for the little guy in those types of situations. There was no reason to demonize this customer in the public domain. The statement practically forces you to choose sides, which is never a safe approach when your reputation is at stake. You don’t want to give people an opportunity to root against you.
For more tips on how to spin the news into your favor, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
When to Talk to Reporters
Every reporter will ask for a sit-down interview to get your side of the story, but is there ever a time when you should flatly reject the interview with a reporter or producer? Yes, though the window is small. Here are a few parameters I have set that might help you determine whether an interview with the media will be good or bad for your image.
When You Should Say No to an Interview with a Reporter.
1) You are guilty.
2) You or your business will continue engaging in this controversial behavior.
3) You have not learned anything from this situation.
4) Anything you say will make you sound guilty.
5) You can’t find anything positive to say about the situation.
If you answered yes to these five questions, you may be better off defending yourself with a written statement. It’s okay to make a mistake as long as you learn from it. However, if your business will continue with the controversial practice, your defense gets weaker. If you didn’t learn anything from the situation, you will definitely repeat the mistake again, which will result in more people suffering. If you can’t find anything positive to say about your business practice, you won’t be able to spin the story in your favor.
It might sound like an extreme case, but there are times when a business owner will find himself saying yes to all five of those questions. Earlier in this book, I talked about a company that promised consumers access to information that would help them get free government grants. The customers were told for $600 the company would send them information to help them apply for these government grants, and it would guide them along the way. Customers who paid the $600 said the information they received was nothing more than bad copies of outdated phone numbers and inaccurate information. When the customers tried to get their money back, they said the company stalled and wouldn’t return their phone calls.
This company refused to talk on camera for our story, which was a smart strategic move. The company wasn’t going to stop selling this information after our story aired. They were guilty of selling information that was free at the public library, and that was very difficult to spin. Practically anything the company said would have made them look like they were preying on uneducated consumers.
The company’s response came the day the story was scheduled to air, via a written statement. I was literally editing the story when the company’s statement was emailed to me. It was concise and to the point, saying: “(the company) has provided the public with valuable information and services. As a result, our customers have bought their first homes, invested in real estate, improved their communities, created jobs and started and expanded businesses.”
This was a good statement because it focused only on the positive aspects of the business. Who knew if this statement was true, but there was no way to challenge it, especially at this late hour. In addition, the statement allowed the company to give its side of the story without answering any tough questions. The statement also didn’t attack the victims or accuse people of making mistakes with their service.
Whenever you are responding in writing to a television station or newspaper, keep your statement brief, preferably under three sentences. A shorter statement increases your odds of the entire response getting published in the story. Stay positive and don’t try to blame a victim or business in your statement. Instead, accept responsibility by focusing your response on the good services or aspects of your business. A statement is not a platform to throw mud, and here is an example of why that is a fact.
For more information on how to decide whether talking on the record is in your best interest, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
When You Should Say No to an Interview with a Reporter.
1) You are guilty.
2) You or your business will continue engaging in this controversial behavior.
3) You have not learned anything from this situation.
4) Anything you say will make you sound guilty.
5) You can’t find anything positive to say about the situation.
If you answered yes to these five questions, you may be better off defending yourself with a written statement. It’s okay to make a mistake as long as you learn from it. However, if your business will continue with the controversial practice, your defense gets weaker. If you didn’t learn anything from the situation, you will definitely repeat the mistake again, which will result in more people suffering. If you can’t find anything positive to say about your business practice, you won’t be able to spin the story in your favor.
It might sound like an extreme case, but there are times when a business owner will find himself saying yes to all five of those questions. Earlier in this book, I talked about a company that promised consumers access to information that would help them get free government grants. The customers were told for $600 the company would send them information to help them apply for these government grants, and it would guide them along the way. Customers who paid the $600 said the information they received was nothing more than bad copies of outdated phone numbers and inaccurate information. When the customers tried to get their money back, they said the company stalled and wouldn’t return their phone calls.
This company refused to talk on camera for our story, which was a smart strategic move. The company wasn’t going to stop selling this information after our story aired. They were guilty of selling information that was free at the public library, and that was very difficult to spin. Practically anything the company said would have made them look like they were preying on uneducated consumers.
