This is normally a staid, conservative, by-the-numbers blog. Tips. Lists. Real world examples.
This entry is a bit different.
I'm going to encourage you to think about how your story, your firm's story, your clients' story, fits into an existing myth.
Before you panic and assume I'm off my meds, let me explain.
People are attracted to stories. Story telling is among the oldest human art forms and one of the most effective forms of communication. Most people have an almost infinite capacity for digesting stories. Movies, TV, fiction, gossip.... People love stories and a significant portion of your fellow citizens consume almost no other form of information.
There is a certain class of stories, myths, that are especially effective vehicles for communicating information. Myths not only take ordinary human events and project them as larger than life so as to show them in greater detail, myths also plug into universal truths.
Again: I like examples. Here are some examples.
Is your story a 'Rags to Riches' story? Did your firm start from nothing and end up being the largest firm of its type in the city, or the state? Did you bootstrap yourself up from a deprived background through law school? Did your law partner overcome a handicap? Did your client beat incredible odds only to face an unfair accusation or fall victim to an avoidable tragedy?
Are you or your firm classic 'underdogs?' Maybe your story should spotlight that? Americans love underdogs who keep trying and never give up.
Or maybe you or your clients are 'rebels?' Are you different somehow? Did you succeed by ignoring the naysayers and bucking conventional wisdom?
By finding such universal stories and framing your media exposure in those terms you will find many advantages. Journalists will already 'know' how to write such a story. They know what a rebel is, or an underdog. There will be icons and symbols readily available for comparison. Your story will be more memorable. And perhaps most important, you will reduce the chance that your story will be misconstrued as a 'bad' story. If you can, for example, convincingly portray your firm as an 'underdog' you will have also necessarily painted your firm as plucky, persistent, likable, determined, hard-working and worthy of notice and admiration.
With such a frame your new, inexperienced firm can positively glow.
Without such a frame you might instead just come across as just new and inexperienced.
Think about your story. Think about how it might be plugged into a myth. Use those images and words to sell your story to the media.
Showing posts with label Handling interviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Handling interviews. Show all posts
How not to deal with the media: example #467
I ran across this news story from New Mexico and could not help sharing it.
While this article concerns a public official --not an attorney-- sad to say I have heard stories of attorneys handling ambush journalists in this very fashion.
Don't you be the one to provide me with the next amusing 'bad example' story....
While this article concerns a public official --not an attorney-- sad to say I have heard stories of attorneys handling ambush journalists in this very fashion.
Don't you be the one to provide me with the next amusing 'bad example' story....
"Off the record" is a dangerous myth.
[Update on June 26, 2010 Fired U.S. Army General McChrystal claiming his controversial comments in Rolling Stone were made 'off the record.' And Rolling Stones reporter Micheal Hasting refutes that with some very insightful comments on the concept of "off the record."]
While talking to a journalist there is no such thing as a comment made completely "off the record."
Why? Journalists have a professional obligation to collect information and share it with the public. They also gain status, pay raises, win awards and advance in their careers by having the most, best information the soonest.
So journalists have no incentive to ignore or bury what you tell them and every incentive to use it. When I was a journalist nothing in the world would set my head spinning worse than someone who wasted 20 minutes of my time chatting on the phone only to then say, "but you aren't going to print any of that. Right?"
Wrong.
There is no such thing as an official definition of "off the record," "on background," "not for attribution," "confidentially" or any other "safe harbor" framework that will allow you to tell a journalist anything that journalist will not convey to their audience. These are not legally defined terms you can rely upon like the terms of a contract. You may possibly learn to trust a particular journalist's discretion, but there is no official "time out."
In many ways your conversation with a journalist is just like a conversation with opposing counsel. If you can trust that person's discretion, great. If you cannot, or if you are not sure, then be discreet. But keep in mind that their interests and loyalties are not the same as yours.
Talking to a journalist is also much like being on the record in court. As an attorney you should put yourself in that same frame of mind: making a record. Do not say anything you would not want to see on the front page of your local paper.
Be professional, polite, accurate, discreet, while keeping your overall theme guiding your every comment. Do that and you will never go wrong.
Again. While talking to a journalist there is no such thing as a comment made "off the record."
From the time you start talking to a journalist on the phone, in a studio, in front of a camera or walking down the hallway at the courthouse everything you say or do is "on the record." Prepare and use discretion just as if you are in court, on the record.
The only "rule" [if you want to use that term] is that if a fact is in any way relevant it might go in the story.
If your receptionist tells a journalist that you announced "you are not wasting your time talking to any stupid reporter" that could end up in the story. Especially if the story is about disclosure, the 1st Amendment, or media relations. Or if you later deny avoiding public comments.
If you answer the phone while yelling at a subordinate and the journalist overhears, that could end up in the story. Especially if the story concerns allegations of aggression or courtroom antics or misbehavior or if you have a reputation as brash or rude.
If your cellular phone is ringing during the interview and the ring tone is noteworthy [Imagine allegations that you have a prior drunk driving conviction, your denials, and then your cellphone playing the song "Margarita-ville" loudly in the background...] even that could end up in the story.
Are there exceptions to this absolute "always on the record" baseline with journalists?
Maybe.
After you have established a long term relationship with a journalist, after that relationship has proven valuable to both of you, and after you have carefully tested the journalist's trustworthiness and discretion you might reach a point where you can trust that journalist with information you know they will not print on the front page. Maybe.
But such a relationship is just that; a personal relationship. It does apply to anyone else, not even to other journalists from the same media outlet. And that ad hoc confidentiality could end at any time if you have allowed yourself a foolish, indiscreet revelation the journalist thinks must be shared with the public.
Don't take that risk.
If you always treat every interaction with the media as if you are 'on the record' you will never have occasion to lose sleep regretting that ring tone.
While talking to a journalist there is no such thing as a comment made completely "off the record."
Why? Journalists have a professional obligation to collect information and share it with the public. They also gain status, pay raises, win awards and advance in their careers by having the most, best information the soonest.
So journalists have no incentive to ignore or bury what you tell them and every incentive to use it. When I was a journalist nothing in the world would set my head spinning worse than someone who wasted 20 minutes of my time chatting on the phone only to then say, "but you aren't going to print any of that. Right?"
Wrong.
There is no such thing as an official definition of "off the record," "on background," "not for attribution," "confidentially" or any other "safe harbor" framework that will allow you to tell a journalist anything that journalist will not convey to their audience. These are not legally defined terms you can rely upon like the terms of a contract. You may possibly learn to trust a particular journalist's discretion, but there is no official "time out."
In many ways your conversation with a journalist is just like a conversation with opposing counsel. If you can trust that person's discretion, great. If you cannot, or if you are not sure, then be discreet. But keep in mind that their interests and loyalties are not the same as yours.
Talking to a journalist is also much like being on the record in court. As an attorney you should put yourself in that same frame of mind: making a record. Do not say anything you would not want to see on the front page of your local paper.
Be professional, polite, accurate, discreet, while keeping your overall theme guiding your every comment. Do that and you will never go wrong.
Again. While talking to a journalist there is no such thing as a comment made "off the record."
From the time you start talking to a journalist on the phone, in a studio, in front of a camera or walking down the hallway at the courthouse everything you say or do is "on the record." Prepare and use discretion just as if you are in court, on the record.
The only "rule" [if you want to use that term] is that if a fact is in any way relevant it might go in the story.
If your receptionist tells a journalist that you announced "you are not wasting your time talking to any stupid reporter" that could end up in the story. Especially if the story is about disclosure, the 1st Amendment, or media relations. Or if you later deny avoiding public comments.
