The Media Interview

Being prepared for a crisis situation is important for any organization, but in the case of nonprofits, it can be particularly vital. That’s because nonprofits often have a constantly fluctuating staff, low budgets for handling emergencies, and a crisis situation is one of the few ways to get in front of the media.

Training an individual person is good, but for nonprofits, it’s better to prepare statements, positions, and answers that any member of the organization can deliver. The quality of the delivery is less of an issue than choosing the right words and the best responses.

This kind of preparation requires a good deal of research and thought – what will be asked, what is the best answer, what are the follow-up questions, what are the possible variations in the scenario – this is just the tip of the preparation iceberg.

As I started to watch yesterday’s much talked about interview with Billy Bob Thornton and the Boxmasters on CBC Radio out of Toronto, I thought we were in for another Sigur Ros or Joaquin Phoenix stunt, when the interviewee simply clams up.

Then, as host Jian Ghomeshi asked about Billy Bob’s musical influences growing up, and he replied by talking about a movie monster magazine he loved as a kid, I thought maybe the accompanying glazed look indicated that an intervention was needed instead of an interview.

But things became much clearer when Billy Bob uttered words to this effect: ‘your producer was instructed not to mention my acting career’. Ghomeshi admitted that some form of request had been made, but felt that at least mentioning Thornton’s film career was helpful in providing some context to his musical work.

Billy Bob tried to make out that it was Ghomeshi’s use of the phrase “given that you seem quite passionate about music” that was insulting, saying that you would never ask that of someone like Tom Petty. In other words, by making that statement Ghomeshi is implying that Thornton is principally a movie guy and not a musician.

Trouble is, Ghomeshi used that phrase well into the interview, long after Thornton had started clamming up or talking about movie monsters, and there was virtually no other mention of movies in those first 7 minutes. However, in Billy Bob’s mind, it seems, the crime had been committed in the opening seconds.

During Ghomeshi’s introduction, he had said that one member of the Boxmasters is Billy Bob Thornton, “whose other job, sometimes, is Oscar-winning actor, screenwriter, and director” followed by the statement that Thornton’s name is “most often linked to his cinematic endeavours.” To be fair, Ghomeshi’s point with that last phrase was to contrast it with the fact that Thornton has always said that music is his first love and movies were a diversion. But apparently, the offence had already been taken.

How did Thornton react to that opening? Instead of being up front and reminding Ghomeshi (and informing the audience) of the agreement not to talk about movies, Thornton elected to shut down and respond with “I don’t know what you mean” and then, when legitimately asked about his musical influences growing up, talks about a supposed movie influence instead. It was just plain childish.

Whether Thornton was just tired, had had enough of mentions of his movie work by interviewers, or whatever, he chose to let himself sound and (because it was simulcast on TV) look bad. And how he seriously expects there to be no mention of his movie career in interviews is a childish attempt to control reality.

[Thanks to Bob LeDrew over at Flacklife for letting me know about this interview]

Being the first standing US president to appear on a TV talk show has its rewards and its dangers.  The danger came in the form of an inappropriate remark about the Special Oympics which drew immediate criticism.  The reward came in the form of a lengthy, often substantive interview worthy of the Newshour watched by a huge audience that PBS could never deliver.

Obama took a gamble when he agreed to be interviewed on a show where, the day before, Reese Witherspoon got big YouTube play for doing fart jokes with Leno.  The gamble lay in the fact that talk shows like Leno’s are meant to entertain, the atmosphere is ultra-relaxed and the point of opening one’s mouth is to get a laugh or to titillate or to shock.  Obama accidently did the latter when he responded to Leno’s chuckling at his 129 bowling score by saying it was “like the Special Olympics or something.”

If you saw the entire 24 minute interview you would know that Leno did some surprisingly hard questioning of Obama’s economic policies and Obama gave explanations which were being used by other news organizations as if they were taking clips from 60 minutes. But it was six words that made the big headlines, and with good reason. The remark was highly inappropriate and the White House was doing damage control on Air Force One before the show even aired. [Living on the West coast I knew of the remark well in advance of the show and was listening for it - I still had trouble hearing what was said in the flow of the conversation, although seeing it in the clip it stands out a lot more]

I talk a lot on this blog about being focused in an interview and the danger of a format like the Tonight Show is that it breeds a lack of focus – it’s fun, it’s relaxed, it’s like you’re sitting around at a party chatting (except for the millions watching you). It’s easier for things to come out of your mouth that might not otherwise. Which of course is what makes it the more troubling if something inappropriate does come out – people wonder if that’s what you’re really thinking.

Shows like 60 Minutes go out of their way to try and get interviewees into a late night talk show frame of mind, so that they’ll reveal something they would never reveal if they stayed focus. Maybe adding a band would make things easier.

Bobby Jindal quoted by Stephanie Grace one month before his badly-delivered response to President Obama’s speech to Congress on February 24, 2009:

Jindal said that, in effect, the GOP should stop fretting over the identity of its next standard bearer.
“We have to not worry about the messenger, ” he said, “and start focusing on the substance.”

and then to Larry King after the much-panned speech:

KING: Governor, you took a lot of flak for that speech. Were you surprised that you did?