The company’s response came the day the story was scheduled to air, via a written statement. I was literally editing the story when the company’s statement was emailed to me. It was concise and to the point, saying: “(the company) has provided the public with valuable information and services. As a result, our customers have bought their first homes, invested in real estate, improved their communities, created jobs and started and expanded businesses.”
This was a good statement because it focused only on the positive aspects of the business. Who knew if this statement was true, but there was no way to challenge it, especially at this late hour. In addition, the statement allowed the company to give its side of the story without answering any tough questions. The statement also didn’t attack the victims or accuse people of making mistakes with their service.
Whenever you are responding in writing to a television station or newspaper, keep your statement brief, preferably under three sentences. A shorter statement increases your odds of the entire response getting published in the story. Stay positive and don’t try to blame a victim or business in your statement. Instead, accept responsibility by focusing your response on the good services or aspects of your business. A statement is not a platform to throw mud, and here is an example of why that is a fact.
For more information on how to decide whether talking on the record is in your best interest, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
Ambushed
The media doesn’t need your permission to enter your business, but they do need your permission to stay inside. If a television reporter and photographer enter your premises, it is your responsibility to tell them to leave your property. Many reporters will take their time leaving; trying to engage you in conversation while the photographer shoots video of your establishment. Don’t allow this to happen to you. Focus your attention on the photographer –not the reporter – and politely ask him to leave. But be firm and say it so the camera can hear it, “I am telling you to leave my property right now. You are trespassing. I also want that camera turned off now or you will hear from my attorney.”
You have a right to force any television camera to leave your place of business, so you should exert that power. Don’t allow the reporter to get any video of your product, service or business. If you are able to enforce this, you have just helped maintain damage control by limiting the reporter’s video.
There are some instances in television when the reporter won’t announce that he wants to interview you, and you won’t have a chance to prepare for your response. Instead, he will catch you off guard with his camera and microphone, asking you questions when you are least prepared. In television, this is publicly called the “unannounced interview” or “unscheduled interview” but privately, TV people refer to it as an “ambush.”
Most responsible journalists will reach out and request an on-camera interview in advance, but there are some television segments that are driven by this confrontational tabloid style. It makes for great TV and that’s why this form of sensational journalism always attracts viewers. It’s like driving by a car accident. You want to stop and look to see how bad the damage is. Viewers want to see the crooked businessman caught in his web of lies.
If a reporter ambushes you like this unannounced, maintain your composure and show respect for the camera. There’s a reason why “innocent people have nothing to hide” is such a cliché. Instead of running from the camera, approach the reporter in a non-threatening manner, and say you will gladly talk on camera but in a professional environment. Tell the reporter you have nothing to hide and will gladly talk on camera if it is scheduled. But don’t fall for the reporter’s bait. He’s going to throw out questions at you, while he has you in front of the camera. He might even insult you and invade your personal space. If he calls you slime for leaving a little old lady without water, look him in the eyes and say that you want a chance to respond on camera, but shouting is not the proper format.
Again, don’t let the reporter draw you to anger, and don’t let him lure you into saying something you will later regret. Assume the camera is always rolling, and everything you say is captured on TV. The reporter might keep asking you the same uncomfortable questions, but don’t get thrown off track. Keep repeating that you will talk on camera, but in the proper format and environment. Give the reporter a legitimate excuse why you can’t do the interview right now on the street. Of course you will have a legitimate excuse because you will be headed somewhere when those cameras unexpectedly jump out of the bushes.
Many of these confrontational reporters are good at getting sound from those who don’t want to speak. They’ve had years mastering the art. If you find yourself getting baited, lower your voice and speak softly, so the microphone won’t pick up anything you say. Mumble your words and don’t project your voice. The microphone will probably not be able to pick up what you say and if the camera doesn’t hear it, you won’t hear it on TV. The only thing that you should enunciate in the interview is that you will talk to the reporter in the proper format. Turn the tables on the reporter and tell him he is being unprofessional for not wanting to schedule an interview the responsible way.
For more insight on how to handle a reporter in any crisis situation, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
You have a right to force any television camera to leave your place of business, so you should exert that power. Don’t allow the reporter to get any video of your product, service or business. If you are able to enforce this, you have just helped maintain damage control by limiting the reporter’s video.