If you answer the phone while yelling at a subordinate and the journalist overhears, that could end up in the story. Especially if the story concerns allegations of aggression or courtroom antics or misbehavior or if you have a reputation as brash or rude.
If your cellular phone is ringing during the interview and the ring tone is noteworthy [Imagine allegations that you have a prior drunk driving conviction, your denials, and then your cellphone playing the song "Margarita-ville" loudly in the background...] even that could end up in the story.
Are there exceptions to this absolute "always on the record" baseline with journalists?
Maybe.
After you have established a long term relationship with a journalist, after that relationship has proven valuable to both of you, and after you have carefully tested the journalist's trustworthiness and discretion you might reach a point where you can trust that journalist with information you know they will not print on the front page. Maybe.
But such a relationship is just that; a personal relationship. It does apply to anyone else, not even to other journalists from the same media outlet. And that ad hoc confidentiality could end at any time if you have allowed yourself a foolish, indiscreet revelation the journalist thinks must be shared with the public.
Don't take that risk.
If you always treat every interaction with the media as if you are 'on the record' you will never have occasion to lose sleep regretting that ring tone.
Ambushed --my interview with "BD."
Previously I've stated that is it "almost always" in your best interest to make contact with the media.
This post concerns an exception to the rule.
I'm allegedly an expert. As a journalist I conducted thousands of interviews and I have been the subject of hundreds of interviews since then. I have pretty good instincts and possess a lot of confidence in my ability to avoid being ambushed and to steer a troubled interview back on the road.
But things happen. I make mistakes occasionally and get myself into a pickle. If you talk to the media you will make mistakes too. Don't let that scare you. If you have your wits about you and always take the calm, reasonable, professional high road even an media "ambush" can be weathered.
This is the story. I had fielded so many media calls on a certain contentious subject that handling that subject was becoming routine. So I had let my guard down. The shift in tone during one particular interview took a moment to sink in.
The journalist [let’s call him “BD”] was questioning me over the phone. After a fairly routine question his voice suddenly changed. “Look," he stated flatly. “You realize you sound foolish saying that, don’t you? I don’t believe what you are telling me and no one else is going to believe it either. Your position is just ridiculous.”
Up till now I had been operating on autopilot, answering questions as presented and finding opportunities to insert my standard talking points on this issue. I may have even snuck a peek at an email message. BD’s sudden snide tone caught me off guard. I said something witty like, “Huh?”
“You cannot tell me that [insert outrageous allegation here] didn’t happen,” DB pronounced. “You need to just tell me the truth.”
I gathered my wits and took a deep breath and – with some effort-- pulled my “Professional Communicator” hat more firmly down on my head.
“Look. BD…” I began. “I’ve been very frank with you. There is nothing to be gained by being insulting.”
“YOU are insulting ME,” BD replied with venom. “You are not telling me the truth. You are avoiding my questions. I know that [insert outrageous allegation] is true as well as you do!”
I could feel my metaphorical ‘professionalism hat’ loosening on my head again as I listened to this journalist yell at me over the phone and stop just short of calling me a liar.
So I took another deep breath before I responded.
“BD,” I said as calmly as I could manage, pronouncing the here-visible scare quotes and emphasized words with audible precision. “I can tell you that I do not ‘know’ that allegation is true because it is not true. And you do not ‘know’ it is true because it is not true. I also know that if I were mistaken and you did have proof that [insert outrageous allegation] was true then you would be writing a story about it rather than yelling at me over the phone. So how about we just…”
But my calm tone didn’t have the desired effect on BD. Instead BD chose to raise the stakes. “You are lying!” he told me forcefully. “And if you don’t tell me the truth about what really happened you will lose all credibility. You won’t have any credibility with me and you won’t have any credibility with anyone else and I’ll make sure of that!”
I then thanked BD for his interest in the situation and invited him to call back when he had calmed down. As I hung up the phone [without having lost my temper] I drew much needed strength from my knowledge that months later [now, as I write this] I would be able to look back with some pride at how I handled the situation.
Facts eventually emerged that proved BD’s allegations were false. His loud and insulting manner was merely an effort to shake me up in hope that I’d say something interesting. He failed.
So. Who do you think really harmed their credibility?
[NOTE:I am paraphrasing this conversation based on my notes from the call with deletions and modifications for the sake of confidentiality and brevity. As for the journalist known as BD: “the names have been changed to protect the [less than] innocent.”]
This post concerns an exception to the rule.
I'm allegedly an expert. As a journalist I conducted thousands of interviews and I have been the subject of hundreds of interviews since then. I have pretty good instincts and possess a lot of confidence in my ability to avoid being ambushed and to steer a troubled interview back on the road.
But things happen. I make mistakes occasionally and get myself into a pickle. If you talk to the media you will make mistakes too. Don't let that scare you. If you have your wits about you and always take the calm, reasonable, professional high road even an media "ambush" can be weathered.
This is the story. I had fielded so many media calls on a certain contentious subject that handling that subject was becoming routine. So I had let my guard down. The shift in tone during one particular interview took a moment to sink in.
The journalist [let’s call him “BD”] was questioning me over the phone. After a fairly routine question his voice suddenly changed. “Look," he stated flatly. “You realize you sound foolish saying that, don’t you? I don’t believe what you are telling me and no one else is going to believe it either. Your position is just ridiculous.”
Up till now I had been operating on autopilot, answering questions as presented and finding opportunities to insert my standard talking points on this issue. I may have even snuck a peek at an email message. BD’s sudden snide tone caught me off guard. I said something witty like, “Huh?”
“You cannot tell me that [insert outrageous allegation here] didn’t happen,” DB pronounced. “You need to just tell me the truth.”
I gathered my wits and took a deep breath and – with some effort-- pulled my “Professional Communicator” hat more firmly down on my head.
“Look. BD…” I began. “I’ve been very frank with you. There is nothing to be gained by being insulting.”
“YOU are insulting ME,” BD replied with venom. “You are not telling me the truth. You are avoiding my questions. I know that [insert outrageous allegation] is true as well as you do!”
I could feel my metaphorical ‘professionalism hat’ loosening on my head again as I listened to this journalist yell at me over the phone and stop just short of calling me a liar.
So I took another deep breath before I responded.
“BD,” I said as calmly as I could manage, pronouncing the here-visible scare quotes and emphasized words with audible precision. “I can tell you that I do not ‘know’ that allegation is true because it is not true. And you do not ‘know’ it is true because it is not true. I also know that if I were mistaken and you did have proof that [insert outrageous allegation] was true then you would be writing a story about it rather than yelling at me over the phone. So how about we just…”
But my calm tone didn’t have the desired effect on BD. Instead BD chose to raise the stakes. “You are lying!” he told me forcefully. “And if you don’t tell me the truth about what really happened you will lose all credibility. You won’t have any credibility with me and you won’t have any credibility with anyone else and I’ll make sure of that!”
I then thanked BD for his interest in the situation and invited him to call back when he had calmed down. As I hung up the phone [without having lost my temper] I drew much needed strength from my knowledge that months later [now, as I write this] I would be able to look back with some pride at how I handled the situation.
Facts eventually emerged that proved BD’s allegations were false. His loud and insulting manner was merely an effort to shake me up in hope that I’d say something interesting. He failed.
So. Who do you think really harmed their credibility?
[NOTE:I am paraphrasing this conversation based on my notes from the call with deletions and modifications for the sake of confidentiality and brevity. As for the journalist known as BD: “the names have been changed to protect the [less than] innocent.”]
