This blog is not about advertising. But a forwarded link from a collegue caught my eye and since it holds many lessons for other sorts of image and messageing and media relationships I'm including it [below]. Plus, you know, the examples are funny.
Ahhhh.... Attorneys advertising. Love it. Hate it. Attorney advertising is still controversial many years after most professional prohibitions were removed.
Advocates say it is only fair that attorneys can advertise as other business people do. They claim ads make their critical services known to more people.
Opponents rail against ads and claim they diminish the profession and give false impressions of 'jackpot justice' to both the public and lawmakers.
This group of ads will give ammo to the latter camp.
Take a look. Even if you *never* do *anything* like this [and of course you never will] note these extreme examples and how they plug in to the advice in this blog about professionalism, message, myth, theme, media relationships and just plain decent common sense.
'List Of The Day' collects bad attorney ads
Showing posts with label Media tips. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media tips. Show all posts
Media and myth
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.
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.
"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.
Attorneys beware: who is that ‘journalist’ on the phone?
In Michigan, ‘old media’ are lining up to attack and pillory a Legislative proposal to create a voluntary registry for journalists. Such a registry would allow the public to determine exactly who is calling themselves a journalist, and what their qualifications are to do that.
The news media’s objections to the idea have not been subtle. The idea has been labeled ridiculous and unconstitutional right out of the gate. For better or worse, the idea touched a nerve. And it touched a nerve with the very people who own the barrels of printers ink.
Why should we as attorneys care about questions of journalistic qualification? Well, for starters, journalists have a myriad of special privileges that most people do not enjoy. They enjoy access to people and places, special legal status, and a reputation for being bound by ethical rules and a duty to the public. You take their calls.
Yesterday a colleague shared this story. A few months ago a very well respected bar association was contacted via phone by a journalist. The journalist asked loaded, leading questions that the bar spokesperson wisely refused to answer off the cuff, requesting to gather the needed information and call this journalist back.
Well, after a bit of investigation the “journalist” turned out to be no journalist at all, but a layperson with an amateur blog and a personal axe to grind. This blogger had made it past a couple levels of gatekeepers and been allowed to chat with the spokesperson, all based upon his self-adopted label: “journalist.”
A similar thing happened to me last week. A pushy middle-aged man, dressed in shorts and a t-shirt, describing himself as ‘a journalist,’ came into our lobby with no appointment and began asking our receptionist strange questions in a rude tone.
“Since our members are attorneys, didn’t we have an obligation to allow the public and journalists to attend our private board meetings?” “Since we had [certain words] in the name of our organization, didn’t that imply we had Constitutional obligations to the public??” “Didn’t the First Amendment give [our casually dressed friend] the right to attend our [private] Board meetings, ask for copies of our Board minutes, and generally hang out and pepper us with questions as long as he felt necessary?!?” And, “when could he be allowed to address our leadership to air his grievances regarding our answers to his last few questions???!”
I was quietly asked to come out and ‘handle’ our concerned visitor. I listened to his questions patiently and tried to answer them. But whenever this self-proclaimed journalist made incorrect [frankly, ‘bizarre’ describes them better] assumptions as part of framing his questions, I calmly corrected his misconceptions.
It took all of three minutes for my journalistic friend to storm out of the door without so much as a thank you or goodbye.
Say what you will about First Amendment press protections, but in this new age of ranting bloggers and self-appointed amateur “journalists” I’d sure like to have had some sort of registry to find out who this man was, and through what media affiliation he felt the right to label himself a journalist.
[See another perspective on the problem of news, the Internet, and what is left of journalism in the June 2, 2010 Atlantic ]
The news media’s objections to the idea have not been subtle. The idea has been labeled ridiculous and unconstitutional right out of the gate. For better or worse, the idea touched a nerve. And it touched a nerve with the very people who own the barrels of printers ink.
Why should we as attorneys care about questions of journalistic qualification? Well, for starters, journalists have a myriad of special privileges that most people do not enjoy. They enjoy access to people and places, special legal status, and a reputation for being bound by ethical rules and a duty to the public. You take their calls.