There are some instances in television when the reporter won’t announce that he wants to interview you, and you won’t have a chance to prepare for your response. Instead, he will catch you off guard with his camera and microphone, asking you questions when you are least prepared. In television, this is publicly called the “unannounced interview” or “unscheduled interview” but privately, TV people refer to it as an “ambush.”
Most responsible journalists will reach out and request an on-camera interview in advance, but there are some television segments that are driven by this confrontational tabloid style. It makes for great TV and that’s why this form of sensational journalism always attracts viewers. It’s like driving by a car accident. You want to stop and look to see how bad the damage is. Viewers want to see the crooked businessman caught in his web of lies.
If a reporter ambushes you like this unannounced, maintain your composure and show respect for the camera. There’s a reason why “innocent people have nothing to hide” is such a cliché. Instead of running from the camera, approach the reporter in a non-threatening manner, and say you will gladly talk on camera but in a professional environment. Tell the reporter you have nothing to hide and will gladly talk on camera if it is scheduled. But don’t fall for the reporter’s bait. He’s going to throw out questions at you, while he has you in front of the camera. He might even insult you and invade your personal space. If he calls you slime for leaving a little old lady without water, look him in the eyes and say that you want a chance to respond on camera, but shouting is not the proper format.
Again, don’t let the reporter draw you to anger, and don’t let him lure you into saying something you will later regret. Assume the camera is always rolling, and everything you say is captured on TV. The reporter might keep asking you the same uncomfortable questions, but don’t get thrown off track. Keep repeating that you will talk on camera, but in the proper format and environment. Give the reporter a legitimate excuse why you can’t do the interview right now on the street. Of course you will have a legitimate excuse because you will be headed somewhere when those cameras unexpectedly jump out of the bushes.
Many of these confrontational reporters are good at getting sound from those who don’t want to speak. They’ve had years mastering the art. If you find yourself getting baited, lower your voice and speak softly, so the microphone won’t pick up anything you say. Mumble your words and don’t project your voice. The microphone will probably not be able to pick up what you say and if the camera doesn’t hear it, you won’t hear it on TV. The only thing that you should enunciate in the interview is that you will talk to the reporter in the proper format. Turn the tables on the reporter and tell him he is being unprofessional for not wanting to schedule an interview the responsible way.
For more insight on how to handle a reporter in any crisis situation, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
Handling the Media's Tough Questions
Now, let’s assume you do decide to talk to the media. The story must now include a portion of its time to your defense. If your communication strategy is executed properly, readers and viewers will hear from you why: A) the story isn’t true, B) the customer is stretching the truth, or C) you are working to solve the problem. If you can project an image of sympathy or empathy, viewers might even feel sorry for you and give you the benefit of the doubt, knowing everyone is entitled to make a mistake in life.
But let’s be clear on this communications strategy. You are not obligated to provide video for the reporter’s story, only an interview. With negative stories on television, you need to always control the amount of video that a photographer shoots of you and your business. The fewer visuals a reporter has to work with, the more restrictions that are placed on the story.
Let me elaborate. In television there is something called B-roll and sound. B-roll is another word for video, while sound is the abbreviated term for interviews. During a TV shoot, you will frequently overhear producers telling the photographer to get more “b-roll for a package.” This insider lingo basically means that the producer needs more video for his story. “Package” is another word for story.
As a person or business in the center of a negative story, you should always try to control the amount of video or “b-roll” that a photographer shoots. Here is a good example of why this is important and how it works to your advantage.
Many cities have restaurant health reports on their local newscasts. They might be called “Eat at Your Own Risk,” “Dirty Restaurants” or the “Friday Restaurant Report.” Whatever the segment is called, it doesn’t matter because all of these stories work like a formula. The reporter focuses the story around a popular restaurant that failed its most recent health inspection. Some of the more in-depth television reports will take an undercover camera into the restaurant and shoot hidden camera video of the food or kitchen before the restaurant manager is “ambushed” outside. In almost every case involving a story like this, you should not allow cameras into your restaurant.