Build your own story
The attorney was annoyed. Her firm had won a hard-fought verdict but their celebration was muted by what they considered improper media coverage.
"All they talked about was the size of the verdict," she stated with no little disgust. "They missed the policy issue and the misconduct of the other side. They ignored the bigger picture and the need for a Legislative solution. And they made us sound like we were gloating about winning"
I expressed my sympathy and made a few suggestions for follow-up media on the underlying issues. "By the way," I asked, "can you send over a copy of the news release you issued?"
She sent over an email with the release. The headline read, "$6.5 million verdict in [detail redacted] case."
I read further down. No mention of the policy issue. No mention of the alleged misconduct. No mention of the need for a Legislative solution. No big picture.
The release never even mentioned under what cause of action and legal theory the other party was responsible for damages. What had the other party done wrong, for goodness sake? Breach of contract? Defective product? Copyright infringement? Nothing there.
[The damages alleged by the plaintiff led me to make a private guess as to the cause of action, but nowhere was that fact stated.]
Next, a Google news search for the media hits.
Three separate people from the firm were quoted that I could find. All had different messages. One thing in common: None of the quotes from any of those quoted covered policy, misconduct, Legislative reform or big picture.
What they did mention: The size of the verdict [6 times]; How deserving they were, and their clients were, for the 'win' [5 times]; How hard they worked to get the verdict [3 times]; How awful and egregious and truly heartrending were the damages suffered by the client [3 times].
I called the attorney back and explained what I found. Her response: "Well, aren't the reporters supposed to find out all that other stuff?"
The painfully obvious answer is: "No."
You are an attorney, a legal expert. Moreover you are the attorney who handled the case.
If you cannot be bothered to translate the unfathomable gobbledygook [to a lay person] of a hard-fought litigation into three to five talking points that a journalist and the lay public can understand, who is going to do that?
No one.
A bare-bones "how to" of building a story in the media:
--Designate one person to talk to the media.
--Take the time to craft three to five talking pointsthat sum up your message. --
--Stick to those talking points.
If your message is "unjust system" then you need to say that [and support it with evidence, counselor]. If you allege misconduct then say misconduct. If your stance is that the situation that resulted in a wrongdoing or injury, and protracted litigation, is such that it merits Legislative action, say so.
If you say, "big verdict," "we won," and "we deserve the money," don't be shocked if that is exactly what you read in the paper or see on TV tonight.
If you fail to do your part then you can count on journalists to pick up on the most accessible facts [big verdict!], to dutifully repeat the points that you --the expert-- say are important [big verdict!] and to fall into predictable patterns of repeating stereotypes of litigation and the legal system [Look! Another great big verdict!!].
And whose fault is that, really?
"All they talked about was the size of the verdict," she stated with no little disgust. "They missed the policy issue and the misconduct of the other side. They ignored the bigger picture and the need for a Legislative solution. And they made us sound like we were gloating about winning"
I expressed my sympathy and made a few suggestions for follow-up media on the underlying issues. "By the way," I asked, "can you send over a copy of the news release you issued?"
She sent over an email with the release. The headline read, "$6.5 million verdict in [detail redacted] case."
I read further down. No mention of the policy issue. No mention of the alleged misconduct. No mention of the need for a Legislative solution. No big picture.
The release never even mentioned under what cause of action and legal theory the other party was responsible for damages. What had the other party done wrong, for goodness sake? Breach of contract? Defective product? Copyright infringement? Nothing there.
[The damages alleged by the plaintiff led me to make a private guess as to the cause of action, but nowhere was that fact stated.]
Next, a Google news search for the media hits.
Three separate people from the firm were quoted that I could find. All had different messages. One thing in common: None of the quotes from any of those quoted covered policy, misconduct, Legislative reform or big picture.
What they did mention: The size of the verdict [6 times]; How deserving they were, and their clients were, for the 'win' [5 times]; How hard they worked to get the verdict [3 times]; How awful and egregious and truly heartrending were the damages suffered by the client [3 times].
I called the attorney back and explained what I found. Her response: "Well, aren't the reporters supposed to find out all that other stuff?"
The painfully obvious answer is: "No."
You are an attorney, a legal expert. Moreover you are the attorney who handled the case.
If you cannot be bothered to translate the unfathomable gobbledygook [to a lay person] of a hard-fought litigation into three to five talking points that a journalist and the lay public can understand, who is going to do that?
No one.
A bare-bones "how to" of building a story in the media:
--Designate one person to talk to the media.
--Take the time to craft three to five talking pointsthat sum up your message. --
--Stick to those talking points.
If your message is "unjust system" then you need to say that [and support it with evidence, counselor]. If you allege misconduct then say misconduct. If your stance is that the situation that resulted in a wrongdoing or injury, and protracted litigation, is such that it merits Legislative action, say so.
If you say, "big verdict," "we won," and "we deserve the money," don't be shocked if that is exactly what you read in the paper or see on TV tonight.
If you fail to do your part then you can count on journalists to pick up on the most accessible facts [big verdict!], to dutifully repeat the points that you --the expert-- say are important [big verdict!] and to fall into predictable patterns of repeating stereotypes of litigation and the legal system [Look! Another great big verdict!!].
And whose fault is that, really?
Media --handling tough questions
Though it is your job to steer an interview toward your talking points, the journalist’s job is to get the information they want.
Usually you can both achieve your goals. Occasionally you come to loggerheads.
At that point you might face some tough questions designed to trip you up and get you off your message and on to the journalist's message. As an attorney you are familiar with trick or hostile questioning. So don't let yourself be caught off guard just because the questions are coming from a journalist rather than opposing counsel. If you know this is possible and have your focus you'll handle this situation just fine.
Again, the best advice might be to put yourself in the same frame of mind you'd have on the record in open court. Prepared. Eyes and ears open. Self-aware and on your toes.
Here are examples of tough questions:
Loaded question: the journalist asks you to choose between A and B, neither of which is your position. Rephrase and stay on your own talking points, not the journalist’s.
Empty chair questions: A journalist might say "person X said Y." Common sense here. State that you didn’t hear that comment, don’t speculate, and move back to your talking points.
Guilt by association: Because you may agree with another party on issue X, doesn’t mean you agree with them on issue Y as well. Don't follow that road and don't criticize. Reassert your own talking points.
Words in your mouth: Reporters will often take what you say and repeat it back-- mangled and inaccurate. Don't allow this. Repeat your own talking points back to them. Stay assertive but calm.
Inconsistency: You may change your view over time and the reporter calls you on it. Stay calm, and explain the reason your position or policy had to change. This is a great opportunity to expand on your talking points.
Cheap shots: A journalist may tease or insult. Don’t let it slide but also remain calm. Put on your "on the record" hat and let the nastiness roll off your back. The journalist won't print or use their nasty comment, but they will use your defensive response. Keep positive, assertive, and on message.
Irrelevant questions: These will try to get you off message and onto a topic you don’t want to discuss. Bridge back to your own message. Be polite but firmly steer back to your talking points.
Misunderstanding: You have tested how your talking points work [haven't you?] and you have confidence in them. However, a reporter may misunderstand —if so, clarify the point while remaining positive.
Personal opinion: whatever you think personally is trumped if you are representing your client, firm, or attorneys in general. Remember who you are speaking for--your firm, your client, your partner, your practice area, attorneys in general.