Yesterday a colleague shared this story. A few months ago a very well respected bar association was contacted via phone by a journalist. The journalist asked loaded, leading questions that the bar spokesperson wisely refused to answer off the cuff, requesting to gather the needed information and call this journalist back.
Well, after a bit of investigation the “journalist” turned out to be no journalist at all, but a layperson with an amateur blog and a personal axe to grind. This blogger had made it past a couple levels of gatekeepers and been allowed to chat with the spokesperson, all based upon his self-adopted label: “journalist.”
A similar thing happened to me last week. A pushy middle-aged man, dressed in shorts and a t-shirt, describing himself as ‘a journalist,’ came into our lobby with no appointment and began asking our receptionist strange questions in a rude tone.
“Since our members are attorneys, didn’t we have an obligation to allow the public and journalists to attend our private board meetings?” “Since we had [certain words] in the name of our organization, didn’t that imply we had Constitutional obligations to the public??” “Didn’t the First Amendment give [our casually dressed friend] the right to attend our [private] Board meetings, ask for copies of our Board minutes, and generally hang out and pepper us with questions as long as he felt necessary?!?” And, “when could he be allowed to address our leadership to air his grievances regarding our answers to his last few questions???!”
I was quietly asked to come out and ‘handle’ our concerned visitor. I listened to his questions patiently and tried to answer them. But whenever this self-proclaimed journalist made incorrect [frankly, ‘bizarre’ describes them better] assumptions as part of framing his questions, I calmly corrected his misconceptions.
It took all of three minutes for my journalistic friend to storm out of the door without so much as a thank you or goodbye.
Say what you will about First Amendment press protections, but in this new age of ranting bloggers and self-appointed amateur “journalists” I’d sure like to have had some sort of registry to find out who this man was, and through what media affiliation he felt the right to label himself a journalist.
[See another perspective on the problem of news, the Internet, and what is left of journalism in the June 2, 2010 Atlantic ]
The two faces of Facebook
Social media seems to be the hottest of media topics for attorneys, especially since so much of 'old media' is dying.
Sometimes it is best to let the stories do the talking. Compare and contrast:
1) Facebook --a winning tool?
2) Facebook -- despised and loathed?
Sometimes it is best to let the stories do the talking. Compare and contrast:
1) Facebook --a winning tool?
2) Facebook -- despised and loathed?
What's the story?
Journalists, editors and producers decide what the story is. You do not.
The job of the news media is to gather all of the facts that they think are important, highlight the ones they feel are most interesting, and then package them in the way they hope will be most enticing to listeners or readers. Their job is not to create a venue for you to tell the story you want to tell. News is a business, not a public service.
However, like most situations in life your interactions with the media can still be tweaked to your advantage.
Do respond promptly to news media inquiries with concise, well-thought-out talking points. Only about three. Write them down. If the journalist changes the subject, transition back to your talking points. Do not be rude, but be firm. Do not engage in an aimless 45 minute chat because that only give the journalist an opportunity to ignore most of what you are saying and to cherry pick the few formulaic facts that will fill in the blanks for a pre-existing story template. And do not forward a brief-length written response or *any* pleading by way of answering questions unless it is requested. Journalists will almost *never* read pleadings unless they are fact checking [spelling of names, dates, etc]. They do not have the time to read long descriptions of fact patterns or legal analysis.
The journalist gets to choose what is ‘news,’ but you can control the pool of choices you make available.
Quick tips:
1) Give the news media only what you want them to have. Have three brief talking points ready and stick to them.
2) Be careful that what you give them is timely, helpful and safe.
The job of the news media is to gather all of the facts that they think are important, highlight the ones they feel are most interesting, and then package them in the way they hope will be most enticing to listeners or readers. Their job is not to create a venue for you to tell the story you want to tell. News is a business, not a public service.
However, like most situations in life your interactions with the media can still be tweaked to your advantage.
