The Media Interview

The mother of a reality TV show winner in Britain has admitted to wrongly claiming income support and council tax benefits. Former pop star and TV presenter Kerry Katona was a season winner on I’m a Celebrity … Get Me Out of Here! - a kind of Survivor for the famous. According to the Press Association, her mother, 48 year-old Susan Katona

…failed to notify the benefits office of a change of circumstances between July 2006 and March 2007.

It was alleged the overpayment was made because Katona failed to declare her income from media interviews about her daughter…

Don’t know why she didn’t try the obvious defence strategy: the media don’t pay for interviews. Do they?

BTW, does it seem odd that the mother of a celebrity was on income support in the first place?

Barbara Walters on one of the main reasons she stopped doing the TV newsmagazine 20/20 back in 2004:

…it seemed that every celebrity, every murderer…had a lawyer or a press agent all interviewing the interviewer to determine where they could get the most airings for their clients, what kind of questions would be asked, and how much promotion and advertising would be guaranteed. The interviewer had to audition to land the interview.

From her memoir Audition, p.561.

I have to empathize a little with Mercades Nichols, the 17 year old Florida girl who is one of several defendants in the case of a videotaped beating that got major play on YouTube and the media in general. Nichols tried to get bail restrictions eased last week, in part to allow her to speak with the media about the case. Her request was denied.

It’s easy to say that Nichols and her companions made this whole travesty “public” by posting the video on YouTube, but it would be nice to think that all the experts, lawyers, and media people could approach things a little bit differently than immature 17 year olds. Not that there’s anything new about “trial by the court of public opinion” it’s just that the proliferation of new media outlets and social media is making those “trials” more public, more influential, and, often, more ghoulish.

You know things are bad, however, when it’s Nichols’s own lawyer who’s pushing for her ability to talk to the media:

…during Tuesday’s hearing, [James] Holz argued before the judge that Nichols should be allowed to speak for herself.

“Right now, the victim and other people are openly speaking to media whenever they want,” Holz said.

“The Sheriff’s Department weekly is on television speaking about this case. It just seems to me that everybody is speaking about the case - except the person alleged,” he said. He said Nichols wants her voice to be heard.

“She has basically been demonized within the media,” he said.

[From a Lakeland Ledger article]

Holz is worried, of course, that the media attention will make a fair trial difficult, and that’s one of the downsides of turning testimony into sound bites and opinions into testimony. But you’d think he’d be more worried about the damage Nichol could do to her own case by speaking out in the media. Lawyers are the ones who are supposed to make you whisper the answer in their ears before allowing you to respond to any question at all. I guess that 10 minutes on Larry King is more important now.

Instead of letting Nichols speak to the media, perhaps the public needs to stop watching the shows that sensationalize real cases. But apparently all the fictionalized sensationalism of crime books, shows, and movies isn’t enough to satisfy…

A week or so ago I mentioned the controversy over statements made by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper during a taped encounter with journalist Tom Zytaruk in 2005 in the driveway of MP Chuck Cadman’s widow’s home. The statements allegedly showed Harper acknowledging that payments had been offered to Cadman when he was alive in an effort to get the independent MP to switch over to Harper’s Conservatives.

Fast forward three years and yesterday the Conservatives filed court papers to prohibit further use of the tape on the grounds that it has been tampered with. Citing two audio experts, the party claimed in the news conference that edits had been made to the tape recording by Zytaruk. Two common themes ran through the media reports I saw about the news conference:

1. The Conservatives only said that the tape had been altered, but did not say whether or not Harper’s comments were misreprented or changed because of the alleged editing.

2. Zytaruk denied having tampered with the tape.

However, when I read the Globe and Mail’s article, it seems there was more to this than we were hearing from other media:

…Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the Prime Minister, said in a later e-mail that the edits changed the meaning of Mr. Harper’s comments, and that one of them inserted a question to misrepresent his answer.