Don't let the idea of tough questions bother you. This game is taking place on your home court. I have been told by many journalists that they do not like interviewing attorneys because journalists are often intimidated by the perceived interviewing skills of the attorneys. I can tell you from personal experience that attorneys are the most challenging people to interview. So relax. Just keep your wits about you and you will have the upper hand.
Usually you can both achieve your goals. Occasionally you come to loggerheads.
At that point you might face some tough questions designed to trip you up and get you off your message and on to the journalist's message. As an attorney you are familiar with trick or hostile questioning. So don't let yourself be caught off guard just because the questions are coming from a journalist rather than opposing counsel. If you know this is possible and have your focus you'll handle this situation just fine.
Again, the best advice might be to put yourself in the same frame of mind you'd have on the record in open court. Prepared. Eyes and ears open. Self-aware and on your toes.
Here are examples of tough questions:
Loaded question: the journalist asks you to choose between A and B, neither of which is your position. Rephrase and stay on your own talking points, not the journalist’s.
Empty chair questions: A journalist might say "person X said Y." Common sense here. State that you didn’t hear that comment, don’t speculate, and move back to your talking points.
Guilt by association: Because you may agree with another party on issue X, doesn’t mean you agree with them on issue Y as well. Don't follow that road and don't criticize. Reassert your own talking points.
Words in your mouth: Reporters will often take what you say and repeat it back-- mangled and inaccurate. Don't allow this. Repeat your own talking points back to them. Stay assertive but calm.
Inconsistency: You may change your view over time and the reporter calls you on it. Stay calm, and explain the reason your position or policy had to change. This is a great opportunity to expand on your talking points.
Cheap shots: A journalist may tease or insult. Don’t let it slide but also remain calm. Put on your "on the record" hat and let the nastiness roll off your back. The journalist won't print or use their nasty comment, but they will use your defensive response. Keep positive, assertive, and on message.
Irrelevant questions: These will try to get you off message and onto a topic you don’t want to discuss. Bridge back to your own message. Be polite but firmly steer back to your talking points.
Misunderstanding: You have tested how your talking points work [haven't you?] and you have confidence in them. However, a reporter may misunderstand —if so, clarify the point while remaining positive.
Personal opinion: whatever you think personally is trumped if you are representing your client, firm, or attorneys in general. Remember who you are speaking for--your firm, your client, your partner, your practice area, attorneys in general.
Don't let the idea of tough questions bother you. This game is taking place on your home court. I have been told by many journalists that they do not like interviewing attorneys because journalists are often intimidated by the perceived interviewing skills of the attorneys. I can tell you from personal experience that attorneys are the most challenging people to interview. So relax. Just keep your wits about you and you will have the upper hand.
Media -'proactive' v 'reactive' contact
One way to think of up media relationships is to consider "proactive" v "reactive" media contact.
Reactive media contact occurs when a journalist calls you up or walks up to you as you leave your office and says, "Hey! Can you answer a few questions for me?"
Proactive media contact occurs when you send out a news release or call up a journalist and say, "Hey! Are you interested in knowing more about this subject?"
Both can be valuable for you [though your best opportunities will be in proactive media]. There are some important differences in how you handle each.
Reactive media contact
While you are always in the drivers' seat when you talk to the media consider reactive media as a dance where the journalist is leading. Once you agree to the dance, you have to follow the journalists' lead to avoid tripping you both up.
A few hints:
Respond to questions in a timely fashion. Journalist's deadlines are cruel. A few hours usually. Maybe the next day. If a journalist volunteers the deadline for the story at issue consider it an honest fact to help guide you, not a threat. The train pulls out of the station on time with you or without you. If the journalist does not tell you their deadline, ask.
In most situations you must respond the same day. In fact you should try to respond within the hour or you risk losing this gift of "earned media" you have been offered. Occasionally a desperate journalist might call you 20 minutes before deadline. If you can help that journalist save their story by providing useful content right then, on the spot, you will have established a relationship that could be helpful for years to come.
Be prepared. Don't just call back to chat. Have your best talking points ready and written down in front of you. If you were asked a preliminary question then have the answer ready. If you could not find the answer then you should call back ASAP so the journalist won't be left hanging. If you promise an answer, fail to follow through, and then wait until 20 minutes before deadline to admit you screwed up you won't be making any friends.
Proactive media.
In this situation you get to lead the dance. That leadership carries responsibility. You are asking the journalist for something that would be very expensive if you had to pay for it--media coverage.
Make sure you have all your facts straight and have spent some time finding the right "hook" to make your story interesting to the journalist and the journalist's audience. If possible brainstorm the idea with someone you trust. Think of the underlying facts as the fact pattern in a client's case. Shine "the light most favorable" on those facts. Find the story hidden in those facts. It is your job to do this, not the journalists'.
You should have written material to support your story. Prepare a simple news release or media advisory. Include a "backgrounder" [a sort of media credibility CV] introducing you and your firm and explaining why a journalist would want to trust what you have to say about this subject.
Contact your journalist but do not bombard him or her. One confirmed contact. All journalists have preferences [phone, fax, email]. Some journalists --like some attorneys-- are idiosyncratic and will be grumpy if you don't follow "their rules." When in doubt, pick up the phone.
When first making contact with a journalist say two things. 1) State your name and, briefly state why you called ["I have a great idea for a story about how the local economy is boosted by the number of law firms here in Capital City"]. 2) Ask if this is a good time to talk.
A journalist under deadline is not interested in much beyond that deadline. Think of this in terms of preparing for trial and you'll understand the mood. Pester a journalist with a dealine looming and at best your story idea won't get the best debut. At worse you'll get grumped at, cut off, and put on that journalist's mental "inconsiderate person" list.
Media coverge is a gift. You are always asking for a favor [though never use such terms]. If the journalist says to talk now, then talk. If the journalist says to call back at another time, then thank them for taking the call and get off the phone. And call back when you said you would!
Sell your story. Really believe in it. Think of your contact with the journalist as if you were addressing a jury. Don't just recite the facts. Tell the journalist your story, why they should care, and why the public will care.
Know when to stop. Don't make a 45 minute closing argument to a journalist. Just outline your story idea and ask if they are interested.
If you handle proactive media contact well you will gain two things: immediate earned media and progress towards building a relationship with the journalist.
Reactive media contact occurs when a journalist calls you up or walks up to you as you leave your office and says, "Hey! Can you answer a few questions for me?"
Proactive media contact occurs when you send out a news release or call up a journalist and say, "Hey! Are you interested in knowing more about this subject?"
Both can be valuable for you [though your best opportunities will be in proactive media]. There are some important differences in how you handle each.
Reactive media contact
While you are always in the drivers' seat when you talk to the media consider reactive media as a dance where the journalist is leading. Once you agree to the dance, you have to follow the journalists' lead to avoid tripping you both up.
A few hints:
Respond to questions in a timely fashion. Journalist's deadlines are cruel. A few hours usually. Maybe the next day. If a journalist volunteers the deadline for the story at issue consider it an honest fact to help guide you, not a threat. The train pulls out of the station on time with you or without you. If the journalist does not tell you their deadline, ask.
In most situations you must respond the same day. In fact you should try to respond within the hour or you risk losing this gift of "earned media" you have been offered. Occasionally a desperate journalist might call you 20 minutes before deadline. If you can help that journalist save their story by providing useful content right then, on the spot, you will have established a relationship that could be helpful for years to come.
Be prepared. Don't just call back to chat. Have your best talking points ready and written down in front of you. If you were asked a preliminary question then have the answer ready. If you could not find the answer then you should call back ASAP so the journalist won't be left hanging. If you promise an answer, fail to follow through, and then wait until 20 minutes before deadline to admit you screwed up you won't be making any friends.