Do respond promptly to news media inquiries with concise, well-thought-out talking points. Only about three. Write them down. If the journalist changes the subject, transition back to your talking points. Do not be rude, but be firm. Do not engage in an aimless 45 minute chat because that only give the journalist an opportunity to ignore most of what you are saying and to cherry pick the few formulaic facts that will fill in the blanks for a pre-existing story template. And do not forward a brief-length written response or *any* pleading by way of answering questions unless it is requested. Journalists will almost *never* read pleadings unless they are fact checking [spelling of names, dates, etc]. They do not have the time to read long descriptions of fact patterns or legal analysis.
The journalist gets to choose what is ‘news,’ but you can control the pool of choices you make available.
Quick tips:
1) Give the news media only what you want them to have. Have three brief talking points ready and stick to them.
2) Be careful that what you give them is timely, helpful and safe.
How to Draft a News Release
It is well within the capacity of almost anyone [certainly for a well-educated attorney who makes a living writing and persuading] to draft a workable news release.
Remember, the purpose of a news release is to give journalists enough facts so that they can decide if there is a story. You also want to leave them with the desire to ask follow up questions and to get ‘the rest of the story” from you.
While communications professionals can and do endlessly debate the finer points, the basics of a news release are simple.
Heading: Your heading needs to be the most interesting summary of the facts you can craft into a sentence. Write as if you were explaining it to a neighbor, not summarizing it for a law review article. The headline should be in boldface and maybe a font size or two larger than the body of the news release.
--Do this: “Family devastated by drunk driver helps make state roads safer after winning four year legal fight.”
--Not this: “Circuit Court decision clarifies contested issue of exception to state dram shop law.”
Lead, or first, paragraph. A more comprehensive version of the heading. Include all the details [5 ‘W’s: Who, What, Where, Why, When and How] Two or three sentences at most. And write in English about subject/predicate forms that average people recognize, not in Black’s Law terminology.
Write this short paragraph as if it might be the only thing a reader ever knows about the news item. That very well could be the case.
--Do this: “The family of Joan Smith, who was killed in an infamous drunk driving accident on Highway 01 in 2005, prevailed after a four year court battle. The Court of Appeals determined that the bartender who served the drunk driver more than 20 beers in a two hour period was partly responsible for the fiery 100mph crash that killed Joan Smith and the drunk driver, as well as injuring four other motorists, closing Highway 01 for more than six hours and making national news.”
--Not this: “After following a line of cases that narrowly interpreted the part-time-worker exception to the state’s model dram shop liability statute Judge Judy rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $1.167 million dollars plus court costs and interest.”
Quote. Include at least one quote from someone involved in the news item. Readers want to hear from those who experienced the news item. Journalists and editors want to provide this for their readers. Try to quote a “real person” [i.e.: not you the attorney] but a quote from you is much better than no quote at all. Again, speak plain English..
--Do this: “No one should have to go through what this family experienced, but they not only kept fighting for their daughter’s memory, they changed the law so that we are all safer due to their efforts,” Mike Witherspoon, legal counsel for the family.
--Not this: “Now that the State Supreme Court has refused cert this $1.2 million verdict establishes that dram shop liability is still a viable civil disincentive to businesses who might enabling those who would drink and drive,” Attorney M. Witherspoon, II, Esq..
--Best: “Nothing can bring Joan back to us but she would be proud to know that because of her, people are safer as they travel with their families,” explained Mom Smith, Joan’s mother. “We miss Joan terribly but now we feel like justice has been done and no other family will have to face losing a daughter like we did.”
Two or three additional paragraphs giving more depth. Include background like biographical details of people involved, interesting facts, and some context.
--Do this: “On June 18, 2005 only one week after she graduated from Local High School Joan Smith was driving northbound on Highway 01 on her way to choir practice at Westside Church. Her car was struck head-on at over 100 mph by a pickup driven by 48-year-old unemployed plumber Joe Malcontent. According to police, Malcontent had been drinking at the Skid Row Tavern since 8 am and had reported consumed ‘at least 20’ beers in the two hours before he killed Smith. The fiery explosion injured four other motorists and required police close all four lanes of Highway 01 for over six hours. The crash, explosion and fire were so devastating that the incident made national news and encouraged Governor Terminator to call for stricter drunk driving laws. Attorney for the family Mike Witherspoon explained that the case represented not only a win for the family, but a saner, safer reading of the laws meant to keep drunk drivers off the road. “Families win,” Witherspoon said.”