Mr. Soudas said that change “creates a question that was never asked” about an allegation that his party had offered a $1-million life insurance policy to terminally ill Mr. Cadman, an Independent, and that Mr. Harper replied, “I don’t know the details …”

“When the PM says he does not know the details, he is not answering a question about the insurance policy for [Mr. Cadman's wife],” Mr. Soudas said in the e-mail.

and regarding journalist Tom Zytaruk, the situation was not so clear cut as a simple denial of tampering:

The man who made the recording, B.C. journalist and author Tom Zytaruk, Wednesday denied altering the tapes, calling the Conservatives’ allegation a “desperate statement.”

However, he said that he had stopped his tape recorder momentarily when he thought Mr. Harper had finished speaking. When Mr. Harper turned back, Mr. Zytaruk resumed taping. He insisted that neither he nor Mr. Harper said anything during the interruption.

“We’re talking milliseconds here,” Mr. Zytaruk told The Globe and Mail in Vancouver.

Both of these revelations substantially change the story - alleging misrepresentation is more important than alleging editing, and Zytaruk’s admission that the tape was stopped is one plausible explanation for what the experts are calling “edits”. Good on the Globe and Mail for going deeper on this story.

From a PR management standpoint, do you think the Conservatives should have pursued this? Because it’s given the tape additional legs in the media. Or should they have let slightly-awake tapes lie (no pun intended)?

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reporter/anchor Wendy Mesley comparing the styles of some current anchors with legendary CBC Radio interviewer Barbara Frum:

A lot of anchors these days - male and female - think their presentation of the question is more important than the answer. Barbara was really only interested in the answer. She was sort of the queen of the four-second question - ‘No way! Why?’ and ‘Really? Tell me more!’ - rather than pontificating, taking all the air out of an interview.

From a profile of Mesley - She Asks The Tough Questions - in Good Times magazine, April 2008

A fascinating new trend in interviewing has emerged during the course of the US presidential primaries: the live-to-web editorial board interview. Sitting around the table with editors of a media outlet is a long-standing tradition, but the idea of streaming it live over the internet adds some interesting new dimensions.

Take the editorial board meeting between Hillary Clinton and the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader on May 23, 2008. The ensuing controversy over Clinton’s reference to the Robert Kennedy assassination came, not from the Argus Leader, but from the NY Post, which was monitoring the interview via the web and picked up on the line.

Argus-Leader Executive Editor Russell Beck put it this way:

…we asked her about the mounting national pressure on her to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination.

Responding to our questions on that point, Clinton offered historical context (and justification) for staying in. Among her comments: “You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June. …We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um, you know, I just … don’t understand it.”

Sitting just a few feet from Clinton, that didn’t seem like news to me.

Ditto for Argus Leader publisher Arnold Garson, editorial board members Greg Robinson and Barb Facile and Voices Editor Nestor Ramos. Out in the newsroom, editor Jeff Martin, viewing the live stream and filing news updates to our Web site, didn’t see a story out of her reference to Kennedy either, focusing instead on Clinton’s strenuous denial minutes earlier that her aides were negotiating terms of her exit with Obama’s campaign.

The New York Post, viewing the interview live, apparently picked up on something I didn’t. Minutes after the Q&A was over, that newspaper posted on its Web site a story that began this way: “Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.”

Just as the posting of interview transcripts on the internet after the fact has been revolutionizing the ability for the public and other journalists to assess context or find other stories, the idea of live-streaming interviews makes that possible in real time. It also opens up more possibilities for misinterpretation and misuse of statements - it’s no longer the small group of people in the editorial board meeting who can use what you say.

So watching what you say becomes even more important these days.

During a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader’s editorial board on May 23, 2008, which was streamed live over the internet, Hillary Clinton mentioned the assassination of Robert Kennedy in a passing comment about nomination campaigns historically lasting into June. That mention became the centre of a firestorm.