Proactive media.
In this situation you get to lead the dance. That leadership carries responsibility. You are asking the journalist for something that would be very expensive if you had to pay for it--media coverage.
Make sure you have all your facts straight and have spent some time finding the right "hook" to make your story interesting to the journalist and the journalist's audience. If possible brainstorm the idea with someone you trust. Think of the underlying facts as the fact pattern in a client's case. Shine "the light most favorable" on those facts. Find the story hidden in those facts. It is your job to do this, not the journalists'.
You should have written material to support your story. Prepare a simple news release or media advisory. Include a "backgrounder" [a sort of media credibility CV] introducing you and your firm and explaining why a journalist would want to trust what you have to say about this subject.
Contact your journalist but do not bombard him or her. One confirmed contact. All journalists have preferences [phone, fax, email]. Some journalists --like some attorneys-- are idiosyncratic and will be grumpy if you don't follow "their rules." When in doubt, pick up the phone.
When first making contact with a journalist say two things. 1) State your name and, briefly state why you called ["I have a great idea for a story about how the local economy is boosted by the number of law firms here in Capital City"]. 2) Ask if this is a good time to talk.
A journalist under deadline is not interested in much beyond that deadline. Think of this in terms of preparing for trial and you'll understand the mood. Pester a journalist with a dealine looming and at best your story idea won't get the best debut. At worse you'll get grumped at, cut off, and put on that journalist's mental "inconsiderate person" list.
Media coverge is a gift. You are always asking for a favor [though never use such terms]. If the journalist says to talk now, then talk. If the journalist says to call back at another time, then thank them for taking the call and get off the phone. And call back when you said you would!
Sell your story. Really believe in it. Think of your contact with the journalist as if you were addressing a jury. Don't just recite the facts. Tell the journalist your story, why they should care, and why the public will care.
Know when to stop. Don't make a 45 minute closing argument to a journalist. Just outline your story idea and ask if they are interested.
If you handle proactive media contact well you will gain two things: immediate earned media and progress towards building a relationship with the journalist.
Giving the media what they want
I previously noted that when you are trying to earn media coverage you really have two audiences. First, the media outlet itself. Only after you convince them to broadcast or publish your message are you faced with controlling what message is sent to your second audience, the public.
Persuading your first audience is easy if you keep in mind a few simple guidelines.
1) Keep your ego in check. Be realistic. Admit that hiring a new associate is not newsworthy to the TV station in your city of 2 million. Would your neighbor care about your "news?" Would your brother-in-law? If not then it is likely not news at all.
If you pester the big TV station with such annoying non-news notices you are wasting your time. Worse, you are very likely to annoy the producers and journalists sufficiently that they may unofficially blacklist you and go elsewhere when real news is afoot.
2) The media is a business not a public service or your personal bulletin board. They pay their bills largely by selling ads. If no one is interested in their stories, their advertisers flee and they go out of business. Your job then is to convince the media that your story is something that will interest their target audience. Help editors and journalists do their jobs. Give them news. [See item #1]
3) Know your media outlets. The local weekly community paper is not going to publish your academic sounding article on the public policy implications of restricting punitive damage awards [So save that for the legal trade press if you are trying to build a reputation as the go-to attorney on punitive damage awards]. But the local community shopper paper might publish a notice of your firm's golf outing with the local Rotary Club or Chamber of Commerce.
4) Take time to find the "hook." A "hook" is the perspective on the information that makes it news. A major market TV station is not going to broadcast that new-associate-hired notice. But they might be interested in more well-developed story about how your law firm is the fastest growing firm in the area and how your new hires contribute to the local economy.
Beware! Do not be tempted to employ "spin" or dishonesty to create a news hook. Make certain of your facts. Never, ever invent or exaggerate to make your information more interesting. Your deception will revealed and you will embarrass yourself and sully your reputation. Just take a minute to brainstorm and find the most interesting angle on the facts. Look at the paper. Listen to the evening news. What is topical? How can you tie into that?
5) Think in terms of relationships. Creating a media presence as part of your firm's overall public relations strategy is a long term goal based on credibility and your relationship with journalists and editors. Help the editors and journalists do their jobs.
In the long run you'll accomplish much more if you exercise some self-restraint and stop yourself from faxing that clumsy News Release about your remodeled boardroom to every TV station in the state.
Persuading your first audience is easy if you keep in mind a few simple guidelines.
1) Keep your ego in check. Be realistic. Admit that hiring a new associate is not newsworthy to the TV station in your city of 2 million. Would your neighbor care about your "news?" Would your brother-in-law? If not then it is likely not news at all.
If you pester the big TV station with such annoying non-news notices you are wasting your time. Worse, you are very likely to annoy the producers and journalists sufficiently that they may unofficially blacklist you and go elsewhere when real news is afoot.
2) The media is a business not a public service or your personal bulletin board. They pay their bills largely by selling ads. If no one is interested in their stories, their advertisers flee and they go out of business. Your job then is to convince the media that your story is something that will interest their target audience. Help editors and journalists do their jobs. Give them news. [See item #1]
3) Know your media outlets. The local weekly community paper is not going to publish your academic sounding article on the public policy implications of restricting punitive damage awards [So save that for the legal trade press if you are trying to build a reputation as the go-to attorney on punitive damage awards]. But the local community shopper paper might publish a notice of your firm's golf outing with the local Rotary Club or Chamber of Commerce.
4) Take time to find the "hook." A "hook" is the perspective on the information that makes it news. A major market TV station is not going to broadcast that new-associate-hired notice. But they might be interested in more well-developed story about how your law firm is the fastest growing firm in the area and how your new hires contribute to the local economy.
Beware! Do not be tempted to employ "spin" or dishonesty to create a news hook. Make certain of your facts. Never, ever invent or exaggerate to make your information more interesting. Your deception will revealed and you will embarrass yourself and sully your reputation. Just take a minute to brainstorm and find the most interesting angle on the facts. Look at the paper. Listen to the evening news. What is topical? How can you tie into that?
5) Think in terms of relationships. Creating a media presence as part of your firm's overall public relations strategy is a long term goal based on credibility and your relationship with journalists and editors. Help the editors and journalists do their jobs.
In the long run you'll accomplish much more if you exercise some self-restraint and stop yourself from faxing that clumsy News Release about your remodeled boardroom to every TV station in the state.
Media Interviews --your two audiences
Whenever you are being interviewed by a journalist you really have two distinct audiences: 1) the media outlet itself, and; 2) the public.
Audiences.
At some point in your education you likely recall having a teacher or professor lecture you on the importance of "identifying the audience" you want to communicate with.
It is a simple idea and we all are guided by a version of this advice every day. For example. You talk to your peers differently than you talk to a client or an elderly relative or a child or your doctor. You use different language for each. You stress different points. You frame your message differently.
The reason you tailor your message to your audience is not merely make sure you are understood [i.e.: your 8-year-old niece will not be able to fully appreciate the concept of an expanded liability exception to governmental immunity no matter how many times you read to her from that amazing Motion and Brief you just drafted].
Maybe the most important reason for addressing a specific audience is to create interest and empathy --you want the audience to care as well as understand.
Preliminary Audience.
The media outlet itself can be seen as a preliminary audience. The journalist and the editor are the gatekeepers to the public you want to reach. They hold the keys to the door you want to enter.