Remember, it doesn’t exist in television if the photographer doesn’t get it on tape. An alien could land in Times Square during the middle of the day, but if a photographer doesn’t capture it, you might as well be listening to radio. That’s a fact that won’t ever change in the visual medium of television. I cannot over-emphasize how much video drives a story in television, and why you need to control it.
Many great follow-ups to newspaper stories are killed in the morning news meetings for television because the story lacks visuals. In December 2007, producers and managers in my television newsroom kicked around a story involving a sperm donor who was ordered by a judge to pay child support for his unknown child. The story was full of controversy. A young man allows another couple to use his sperm so they could have a child, and then a judge orders him to pay child support. Our television station wanted to pursue the story, but after the biological father said he wouldn’t talk on camera, the story was killed. The father eliminated the controversy by removing himself from the story.
In many of my undercover investigations, I worried relentlessly about the hidden-camera not working until I played the tape back and saw what the camera captured. Cameras are just like any other high-tech gadget. Sometimes they fail, and they don’t capture the video needed. Sometimes, uneducated business owners improve the visuals of a negative story by inviting cameras into their establishments. Either way, good video only makes an average story better. Poor video can lead to a shorter story or in the best situation, lead to it getting killed.
Let’s stick with the example of the restaurant report, and assume the reporter didn’t get any video inside of the establishment. What do you think viewers will see on TV during this restaurant report? You’re going to see exteriors of the restaurant, and pictures of a health inspection document. The camera will zoom into words like, “rats,” “rodents,” “failed,” “feces” or any other titillating word on the health department document. But that video only lasts for so long before it turns into wallpaper. You can only show so many documents and exteriors of a restaurant before you want to change the channel.
By limiting the photographer’s access to your business or restaurant, you are controlling the story’s direction. Without video, reporters will have little to write to or show on television. And don’t be charmed into letting a reporter or producer see more of your business. Reporters will say they only want to get video of your clean kitchen. And let’s assume your kitchen is clean. Maybe you are proud of the new manager you hired in response to your last failed restaurant inspection report. What’s wrong with wanting to show off your sparkling new kitchen? Don’t you want viewers to see how you cleaned up your act?
Here’s why you can’t do that. Once the photographer is inside your kitchen, he is going to focus his camera on visual elements that the story lacks. The photographer is going to shoot video of your floor where the mice scampered around and left behind droppings. The photographer will focus on uncooked perishable food items that are outside of the refrigerator. The camera will take pictures of employees cooking food.
You have now added all of the elements for a visual story. The reporter can write to rats prancing around the kitchen floor. Sure, you won’t see rats, but you will see the kitchen floor. The reporter can talk about dangerous food temperatures left outside of the refrigerator by showing eggs on the kitchen counter. The reporter can show close-up shots of hands, as he refers to any violations your employees may have received. This story now has every ingredient to make it a great visual story, and you can thank yourself for making it happen.
Consider the alternative: video of the exterior of a building and a document. The reporter doesn’t have pictures of your kitchen floor, and he can’t show unsafe food that was left outside of the refrigerator. The reporter’s imagination is limited because he has fewer visuals. And because a story like this gets boring fast, it has a better chance of getting cut down in the edit bay, which means your negative story will be shorter.
You don’t have to own a restaurant to apply this defensive tactic to your story. If you own an auto repair shop, the TV reporter will need video of mechanics working on cars. Or if you own a clothing store, the reporter will need video of customers browsing through the clothing racks. This situation applies to almost any business that can control who walks in and out of the building, i.e. coffee shop owners, airports, hospitals, retail outlets, auto repair shops, manufacturing plants, etc.
For more advice on how to handle the media during a crisis situation, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
But let’s be clear on this communications strategy. You are not obligated to provide video for the reporter’s story, only an interview. With negative stories on television, you need to always control the amount of video that a photographer shoots of you and your business. The fewer visuals a reporter has to work with, the more restrictions that are placed on the story.
Let me elaborate. In television there is something called B-roll and sound. B-roll is another word for video, while sound is the abbreviated term for interviews. During a TV shoot, you will frequently overhear producers telling the photographer to get more “b-roll for a package.” This insider lingo basically means that the producer needs more video for his story. “Package” is another word for story.