Here’s the headline from the newspaper that apparently (see the end of this article) started the whole controversy, the NY Post on May 23, 2008: Hillary Raises Assassination Issue

Here’s a typical transcript from Clinton’s interview, this one happens to be from the Huffington Post:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.”

Compare that sloppy and context-less quotation with my own transcription from video:

Clinton: …there has been this urgency to end this… and… you know, historically that makes no sense um, so I… I find it a bit of a mystery.

Reporter: You don’t buy the party unity argument [inaudible]

Clinton: I don’t, because again, I’ve been around long enough, ah….you know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, um… somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy… was assassinated in June in California, ah… You know, I don’t understand it, and you know there’s lots of speculation about why it is, but ah…

Only in this longer version do we get the referent of “it” when she says “I don’t understand it” and only in this version do we get the sense of her fishing around for what to say; that it was not said without hesitation, etc.

Even without the accurate transcription, it’s still hard to accept that anything less than intellectual dishonesty allows reporters to come away from that video accusing Clinton of “raising the specter of assassination” instead of saying she was referring to June as the common denominator in her two examples.

And to see how the public picks up on misinformation by reporters and commentators, listen to some of the comment frenzy from the MSNBC website:

OK, I have been trying to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt, but this bit of insanity does it for me.
please make them stop.
Kathleen (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:28 PM)

OMG! Do any of you Clinton supporters have a defense to this??? This woman isn’t just immoral–she’s AMMORAL!!!
Liz in SD (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:30 PM)

NOTE: To Clinton’s chagrin, there is VIDEO of her making this invocation which will be playing all weekend long on this long family weekend. YOu can get the video on the Arbus Leader website and, soon, I am sure, on YouTube
Geoff in Brooklyn (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:31 PM)

It is ridiculous Mo Elleithe, saying that Clinton should stay in because you know other candidates have been assassinated before the convention. This is sick that Hilliary Clinton would even raise this as a reason for her to stay in the race. She has gone absolutely crazy!
MK, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Friday, May 23, 2008 4:31 PM)

It’s enough to make politicians or anyone refuse to speak another word in public…

Full disclosure: I am not a supporter of Hillary Clinton or even the Democratic Party. I am a supporter of being as accurate as possible in reporting.

UPDATE:

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post had one of the most level-headed comments I’ve seen on this issue:

What Clinton meant seems clear. Previous nomination fights have gone well into June and, therefore, there is no reason for this one to be cut short before every state has its say. (South Dakota is one of the last two states to vote, on June 3.)…

Unfortunately for Clinton, using the RFK assassination to prove her point was — at best — a poorly chosen example. Many in the black community have expressed fear about the possibility of assassination as it relates to Sen. Barack Obama — the first African-American candidate likely to be one of the major parties’ nominee for president and raising the matter (in any manner) is widely regarded as poor form.

He also links to a commentary by Sioux Falls Argus-Leader Executive Editor Randell Beck, part of which I’ll repeat here for the record because it illustrates how these things can happen:

Clinton, visiting South Dakota for the third time in the weeks leading up to our last-in-the-nation June 3 primary, met with our editorial board May 23 for a 50-minute session focusing on state, regional and national topics. And like a handful of other newspapers across the nation, we live streamed the interview on our Web site. That means you could go to argusleader.com and watch, in real time, as Clinton answered our questions about energy, ethanol and a host of other topics.

And you won’t be surprised to learn that we asked her about the mounting national pressure on her to withdraw from the race for the Democratic nomination.

Responding to our questions on that point, Clinton offered historical context (and justification) for staying in. Among her comments: “You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June. …We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um, you know, I just … don’t understand it.”

Sitting just a few feet from Clinton, that didn’t seem like news to me.

Ditto for Argus Leader publisher Arnold Garson, editorial board members Greg Robinson and Barb Facile and Voices Editor Nestor Ramos. Out in the newsroom, editor Jeff Martin, viewing the live stream and filing news updates to our Web site, didn’t see a story out of her reference to Kennedy either, focusing instead on Clinton’s strenuous denial minutes earlier that her aides were negotiating terms of her exit with Obama’s campaign.