In some ways dealing with this audience is analogous to the procedural steps you must follow before presenting your facts to a jury. If you don't accomplish the preliminary process [Timely filing, establishing standing, etc] correctly you will never make it to closing arguments [or even opening arguments ...or even voir dire]
The good news is that your task relative to this preliminary audience --the media outlet itself-- is simple compared to establishing standing or undertaking Discovery.
How do you do that? You have to give the media a product they can sell.
Final Audience.
Once you have won over the media gatekeepers your final audience is the public.
Using the analogy above the public is like your jury. You want this final audience to hear your persuasive take on the facts.
You accomplish that by crafting and using a set of simple "talking points" that summarize your message in the light most advantageous to you. And you convey your talking points repeatedly and almost exclusively so they become the message that is quoted in the story.
Audiences.
At some point in your education you likely recall having a teacher or professor lecture you on the importance of "identifying the audience" you want to communicate with.
It is a simple idea and we all are guided by a version of this advice every day. For example. You talk to your peers differently than you talk to a client or an elderly relative or a child or your doctor. You use different language for each. You stress different points. You frame your message differently.
The reason you tailor your message to your audience is not merely make sure you are understood [i.e.: your 8-year-old niece will not be able to fully appreciate the concept of an expanded liability exception to governmental immunity no matter how many times you read to her from that amazing Motion and Brief you just drafted].
Maybe the most important reason for addressing a specific audience is to create interest and empathy --you want the audience to care as well as understand.
Preliminary Audience.
The media outlet itself can be seen as a preliminary audience. The journalist and the editor are the gatekeepers to the public you want to reach. They hold the keys to the door you want to enter.
In some ways dealing with this audience is analogous to the procedural steps you must follow before presenting your facts to a jury. If you don't accomplish the preliminary process [Timely filing, establishing standing, etc] correctly you will never make it to closing arguments [or even opening arguments ...or even voir dire]
The good news is that your task relative to this preliminary audience --the media outlet itself-- is simple compared to establishing standing or undertaking Discovery.
How do you do that? You have to give the media a product they can sell.
Final Audience.
Once you have won over the media gatekeepers your final audience is the public.
Using the analogy above the public is like your jury. You want this final audience to hear your persuasive take on the facts.
You accomplish that by crafting and using a set of simple "talking points" that summarize your message in the light most advantageous to you. And you convey your talking points repeatedly and almost exclusively so they become the message that is quoted in the story.
Handling the Media --the 'parade of horribles'
These attorneys did everything wrong.
The bar official finally agreed to speak to me and another reporter about allegations of a possible scandal at the bar association.
Our publication had broken the story. The scandal had begun with some minor allegations that could have been minimized if handled properly.
But the official and his fellows had curtly stonewalled us and the media in general for weeks. Their steadfast refusal to cooperate or comment had created a "what are they hiding" question and growing concern in the effected legal community.
Now the bar officials had created an over-dramatic showdown: we the long-frustrated now-suspicious reporters on the one end of the phone versus a roomful of defensive bar officials on the other end. All on an open conference call. All on the record. All on tape. All with their prior written permission to us that everything was "on the record."
They couldn't have handled the situation worse than that. Or so we thought.
Our call went to a staff person who then placed us on speaker phone to include the bar officials and some staffers.
The call was tense. The officials were [to our ears] curt and arrogant. They lectured us. They asserted that the whole affair was merely cheap rumors circulated by yellow journalists and --in truth-- involved issues far too complex for mere reporters or the public to understand. Their advice: We really should just go away and trust them to take care of it.
They refused to answer even simple questions. They denied any wrongdoing or even honest mistakes. We were frustrated at the waste of time and their attitude. Apparently they had arranged the interview just to assure us they were all firm supporters of "Truth, Justice and The American Way."
After about fifteen minutes of this thrust-and-parry the lead bar official declared the interview completed. We were free to leave them alone now. They had spoken. The official's staffer thanked us and put her phone receiver on the cradle, "click!"
But the call was still live. The speaker phone was still turned on in that room full of bar officials.
On our end the newsroom tape recorder was still running.
We listened with amazement as the roomful of bar association officials and staffers broke out in loud self-congratulatory conversation. They laughed at having stonewalled us, and made snide comments regarding how their room full of lawyers outsmarted "those reporters." [The reporters listening on the other end were also attorneys and so this just added to the sense of amusement]
The assembled representatives of the bar association proceeded to make many statements that contradicted the statements made moments before. [Recall both the previous and current statements were made with our tape recorder rolling and their written permission to use the comments. Lovely!] They ridiculed the investigation and our publication. Eventually this cover-up coffee-clach lost steam and broke up leaving only the bar executive and his staffer.
Then the situation became even more surreal.
The bar executive and his staffer proceeded to have another enlightening conversation filled with even more and sharper critique of the reporters who were listening, as some amusing insights regarding their fellow bar officials who had just left the room.
This went on for over 20 minutes. All on tape.
On our end I brought in my editor and some other reporters to listen. All were aware of the bar association scandal and were able to appreciate the exquisite joy of listening to snide, arrogant officials involved in a cover-up admit --on tape-- to having lied to the reporters conducting the investigation while those self same reporters were taping the call.
It was an investigative reporter's wildest dream come to life.
Eventually the conversation on the other end of the line ended. The staffer picked up her phone to make another call and the line went dead.
On our end the room was filled with people sitting in stunned silence.
The rest of that unfortunate drama unfolded as you might expect and nothing good came of it for those officials or the bar association.
So. If you ever wonder "what is the worse thing that could happen" if you are not prepared for dealing with a PR crisis and handling the media --now you know.
The bar official finally agreed to speak to me and another reporter about allegations of a possible scandal at the bar association.
Our publication had broken the story. The scandal had begun with some minor allegations that could have been minimized if handled properly.
But the official and his fellows had curtly stonewalled us and the media in general for weeks. Their steadfast refusal to cooperate or comment had created a "what are they hiding" question and growing concern in the effected legal community.
Now the bar officials had created an over-dramatic showdown: we the long-frustrated now-suspicious reporters on the one end of the phone versus a roomful of defensive bar officials on the other end. All on an open conference call. All on the record. All on tape. All with their prior written permission to us that everything was "on the record."
They couldn't have handled the situation worse than that. Or so we thought.
Our call went to a staff person who then placed us on speaker phone to include the bar officials and some staffers.
The call was tense. The officials were [to our ears] curt and arrogant. They lectured us. They asserted that the whole affair was merely cheap rumors circulated by yellow journalists and --in truth-- involved issues far too complex for mere reporters or the public to understand. Their advice: We really should just go away and trust them to take care of it.
They refused to answer even simple questions. They denied any wrongdoing or even honest mistakes. We were frustrated at the waste of time and their attitude. Apparently they had arranged the interview just to assure us they were all firm supporters of "Truth, Justice and The American Way."
After about fifteen minutes of this thrust-and-parry the lead bar official declared the interview completed. We were free to leave them alone now. They had spoken. The official's staffer thanked us and put her phone receiver on the cradle, "click!"
But the call was still live. The speaker phone was still turned on in that room full of bar officials.
On our end the newsroom tape recorder was still running.
We listened with amazement as the roomful of bar association officials and staffers broke out in loud self-congratulatory conversation. They laughed at having stonewalled us, and made snide comments regarding how their room full of lawyers outsmarted "those reporters." [The reporters listening on the other end were also attorneys and so this just added to the sense of amusement]
The assembled representatives of the bar association proceeded to make many statements that contradicted the statements made moments before. [Recall both the previous and current statements were made with our tape recorder rolling and their written permission to use the comments. Lovely!] They ridiculed the investigation and our publication. Eventually this cover-up coffee-clach lost steam and broke up leaving only the bar executive and his staffer.
