Some years ago a most unusual thing happened during one of my media interview response training sessions.
It occurred while I was conducting a long-running programme in Central London for a very large, important and respectable organisation.
The media training sessions had been commissioned by the organisation’s public relations company which was busy lining up real broadcast interviews for the participants who proved to be the most outstanding in the spotlight.
One of the participants to be trained was a friendly, talkative late middle-aged woman who projected the aura of being everyone’s trusted grandmother.
The mission for everyone on the sessions was to become impressive interviewees on the topic of what could be done to ensure that far fewer people in the United Kingdom used a highly addictive, but legal, drug.
Participants all had experience at individually assisting addicts.
During the opening benchmark mock media interviews on this memorable day – before I had given any media interview guidance – this grandmotherly woman proved to be a highly captivating storyteller.
She gave one colourful example after another about people who were addicted to this drug and outlined what she had done to help them give it up.
The woman spoke movingly about the adverse effects the drug had been having on each of the addicts – and how their health had blossomed after kicking the habit.
My role on the sessions, as ever, included:
1. Asking the kind of questions that a “blowtorch-on-the-belly” media interviewer might ask
2. Leading discussions critiquing the interview playbacks recorded by the videographer
3. After making initial assessments, guiding participants towards improving the content, structure and delivery style of their answers
4. Doing repeated practice interviews to enable everyone to put their learning into action under the pressures of media interrogation.
After the benchmark interviews on this memorable day there was initial agreement that the grandmotherly woman emanated a charming star quality when it came to grabbing and holding the attention of TV viewers.
But during the critiques, I and other participants started to ask her some nagging questions about slightly suspicious details concerning the examples the woman had given.
She quickly found herself floundering to back up things she had claimed during her interview.
As her difficulties to deal with our quibbles continued, she suddenly blurted out something I’ll remember forever.
“Oh, do we have to tell the truth?” she asked.
Of course, I immediately informed her that the answer to this question always, always, always had to be a resounding “YES”.
She was gobsmacked!
But after outlining the kind of problems she could cause for herself and her organisation into by straying from exact truths in real life interviews, she accepted the merit of this guideline.
Until then, she insisted, she had genuinely thought she could just freely make up stories to support the messages which the public relations company wanted conveyed to audiences.
Fortunately, the woman proved to be a quick learner and in future mock interviews she changed her approach – sticking to examples that were entirely truthful and upon which she could effectively stand up to media cross-examination.
The truth-telling thing was a wake-up call to her.
The incident was also a wake-up call to me!
I had learned that there’s a small minority of people who don’t automatically realise that in the world of serious journalism, truth is a matter of fundamental importance.
Ever since I’ve made the point in all media interview response sessions that – however obvious it may seem to most – when you’re being interviewed by the news media…
EVERYTHING YOU SAY NEEDS TO BE AN EXACT TRUTH!!!
Occasionally I spot someone in the public arena who, for whatever reason, has failed to pick up this essential truth-telling rule – or who just thinks it doesn’t matter.
Maybe, in recent times, you have identified a high-profile person in the international spotlight who falls into this same dubious category.
I’m referring to the case of one of the two participants in the latest live TV debate to help American voters decide who should be the next United States President.
Even if you’ve seen it before, it’s worth re-visiting the moment when one of the candidates starts raving about something now widely, but not universally, accepted as being untrue.
The candidate – former President Donald Trump – claimed that illegal immigrants are coming into the United States and eating the dogs, cats and other pets of American citizens.
In particular, he referenced the city of Springfield in Ohio where he insisted this pet-eating by illegal immigrants was out of control.
The moderator of the debate – from America’s ABC network – clearly had harboured an inkling that the subject of these alleged pet-eating migrants could come up.
And, as you will see in the forthcoming video, he was ready for it.
David Muir had done his checking in advance, saying the City Manager in Springfield had assured the ABC that there had been no credible reports of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals in the immigrant community.
When you watch the video, please note the highly entertaining colourful silent facial expressions of the other candidate – U.S. Vice President, Kamala Harris – as she reacts to the dog and cat eating claims!
You can check out the video here:
Behind The Dog-And-Cat-Eating Fantasy Horror Story
In my experience, most people are trainable when it comes to boosting their communications – and sticking to the truth.
But there are very occasional exceptions.
Before this latest debate there were claims that those working with Donald Trump in his own team were having trouble getting him to focus on sticking to the important pre-planned things to say during the debate.
They were reportedly struggling to persuade him to not to go off track in bizarre unplanned directions.
This latest debate seems to provide evidence to back up these claims about Donald Trump’s inability or unwillingness to stick to what his team advises.
As you contemplate the scare story of fantasy pet-eating immigrants, think about the importance for you and your team about planning, preparing and practising ahead of your big communication occasions!
If your organisation needs media interview response training, check it out here:
https://www.michaeldoddcommunications.com/media-master-classes/
Meanwhile, the move by some U.S. Republicans to spread the fiction about dog-eating and cat-eating migrants in Springfield is having a range of adverse consequences for the city – and for other parts of America.
It’s also making things difficult for Donald Trump’s vice-presidential running mate, Senator JD Vance, who represents Ohio in the U.S. Senate, and who played a part in putting the false claims on the public agenda ahead of the latest debate.
Here you can watch JD Vance battling to back up the claims in an interview on the CNN featuring persistent questioning by the network’s Dana Bash.
Media interview response training is a splendidly useful process to go through for anyone who may one day have to speak to newspapers, radio, TV or news websites on behalf of your organisation – in good times and in bad times.
The JD Vance interview illustrates that if you aren’t committed to only saying exact provable truths, you will be making problems for yourself and your organisation when you’re subjected to intense media scrutiny.
This applies even if you naturally project the image of an innocent grey-haired grandmother.
It applies too if you project the image of an orange-wigged immigrant-obsessed grandfather!
P.S. Donald Trump’s anti-immigration slurs have naturally made some migrants feel unfairly unappreciated. Feel free to enjoy this picture of some of them fighting back!