As a person or business in the center of a negative story, you should always try to control the amount of video or “b-roll” that a photographer shoots. Here is a good example of why this is important and how it works to your advantage.
Many cities have restaurant health reports on their local newscasts. They might be called “Eat at Your Own Risk,” “Dirty Restaurants” or the “Friday Restaurant Report.” Whatever the segment is called, it doesn’t matter because all of these stories work like a formula. The reporter focuses the story around a popular restaurant that failed its most recent health inspection. Some of the more in-depth television reports will take an undercover camera into the restaurant and shoot hidden camera video of the food or kitchen before the restaurant manager is “ambushed” outside. In almost every case involving a story like this, you should not allow cameras into your restaurant.
Remember, it doesn’t exist in television if the photographer doesn’t get it on tape. An alien could land in Times Square during the middle of the day, but if a photographer doesn’t capture it, you might as well be listening to radio. That’s a fact that won’t ever change in the visual medium of television. I cannot over-emphasize how much video drives a story in television, and why you need to control it.
Many great follow-ups to newspaper stories are killed in the morning news meetings for television because the story lacks visuals. In December 2007, producers and managers in my television newsroom kicked around a story involving a sperm donor who was ordered by a judge to pay child support for his unknown child. The story was full of controversy. A young man allows another couple to use his sperm so they could have a child, and then a judge orders him to pay child support. Our television station wanted to pursue the story, but after the biological father said he wouldn’t talk on camera, the story was killed. The father eliminated the controversy by removing himself from the story.
In many of my undercover investigations, I worried relentlessly about the hidden-camera not working until I played the tape back and saw what the camera captured. Cameras are just like any other high-tech gadget. Sometimes they fail, and they don’t capture the video needed. Sometimes, uneducated business owners improve the visuals of a negative story by inviting cameras into their establishments. Either way, good video only makes an average story better. Poor video can lead to a shorter story or in the best situation, lead to it getting killed.
Let’s stick with the example of the restaurant report, and assume the reporter didn’t get any video inside of the establishment. What do you think viewers will see on TV during this restaurant report? You’re going to see exteriors of the restaurant, and pictures of a health inspection document. The camera will zoom into words like, “rats,” “rodents,” “failed,” “feces” or any other titillating word on the health department document. But that video only lasts for so long before it turns into wallpaper. You can only show so many documents and exteriors of a restaurant before you want to change the channel.
By limiting the photographer’s access to your business or restaurant, you are controlling the story’s direction. Without video, reporters will have little to write to or show on television. And don’t be charmed into letting a reporter or producer see more of your business. Reporters will say they only want to get video of your clean kitchen. And let’s assume your kitchen is clean. Maybe you are proud of the new manager you hired in response to your last failed restaurant inspection report. What’s wrong with wanting to show off your sparkling new kitchen? Don’t you want viewers to see how you cleaned up your act?
Here’s why you can’t do that. Once the photographer is inside your kitchen, he is going to focus his camera on visual elements that the story lacks. The photographer is going to shoot video of your floor where the mice scampered around and left behind droppings. The photographer will focus on uncooked perishable food items that are outside of the refrigerator. The camera will take pictures of employees cooking food.
You have now added all of the elements for a visual story. The reporter can write to rats prancing around the kitchen floor. Sure, you won’t see rats, but you will see the kitchen floor. The reporter can talk about dangerous food temperatures left outside of the refrigerator by showing eggs on the kitchen counter. The reporter can show close-up shots of hands, as he refers to any violations your employees may have received. This story now has every ingredient to make it a great visual story, and you can thank yourself for making it happen.
Consider the alternative: video of the exterior of a building and a document. The reporter doesn’t have pictures of your kitchen floor, and he can’t show unsafe food that was left outside of the refrigerator. The reporter’s imagination is limited because he has fewer visuals. And because a story like this gets boring fast, it has a better chance of getting cut down in the edit bay, which means your negative story will be shorter.
You don’t have to own a restaurant to apply this defensive tactic to your story. If you own an auto repair shop, the TV reporter will need video of mechanics working on cars. Or if you own a clothing store, the reporter will need video of customers browsing through the clothing racks. This situation applies to almost any business that can control who walks in and out of the building, i.e. coffee shop owners, airports, hospitals, retail outlets, auto repair shops, manufacturing plants, etc.