Then the situation became even more surreal.
The bar executive and his staffer proceeded to have another enlightening conversation filled with even more and sharper critique of the reporters who were listening, as some amusing insights regarding their fellow bar officials who had just left the room.
This went on for over 20 minutes. All on tape.
On our end I brought in my editor and some other reporters to listen. All were aware of the bar association scandal and were able to appreciate the exquisite joy of listening to snide, arrogant officials involved in a cover-up admit --on tape-- to having lied to the reporters conducting the investigation while those self same reporters were taping the call.
It was an investigative reporter's wildest dream come to life.
Eventually the conversation on the other end of the line ended. The staffer picked up her phone to make another call and the line went dead.
On our end the room was filled with people sitting in stunned silence.
The rest of that unfortunate drama unfolded as you might expect and nothing good came of it for those officials or the bar association.
So. If you ever wonder "what is the worse thing that could happen" if you are not prepared for dealing with a PR crisis and handling the media --now you know.
"No comment"
During the "Dealing With The Media For Lawyers" seminars we conduct and in other circumstance I have had lawyers tell me, "I never call reporters back." Others will brag, "I just tell all reporters, 'no comment.'"
That stance reflects not only a missed opportunity, but a serious mistake.
Not calling someone back --anyone-- is rude. Being rude to a journalist is especially stupid. Journalists are the gatekeepers of public information and it is foolish in the extreme to anger someone with open access to the media.
Why avoid journalists? Don't fool yourself into thinking if you hide from them the story won't run. As I used to tell hesitant interviewees when I was a reporter, "I'm going to run this story with you or without you. This is your chance to tell your side."
Sometimes I'd leave that message on their voice mail.
This was not a threat. My stories would run. I'd include the other side's comments and the tag: "the attorney for the plaintiff [or defendant, or accused] was contacted but did not respond by deadline."
Establishing a good, long-term relationship with journalists that cover legal stories is a critical part of your overall public relations plan. Why miss the opportunity to create such a relationship? Why anger someone you should be making friends with?
As for the phrase "no comment" --forget it. That is TV and movie fiction nonsense. On par with calling the local paper and yelling, "Stop the presses!" into the phone. If you say "no comment" to a reporter you are not only being rude, you sound like a fool.
What should you do? Get prepared as you would for any other business call. Call the journalist back. Make a contact. Be professional. If being a part of the story is not in your best interest, then politely get off the phone with the promise that you will do all you can to help the journalist next time. Begin a relationship.
That stance reflects not only a missed opportunity, but a serious mistake.
Not calling someone back --anyone-- is rude. Being rude to a journalist is especially stupid. Journalists are the gatekeepers of public information and it is foolish in the extreme to anger someone with open access to the media.
Why avoid journalists? Don't fool yourself into thinking if you hide from them the story won't run. As I used to tell hesitant interviewees when I was a reporter, "I'm going to run this story with you or without you. This is your chance to tell your side."
Sometimes I'd leave that message on their voice mail.
This was not a threat. My stories would run. I'd include the other side's comments and the tag: "the attorney for the plaintiff [or defendant, or accused] was contacted but did not respond by deadline."
Establishing a good, long-term relationship with journalists that cover legal stories is a critical part of your overall public relations plan. Why miss the opportunity to create such a relationship? Why anger someone you should be making friends with?
As for the phrase "no comment" --forget it. That is TV and movie fiction nonsense. On par with calling the local paper and yelling, "Stop the presses!" into the phone. If you say "no comment" to a reporter you are not only being rude, you sound like a fool.
What should you do? Get prepared as you would for any other business call. Call the journalist back. Make a contact. Be professional. If being a part of the story is not in your best interest, then politely get off the phone with the promise that you will do all you can to help the journalist next time. Begin a relationship.
"Talking points" -getting your message in the story
Any time you speak to a journalist you need to spend some time thinking and creating a written list of talking points beforehand. Do this without fail. Every time.
Your talking points should be designed so that when someone reads or hears the story they will understand your message.
Use these guidelines to craft your talking points:
Talking points should be simple. One sentence. Simple and easy to understand. No jargon or legalese.
Talking points should be few. Maybe only one. Three to five at most. No more.
Talking points should be factual. Shine the light most favorable to your message, but always be accurate and truthful.
Talking points should be written down in front of you as you talk to the journalist [unless you are being video taped}. They are a reminder and a guide as well as a security blanket.
Vow to repeat each talking point more than once during your interview.
When you are telling your story and when you are responding to questions stick to these talking points. Practice doing that prior to your interview. Become comfortable with them so you do not sound like you are reciting lines in the school play.
Do not stray from your talking points. They are your best, most positive, preplanned and prepared message, right? Use them.
Your talking points should be designed so that when someone reads or hears the story they will understand your message.
Use these guidelines to craft your talking points:
Talking points should be simple. One sentence. Simple and easy to understand. No jargon or legalese.
Talking points should be few. Maybe only one. Three to five at most. No more.
Talking points should be factual. Shine the light most favorable to your message, but always be accurate and truthful.
Talking points should be written down in front of you as you talk to the journalist [unless you are being video taped}. They are a reminder and a guide as well as a security blanket.
Vow to repeat each talking point more than once during your interview.
When you are telling your story and when you are responding to questions stick to these talking points. Practice doing that prior to your interview. Become comfortable with them so you do not sound like you are reciting lines in the school play.
Do not stray from your talking points. They are your best, most positive, preplanned and prepared message, right? Use them.
The phone interview
Ten simple tips for handling media calls.
1) Decide whether it is in your best interest to participate in the story. It almost always is in your interest as long as you have a plan. At the very least you can make contact to establish or confirm your relationship with the journalist and offer to help next time.
2) Call the journalist back. Always. Even if you are going to decline to participate. Make contact.
3) Call back soon. As attorneys we flatter ourselves as living in a world of harsh deadlines. Media deadlines are harsher. Reporters usually only have a few hours to find you and get their story. That means you have to respond the same day you receive their call. Sometimes a hard-pressed journalist will call you 20 minutes before deadline.
4) Prepare. Make a list of between three and five "talking points" you want to get into the story. Short items. Write them down. Vow to repeat each one during the call.
5) Identify yourself and ask the reporter to identify themselves and their media outlet. Ask what the story is about. Listen to the answers and write them down. But don't believe the journalist's summary of the story is totally accurate --a journalist might be cagey about a story's angle or might change the focus of a story depending on what they learn from talking to you.
6) Stay in control. Be polite, be professional, do not chat or gossip or assume your charm and wit will keep the reporter from using the information you are conveying. The reporter is not your buddy. Talking to a reporter on the phone is very similar to making a statement in court on the record. Do not let the journalist catch you off guard.
7) Everything is on the record. Everything. Unless you have a long-term personal relationship with this journalist and a very clear cut and tested set of rules regarding what is "on the record" or "for background" assume anything you say could end up in the story. That includes the over-the-shoulder conversation you are having with your secretary about the call.
8) Politely fail to answer questions not in your best interest. NEVER say "no comment" or anything equally foolish and rude. Gently change the subject back to your talking points. As an attorney you are a professional communicator. Reporters are often intimidated when interviewing attorneys because of our communications skills. Use those skills.