--Not this: “The last decade has seen the erosion of dram shop liability in State much to the chagrin of those who saw such liability as a structural disincentive to drinking and driving. The 2003 Court of Appeals decision in Victim v Lucky’s Tavern was interpreted by most judges to create a broad temporary worker exception to State’s dram shop liability, so much so that in many cases those who hold liquor licenses have been accused of creating faux ‘temporary’ positions merely to escape liability. [See: Difficult Issues with the Temporary Worker Exception to Dramshop in State. 311 UX Law, 12; 136-157; (2005)]”
Contact information, form and convention.
At the beginning of the lead paragraph put the city where the news event took place in capital letters, in brackets, to let journalists know the geographic area of the news item. Like this: [CAPITOL CITY]. This is an old journalism convention so just do it that way without giving it too much thought.
Above the headline at the top of the page include your phone number and email address, or the phone and email of the person who will speak to the media. It should look like this: CONTACT: John Jones at 111-123-4567 or jjones@mailco.com.
At the top of the page write: “News Release.”
Date the news release by either including today’s date and the phrase, “For Immediate Release,” or if you want the news item delayed you would write, “embargoed until” the date you have in mind. Don’t embargo your news release just to be cute.
News releases are teasers, not theses. Try to keep it to one page. You want to give journalists the facts, but leave them with the desire to call you and ask more questions.
At the bottom of the last page write three number symbols to indicate the end of the release: # # #
Below is a model press release made of the good examples provided.
NEWS RELEASE
Contact: John Jones at 111-123-4567 or jjones@mailco.com.
May 16, 2009. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Family devastated by drunk driver helps make state roads safer by winning four year legal fight.
[CAPITOL CITY] May 16, 2009. The family of Joan Smith who was killed in an infamous high-speed drunk driving accident on Highway 01 in 2005, prevailed after a four-year court battle. The Court of Appeals determined that the bartender who served the drunk driver more than 20 beers in a two hour period was partly responsible for the fiery 100mph crash that killed Joan Smith and the drunk driver, as well as injuring four other motorists, closing Highway 01 for more than six hours and making national news.”
“Nothing can bring Joan back to us but she would be proud to know that because of her, people are safer as they travel with their families,” explained Mom Smith, Joan’s mother. “ We miss Joan terribly but now we feel like justice has been done and no other family will have to face losing a daughter like we did.”
On June 18, 2005 only one week after she graduated from Local High School Joan Smith was driving northbound on Highway 01 on her way to choir practice at Westside Church. Her car was struck head-on at over 100 mph by a pickup driven by 48-year-old unemployed plumber Joe Malcontent. According to police Malcontent had been drinking at the Skid Row Tavern since 8 am that day and had reported consumed ‘at least 20’ beers in the two hours before he killed Smith..
The fiery explosion injured four other motorists and required police close all four lanes of Highway 01 for over six hours. The crash, explosion and fire were so devastating that the incident made national news and encouraged Governor Terminator to call for stricter drunk driving laws.
Attorney for the family, Mike Witherspoon, explained that the case represented not only a win for the family, but a saner, safer reading of the laws meant to keep drunk drivers off the road. “Families win,” Witherspoon said.
# # #
Remember, the purpose of a news release is to give journalists enough facts so that they can decide if there is a story. You also want to leave them with the desire to ask follow up questions and to get ‘the rest of the story” from you.
While communications professionals can and do endlessly debate the finer points, the basics of a news release are simple.
Heading: Your heading needs to be the most interesting summary of the facts you can craft into a sentence. Write as if you were explaining it to a neighbor, not summarizing it for a law review article. The headline should be in boldface and maybe a font size or two larger than the body of the news release.