For more advice on how to handle the media during a crisis situation, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
When to Talk on Camera
Think back to high school. Whenever you heard a bad rumor about a girl, you almost always assumed it was true unless the girl came out and denied it. The laws of human behavior haven’t changed much since then. If the source is credible, most people are going to believe the story has merit unless there is some form of denial involved by the accused.
In the fall of 2007, an anchor for a local cable news channel in New York was fired for calling into a newscast under a fake name. When the story first broke, a local newspaper reported the anchor was fired because he phoned into an evening call-in show, saying he was “Dalton” from the Upper East Side. The anchor broke a universal rule for journalists. He gave his opinion about a public official-Bernard Kerik-a former New York Police Commissioner who was facing a 16-count federal indictment. The anchor had a serious lapse in judgment because everyone recognized his voice on television. He was an anchor and these were his coworkers listening to his rants against a public official on television under a bogus name. He wasn’t fooling anyone with his lies.
Salacious stories like these quickly circulate around newsrooms. When the story first broke, producers and reporters inside my newsroom all debated whether the article was true or if the station was using this as an excuse to release the anchor from his contract. In television, people are fired for all kinds of reasons but this sounded so ludicrous it was hard to believe a person could be this dumb. After reading the article, one producer cast his opinion.
“It has to be true,” he said. “Listen to his response. He doesn’t deny it.”
That quote is an affirmation for this entire chapter.
If you are accused of doing something that you didn’t do, make sure your denial is clear and crisp. There must be no reading between the lines. Don’t mince words when you tell the reporter or producer that the allegation is false and you didn’t do it. And if you talk on television, don’t give viewers an opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Make it easy for them to believe that you are a victim, and the accusations are false. Be clear in your denial.
President Bill Clinton was a master communicator and he articulated his denial to perfection when he told America in 1998 the sexual allegations against him were false.
“I want to say one thing to the America people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
I believed President Clinton after I heard that speech. The President sounded sincere, honest and straightforward in his denial, and I assumed he was the victim of dirty politics. If it had not been for that little blue dress much of America would have believed him as well and perhaps history would have viewed him differently.
It’s easy to deny charges when the allegations are false, but what happens when the allegations against you are true? How should you respond when someone accuses you or your business of a negative act, and inside you know it did happen? I wouldn’t recommend pulling a page from President Clinton’s crisis book and denying it at all costs. President Clinton rightfully assumed it was going to be his word versus the word of a former intern and most of America would see him as the credible one. He obviously didn’t take into account the stained dress would survive the years and surface as evidence. Likewise, you never know what evidence the reporter or producer has supporting the allegation against you, so don’t deny something that you know is true. Reporters are paid to find facts and if they find any information that proves you are lying, all credibility is lost for good.
I’m of the journalism school that subscribes it will almost always hurt you to decline an interview with the media, regardless of whether you are guilty or innocent. If you say no to an interview, you have virtually no chance of shaping the story’s coverage. However, if you say yes to an interview and artfully prepare your statements you can at least maintain damage control. And with a little splash of spin, there is even a chance you could turn a negative story into a positive one.
There are several reasons why I say it will almost always hurt you to not talk to the media. The most important reason is you give a reporter full reign to pursue his story when you decline to speak on the record. Every allegation in a reporter’s story must be vetted or at least screened by the accused for legal reasons, but if you refuse to talk to the journalist, he doesn’t have to run the allegations by anyone. Effectively, you remove a reporter’s checks and balances by refusing to talk to a reporter.
In addition, if you don’t defend yourself people will assume you are guilty. Even if the reporter reads a statement from you, viewers and readers will gloss over that element of the story. Instead, they will see and hear a victim making strong charges against you. They will hear evidence supporting the victim’s claim. And then they are going to hear the reporter say on camera, “The owner of the business, Mr. Johnny Jones, refused to answer any of our questions.”
The subconscious mind will be moving in high gear when this is heard. Why wouldn’t the owner talk to the reporter? Viewers and readers will assume the businessman is guilty and hiding something. If he didn’t do it, he would deny it. It’s common human behavior to assume guilty people try to hide. And if you don’t believe that, think back to the OJ Simpson police chase involving his White Bronco. Nearly all of America cast their guilty vote after they saw OJ running from the law.