The New York Post, viewing the interview live, apparently picked up on something I didn’t. Minutes after the Q&A was over, that newspaper posted on its Web site a story that began this way: “Hillary Clinton today brought up the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy while defending her decision to stay in the race against Barack Obama.”

Vaguely connecting Clinton’s comments about the Kennedy assassination to threats against Obama, the first African-American to advance so far in the race for the White House, the story quoted part of what Clinton said in our interview. Then it went to Obama’s campaign for a response: “Sen. Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign.”

Viewed from a certain philosophical vantage point, Clinton’s comments might have been news, maybe even big news. But at least for a few hours, in the superheated environment of a national political campaign, context didn’t matter much.

So often the people who most deserve to brag about themselves are the most reluctant to toot their own horn. I talk about “selling yourself” in your media interviews, but that phrase doesn’t sit well. It’s seen as unprofessional to enumerate your best qualities or your finest accomplishments. But as C.J. Hayden points out in the blog post To Attract Attention, You have to Show Off, it’s a matter of how you do it. My favourite example involves storytelling:

4. Telling stories - One of the secrets to effective articles, talks, and interviews is to tell stories about your clients. When you describe their challenges and accomplishments, you reveal the value of your role in helping them without having to boast about it. You can use the same technique in a client presentation to boost your credibility without being arrogant.

A TV interview with New Zealand celebrity Nicky Watson late last year became an instant classic after this part of the encounter was repeated over and over in the MSM and the blogosphere:

Watson: “I must have called [her lost] dog’s name a million times and I hope that when he hears my voice he will come to me.”
Interviewer: “You’re hoarse.”
Watson: “No, my dog.”

Cue the sniggers.

I know I had a good laugh when I first read this, but after seeing the actual segment, I realized that three important things got lost in this transcript:

1) The way the interviewer says “you’re hoarse” does not convey the meaning of “you must be hoarse?” or “you sound hoarse” but rather, the inflection indicates a mere statement with no sympathetic overtone, making it easier to misconstrue the meaning. Add to this the fact that “you’re hoarse” follows right after “he will come to me” and it’s not hard to imagine someone accidently thinking that the interviewer is referring to the “he” and not to “a million times.”

2) In written form, we see “you’re” and we understand the meaning, but the interviewer, like most people, mispronounces the phrase and it sounds more like “your” instead of “you’re.”

3) On the clip of the interview, there sounds to me like an edit before “You’re hoarse,” so we can’t be certain of actual flow of the conversation.

So, don’t believe everything you think you see in a transcript, listen carefully to interviewer’s questions, and don’t agree to interviews when you’ve been up all night looking for your dog.

You can see the full segment here.

Here’s a NZ media personality’s take on how the program handled the segment:

[It's not ok] to waste four minutes of everybody’s lives with a piece of nonsense aimed at mocking a desperate woman who’s lost her dog.

One of the myths of media and presentation coaching is the notion that how you say something is far more important than what you’re saying. The idea got its primary boost from the studies of Arthur Mehrabian back in the 1970’s. Only problem is, that wasn’t exactly what he was saying. Jim Bergman and Sue Johnston discuss The Mehrabian Myth in a recent edition of their entertaining podcast Media Relations Matters.

I’m going to be looking at Mehrabian’s conclusions in more depth down the road. The main point I would want to make is that his studies concerned the communication of likes and dislikes, of emotional states, and within that context, he concluded that body language, vocal qualities, etc. were more important to that communication, WHEN there was a disconnect between what you’re saying and how you’re saying it.

The example I always like to use in my seminars is this: You offer me some pie, I take a bite, and my face looks like I’ve eaten a lemon, while I say to you “I love this pie”… that’s disconnect, and my face tells you how I really feel!