--Do this: “Family devastated by drunk driver helps make state roads safer after winning four year legal fight.”
--Not this: “Circuit Court decision clarifies contested issue of exception to state dram shop law.”
Lead, or first, paragraph. A more comprehensive version of the heading. Include all the details [5 ‘W’s: Who, What, Where, Why, When and How] Two or three sentences at most. And write in English about subject/predicate forms that average people recognize, not in Black’s Law terminology.
Write this short paragraph as if it might be the only thing a reader ever knows about the news item. That very well could be the case.
--Do this: “The family of Joan Smith, who was killed in an infamous drunk driving accident on Highway 01 in 2005, prevailed after a four year court battle. The Court of Appeals determined that the bartender who served the drunk driver more than 20 beers in a two hour period was partly responsible for the fiery 100mph crash that killed Joan Smith and the drunk driver, as well as injuring four other motorists, closing Highway 01 for more than six hours and making national news.”
--Not this: “After following a line of cases that narrowly interpreted the part-time-worker exception to the state’s model dram shop liability statute Judge Judy rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $1.167 million dollars plus court costs and interest.”
Quote. Include at least one quote from someone involved in the news item. Readers want to hear from those who experienced the news item. Journalists and editors want to provide this for their readers. Try to quote a “real person” [i.e.: not you the attorney] but a quote from you is much better than no quote at all. Again, speak plain English..
--Do this: “No one should have to go through what this family experienced, but they not only kept fighting for their daughter’s memory, they changed the law so that we are all safer due to their efforts,” Mike Witherspoon, legal counsel for the family.
--Not this: “Now that the State Supreme Court has refused cert this $1.2 million verdict establishes that dram shop liability is still a viable civil disincentive to businesses who might enabling those who would drink and drive,” Attorney M. Witherspoon, II, Esq..
--Best: “Nothing can bring Joan back to us but she would be proud to know that because of her, people are safer as they travel with their families,” explained Mom Smith, Joan’s mother. “We miss Joan terribly but now we feel like justice has been done and no other family will have to face losing a daughter like we did.”
Two or three additional paragraphs giving more depth. Include background like biographical details of people involved, interesting facts, and some context.
--Do this: “On June 18, 2005 only one week after she graduated from Local High School Joan Smith was driving northbound on Highway 01 on her way to choir practice at Westside Church. Her car was struck head-on at over 100 mph by a pickup driven by 48-year-old unemployed plumber Joe Malcontent. According to police, Malcontent had been drinking at the Skid Row Tavern since 8 am and had reported consumed ‘at least 20’ beers in the two hours before he killed Smith. The fiery explosion injured four other motorists and required police close all four lanes of Highway 01 for over six hours. The crash, explosion and fire were so devastating that the incident made national news and encouraged Governor Terminator to call for stricter drunk driving laws. Attorney for the family Mike Witherspoon explained that the case represented not only a win for the family, but a saner, safer reading of the laws meant to keep drunk drivers off the road. “Families win,” Witherspoon said.”
--Not this: “The last decade has seen the erosion of dram shop liability in State much to the chagrin of those who saw such liability as a structural disincentive to drinking and driving. The 2003 Court of Appeals decision in Victim v Lucky’s Tavern was interpreted by most judges to create a broad temporary worker exception to State’s dram shop liability, so much so that in many cases those who hold liquor licenses have been accused of creating faux ‘temporary’ positions merely to escape liability. [See: Difficult Issues with the Temporary Worker Exception to Dramshop in State. 311 UX Law, 12; 136-157; (2005)]”
Contact information, form and convention.
At the beginning of the lead paragraph put the city where the news event took place in capital letters, in brackets, to let journalists know the geographic area of the news item. Like this: [CAPITOL CITY]. This is an old journalism convention so just do it that way without giving it too much thought.
Above the headline at the top of the page include your phone number and email address, or the phone and email of the person who will speak to the media. It should look like this: CONTACT: John Jones at 111-123-4567 or jjones@mailco.com.