JINDAL: Well, a couple of things, Larry. Let’s be clear, the president is a great speaker — probably the greatest we’ve seen in a generation. I’m certainly not nearly as good of a speaker as he is. And I’m not the only one that’s got that opinion. I hope people look at the content of the speech, not just the delivery. You know, for years, I’ve been told I speak too quickly. Now I’m told I speak too slowly. [my emphasis]

He’s certainly staying on his message…

I was blogging about the use of Skype to economically bring in anyone to a satellite interview. Then the question is, who do you bring in? Sadly, it’s being used right now to bring us yet another “voice of the people.” Instead of bringing in more and diverse experts, we’re Skyping anybody who’s got a camera and an opinion.

It’s all part of the rush to turn all media into “social media.” Even the old-fashioned “letter to the editor” tried to use the precious space in a newspaper to include voices that weren’t heard in articles and editorials, not simply to make sure we hear from each and every person in the country. Part of the problem now is that space is becoming less precious because in the digital realm it’s virtually unlimited. Combine the technological shifts created by computers and the internet with a growing cultural belief that there’s something valuable in hearing from every person in the country.

Yet that cultural belief suffers from exactly what the internet itself is suffering from – an information overload. Over time, what people are finding is that they need someone to filter through all that information, bring them the most important points and highlight the trends… someone like journalists, academics, etc.

So hopefully this phase will pass quickly and we’ll hear from aggregators of opinion instead of every single opiner.

And to put this in perspective for media interviews, it may feel right now as if the media treats every one as equally worth interviewing, but by practicing your interview skills, developing your key messages, and having relevant information, you can emerge from this morass of opinions as someone worth interviewing.

The television industry has, over the years, developed an intricate network of satellite feeds and other means to create what we’ve taken for granted over the last decade or so: the satellite interview or discussion. Now Skype and other internet video technologies are making that intricate network almost obsolete, overnight. Take a look at this picture:

There’s Rick Sanchez in a studio in Atlanta, a politician outside the Capitol in Washington DC, and a woman in Toronto, Canada. Nothing unusual in that, except that the woman is on Skype. No satellite feeds, no fancy cameras, no field producers, etc.

One of the implications of this, for people seeking to be interviewed, is that the barrier of cost is being removed, so if you’re someone worth interviewing and you live out in the middle of nowhere, CNN or anyone else can afford to have you as part of the discussion.

There are other implications for the news industry, but I’ll leave that to another post.

A common tactic by interviewers is to find a quote from the past which contradicts what the person now says. Catching out someone making a u-turn is generally perceived as a “gotcha” moment, but I thought it was interesting that famed British TV interviewer Jeremy Paxman – known for some gotcha moments of his own – challenged that perception in a recent interview by Decca Aitkenhead for The Guardian:

He is more willing to examine the charge that his approach doesn’t always find things out. Asked if programmes that ruthlessly prosecute gaffes may share some of the blame for “pointless sloganising”, he reflects: “Yes, there’s something in that. Of course it’s great fun to go back and see what a politician has said in the past, and say, now, ‘Do you remember these words?’ Charles Clarke was very funny: I once read out something and said, ‘Do you recognise these words?’ And he said, ‘No I don’t, but they’re rather well-argued and cogently put. I think it’s probably me, isn’t it?’” Paxman lets out a great hoot of laughter. “But you know, you confront them with something they or the party leadership have said in the past as if it’s some mortal sin to change your mind. And the really impressive ones say, ‘Yes, I used to think that, but since then I’ve learned X, Y and Z, or I’ve thought about it a little more, and I’ve changed my mind, I was wrong then.’ This inability to say that you have thought about a subject and changed your mind seems to me just pointless. And the media saying, ‘Ooh, you’ve done a U-turn,’ is just pathetic.”

From the chief prosecutor of U-turns, this seems a bit rich… [my emphasis]

To borrow from an old expression – I wish I’d built that. I’m referring to Access Interviews, a site begun last year by British journalist Rob McGibbon, which aims to archive links to all types of media interviews anywhere on the web. And you’re invited to submit interviews for inclusion in the archive.

The links are all nicely categorized and easily searched, and they point back to the original source so it’s great for journalists and researchers. And among the categories is the media itself, so you’ll find lots of interviews with interviewers.

I’m in heaven.

Great bit on interviewers interrupting guests. Don Newman is a well-known Canadian political interviewer and recently on the comedy show The Rick Mercer Report, they did a parody commercial selling a DVD boxed set of Don Newman’s greatest political shutdowns.

My neighbour is running for city councillor and his wife was telling me about the first all-candidates meeting he attended. She was shocked at how little things get magnified when you’re in the public eye.

For instance, while her husband was listening to other candidates, he was grimacing and frowning, and she realized how that looked to the audience – it was not very positive. It didn’t matter that his facial reactions might have been right; in that context they looked negative. Remember what happened with John McCain during the split-screens of the presidential debates? “Commenting” with your face can be a real negative – but by all means be expressive with your face when it’s your turn to speak.

The other thing that jumped out at this woman was when her husband did some simple stretches on stage while others were speaking. Nothing wrong with having a stretch, unless you’re in the public eye and it makes you look like you’re bored.