9) Repeat your talking points. Work them into the conversation. Don't read them from the list. Your talking points are like the evidence you want to get in front of the jury. Slide them into your sentences. Repeat them. Do it with subtlety and tact if possible, otherwise if necessary, but do it.
10) In case of disaster, bail out. I have conducted thousands of interviews with attorneys, and been interviewed hundreds of times. I have a good nose for it. But I've been fooled and you might be too. If you find yourself ambushed and having an unpleasant conversation with an angry ideologue armed with an ax to grind then get off the phone. Politely note you may have to agree to disagree, thank them and excuse yourself for an important meeting. You have no obligation to talk to a reporter. Ever.
1) Decide whether it is in your best interest to participate in the story. It almost always is in your interest as long as you have a plan. At the very least you can make contact to establish or confirm your relationship with the journalist and offer to help next time.
2) Call the journalist back. Always. Even if you are going to decline to participate. Make contact.
3) Call back soon. As attorneys we flatter ourselves as living in a world of harsh deadlines. Media deadlines are harsher. Reporters usually only have a few hours to find you and get their story. That means you have to respond the same day you receive their call. Sometimes a hard-pressed journalist will call you 20 minutes before deadline.
4) Prepare. Make a list of between three and five "talking points" you want to get into the story. Short items. Write them down. Vow to repeat each one during the call.
5) Identify yourself and ask the reporter to identify themselves and their media outlet. Ask what the story is about. Listen to the answers and write them down. But don't believe the journalist's summary of the story is totally accurate --a journalist might be cagey about a story's angle or might change the focus of a story depending on what they learn from talking to you.
6) Stay in control. Be polite, be professional, do not chat or gossip or assume your charm and wit will keep the reporter from using the information you are conveying. The reporter is not your buddy. Talking to a reporter on the phone is very similar to making a statement in court on the record. Do not let the journalist catch you off guard.
7) Everything is on the record. Everything. Unless you have a long-term personal relationship with this journalist and a very clear cut and tested set of rules regarding what is "on the record" or "for background" assume anything you say could end up in the story. That includes the over-the-shoulder conversation you are having with your secretary about the call.
8) Politely fail to answer questions not in your best interest. NEVER say "no comment" or anything equally foolish and rude. Gently change the subject back to your talking points. As an attorney you are a professional communicator. Reporters are often intimidated when interviewing attorneys because of our communications skills. Use those skills.
9) Repeat your talking points. Work them into the conversation. Don't read them from the list. Your talking points are like the evidence you want to get in front of the jury. Slide them into your sentences. Repeat them. Do it with subtlety and tact if possible, otherwise if necessary, but do it.
10) In case of disaster, bail out. I have conducted thousands of interviews with attorneys, and been interviewed hundreds of times. I have a good nose for it. But I've been fooled and you might be too. If you find yourself ambushed and having an unpleasant conversation with an angry ideologue armed with an ax to grind then get off the phone. Politely note you may have to agree to disagree, thank them and excuse yourself for an important meeting. You have no obligation to talk to a reporter. Ever.
Media --why should you be interested?
You may not be interested in the media, but the media is interested in you.
That paraphrase of a famous quote about war has become my standard answer to attorneys who ask me, "Why should I care about the media?"
Potential answers: To build your practice? To control your reputation? To defend yourself, your clients, and your firm? To get the word out about the good things you and other bar members do? To build name recognition? To inform the public about your services without the need to buy advertising?
Even if you are determined to foolishly avoid all proactive media contact, and to respond to journalists' questions by sprinting away and screaming "no comment" over your shoulder, you would be foolish to believe you can practice law in a bubble.
If you are an attorney the media is interested in you.
Why? As an attorney you wear many hats. You are an educated expert on legal matters, an officer of the court, representative and spokesperson for hundreds of clients, a small business person, an employer and a community leader. The media can become interested in you in the context of any of these roles, or all of them.
The media also might become interested in you for some not-so-obvious and less pleasant reasons. Your contentious divorce that includes allegations of sordid behavior. A law partner arrested after killing a child while drunk driving. A receptionist caught embezzling client funds after being suckered by a Nigerian email scam. A fire that burns down your office including all your client files and the backup tapes an employee forget to move to an off-site location. Your local bar association exploding amidst allegations of criminal wrongdoing among leadership. An associate accused of selling drugs out of your law office. The suicide of a law partner who had been struggling with addiction issues.
Each of those things actually happened to an unfortunate attorney who suddenly discovered the media was very interested.
Of course you might just want to develop an interest in the media as part of your overall public relations plan. A good relationship with local journalists should be a part of your practice building and rainmaking activities.
You should strive to be the local media's "go to" gal or guy regarding general legal issues. Don't worry about straying outside your area of practice. Any attorney can handle media questions about things like the difference between criminal and civil courts, the make-up of the state appellate court system, the meaning of legal terms like "affiant" or concepts like governmental immunity.
This sort of relationship with the media --and the potential clients who watch and read the stories-- gets your name out in the community and builds your reputation as an expert.
And media interviews are like any other skill--you become better with practice. Better that practice be informal and proactive and on your terms and serving your interests than put it off until you are "ambushed."
Plus if you ever find yourself fielding calls regarding accusations stemming from your nasty divorce or that allegedly drugged out associate you might find some solace in the knowledge that the journalist you are talking to has been asking *you* for help for the past few years.
Develop an interest in the media.
That paraphrase of a famous quote about war has become my standard answer to attorneys who ask me, "Why should I care about the media?"
Potential answers: To build your practice? To control your reputation? To defend yourself, your clients, and your firm? To get the word out about the good things you and other bar members do? To build name recognition? To inform the public about your services without the need to buy advertising?
Even if you are determined to foolishly avoid all proactive media contact, and to respond to journalists' questions by sprinting away and screaming "no comment" over your shoulder, you would be foolish to believe you can practice law in a bubble.
If you are an attorney the media is interested in you.
Why? As an attorney you wear many hats. You are an educated expert on legal matters, an officer of the court, representative and spokesperson for hundreds of clients, a small business person, an employer and a community leader. The media can become interested in you in the context of any of these roles, or all of them.
The media also might become interested in you for some not-so-obvious and less pleasant reasons. Your contentious divorce that includes allegations of sordid behavior. A law partner arrested after killing a child while drunk driving. A receptionist caught embezzling client funds after being suckered by a Nigerian email scam. A fire that burns down your office including all your client files and the backup tapes an employee forget to move to an off-site location. Your local bar association exploding amidst allegations of criminal wrongdoing among leadership. An associate accused of selling drugs out of your law office. The suicide of a law partner who had been struggling with addiction issues.
Each of those things actually happened to an unfortunate attorney who suddenly discovered the media was very interested.
Of course you might just want to develop an interest in the media as part of your overall public relations plan. A good relationship with local journalists should be a part of your practice building and rainmaking activities.
You should strive to be the local media's "go to" gal or guy regarding general legal issues. Don't worry about straying outside your area of practice. Any attorney can handle media questions about things like the difference between criminal and civil courts, the make-up of the state appellate court system, the meaning of legal terms like "affiant" or concepts like governmental immunity.
This sort of relationship with the media --and the potential clients who watch and read the stories-- gets your name out in the community and builds your reputation as an expert.
And media interviews are like any other skill--you become better with practice. Better that practice be informal and proactive and on your terms and serving your interests than put it off until you are "ambushed."
Plus if you ever find yourself fielding calls regarding accusations stemming from your nasty divorce or that allegedly drugged out associate you might find some solace in the knowledge that the journalist you are talking to has been asking *you* for help for the past few years.
Develop an interest in the media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