For more tips on how to decide whether to talk on camera, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
In the fall of 2007, an anchor for a local cable news channel in New York was fired for calling into a newscast under a fake name. When the story first broke, a local newspaper reported the anchor was fired because he phoned into an evening call-in show, saying he was “Dalton” from the Upper East Side. The anchor broke a universal rule for journalists. He gave his opinion about a public official-Bernard Kerik-a former New York Police Commissioner who was facing a 16-count federal indictment. The anchor had a serious lapse in judgment because everyone recognized his voice on television. He was an anchor and these were his coworkers listening to his rants against a public official on television under a bogus name. He wasn’t fooling anyone with his lies.
Salacious stories like these quickly circulate around newsrooms. When the story first broke, producers and reporters inside my newsroom all debated whether the article was true or if the station was using this as an excuse to release the anchor from his contract. In television, people are fired for all kinds of reasons but this sounded so ludicrous it was hard to believe a person could be this dumb. After reading the article, one producer cast his opinion.
“It has to be true,” he said. “Listen to his response. He doesn’t deny it.”
That quote is an affirmation for this entire chapter.
If you are accused of doing something that you didn’t do, make sure your denial is clear and crisp. There must be no reading between the lines. Don’t mince words when you tell the reporter or producer that the allegation is false and you didn’t do it. And if you talk on television, don’t give viewers an opportunity to draw their own conclusions. Make it easy for them to believe that you are a victim, and the accusations are false. Be clear in your denial.
President Bill Clinton was a master communicator and he articulated his denial to perfection when he told America in 1998 the sexual allegations against him were false.
“I want to say one thing to the America people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
I believed President Clinton after I heard that speech. The President sounded sincere, honest and straightforward in his denial, and I assumed he was the victim of dirty politics. If it had not been for that little blue dress much of America would have believed him as well and perhaps history would have viewed him differently.
It’s easy to deny charges when the allegations are false, but what happens when the allegations against you are true? How should you respond when someone accuses you or your business of a negative act, and inside you know it did happen? I wouldn’t recommend pulling a page from President Clinton’s crisis book and denying it at all costs. President Clinton rightfully assumed it was going to be his word versus the word of a former intern and most of America would see him as the credible one. He obviously didn’t take into account the stained dress would survive the years and surface as evidence. Likewise, you never know what evidence the reporter or producer has supporting the allegation against you, so don’t deny something that you know is true. Reporters are paid to find facts and if they find any information that proves you are lying, all credibility is lost for good.
I’m of the journalism school that subscribes it will almost always hurt you to decline an interview with the media, regardless of whether you are guilty or innocent. If you say no to an interview, you have virtually no chance of shaping the story’s coverage. However, if you say yes to an interview and artfully prepare your statements you can at least maintain damage control. And with a little splash of spin, there is even a chance you could turn a negative story into a positive one.
There are several reasons why I say it will almost always hurt you to not talk to the media. The most important reason is you give a reporter full reign to pursue his story when you decline to speak on the record. Every allegation in a reporter’s story must be vetted or at least screened by the accused for legal reasons, but if you refuse to talk to the journalist, he doesn’t have to run the allegations by anyone. Effectively, you remove a reporter’s checks and balances by refusing to talk to a reporter.
In addition, if you don’t defend yourself people will assume you are guilty. Even if the reporter reads a statement from you, viewers and readers will gloss over that element of the story. Instead, they will see and hear a victim making strong charges against you. They will hear evidence supporting the victim’s claim. And then they are going to hear the reporter say on camera, “The owner of the business, Mr. Johnny Jones, refused to answer any of our questions.”
The subconscious mind will be moving in high gear when this is heard. Why wouldn’t the owner talk to the reporter? Viewers and readers will assume the businessman is guilty and hiding something. If he didn’t do it, he would deny it. It’s common human behavior to assume guilty people try to hide. And if you don’t believe that, think back to the OJ Simpson police chase involving his White Bronco. Nearly all of America cast their guilty vote after they saw OJ running from the law.
For more tips on how to decide whether to talk on camera, go to www.BeatthePressBook.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