At the top of the page write: “News Release.”
Date the news release by either including today’s date and the phrase, “For Immediate Release,” or if you want the news item delayed you would write, “embargoed until” the date you have in mind. Don’t embargo your news release just to be cute.
News releases are teasers, not theses. Try to keep it to one page. You want to give journalists the facts, but leave them with the desire to call you and ask more questions.
At the bottom of the last page write three number symbols to indicate the end of the release: # # #
Below is a model press release made of the good examples provided.
NEWS RELEASE
Contact: John Jones at 111-123-4567 or jjones@mailco.com.
May 16, 2009. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Family devastated by drunk driver helps make state roads safer by winning four year legal fight.
[CAPITOL CITY] May 16, 2009. The family of Joan Smith who was killed in an infamous high-speed drunk driving accident on Highway 01 in 2005, prevailed after a four-year court battle. The Court of Appeals determined that the bartender who served the drunk driver more than 20 beers in a two hour period was partly responsible for the fiery 100mph crash that killed Joan Smith and the drunk driver, as well as injuring four other motorists, closing Highway 01 for more than six hours and making national news.”
“Nothing can bring Joan back to us but she would be proud to know that because of her, people are safer as they travel with their families,” explained Mom Smith, Joan’s mother. “ We miss Joan terribly but now we feel like justice has been done and no other family will have to face losing a daughter like we did.”
On June 18, 2005 only one week after she graduated from Local High School Joan Smith was driving northbound on Highway 01 on her way to choir practice at Westside Church. Her car was struck head-on at over 100 mph by a pickup driven by 48-year-old unemployed plumber Joe Malcontent. According to police Malcontent had been drinking at the Skid Row Tavern since 8 am that day and had reported consumed ‘at least 20’ beers in the two hours before he killed Smith..
The fiery explosion injured four other motorists and required police close all four lanes of Highway 01 for over six hours. The crash, explosion and fire were so devastating that the incident made national news and encouraged Governor Terminator to call for stricter drunk driving laws.
Attorney for the family, Mike Witherspoon, explained that the case represented not only a win for the family, but a saner, safer reading of the laws meant to keep drunk drivers off the road. “Families win,” Witherspoon said.
# # #
What is "news" anyway?"
"I know it when I see it" might serve as well to define "news" as it served Justice Potter Stewart to define pornography.
Some media pros cynically say that "news" is whatever an editor or news anchor says it is that day [sort of like the old saw about the law being whatever the last judge said it was]*.
There is truth in that perspective and you can learn something critical from it: News is not necessarily information that ranks high on any objectively measurable scale of historical significance or importance.
But, true or not, that isn't very useful in your quest to make your firm's stories into "news." So here is a more helpful definition to help guide your media and public relations strategy and frame your messages.
News is information of particular interest to the audience of the media outlet you are targeting.
Look at that a bit closer. Notice the key criteria is not any external definition of importance or value: instead it is audience-dependant. If the audience doesn't care about the information then it really does not matter if you care, or if I care. It isn't news.
The other variable in the definition is also critical. News is only news to the particular audience of the media outlet you are targeting. Doesn't that seem obvious? But it is often overlooked. The audience for USA Today is not the same as the audience for the New England Journal of Medicine or MSNBC or The O'Reilly Factor or The New Yorker.
A misunderstanding of those two points accounts for the bulk of failed media outreach. This is just as true for professional publicists as it is of people like you who just want to spark a story about their firm. Each day tens of thousands of press releases are sent to the wrong media outlets and an equal number of phone calls are placed to the wrong busy journalists.
In a previous post I noted that your new associate hire is not news to the largest TV station in a city of two million people. Neither is your remodeled board room, your new marquee sign or your charity golf outing with the local Lions Club.
On the other hand, any one of these firm events might be news to your local weekly community shopper paper or local bar association.
Remember: "information of particular interest to the audience of the news outlet'
What about your brilliant 2500 word article on the latest developments in the right of publicity? Not news to the TV station nor to the weekly shopper. But your state bar association or a special interest bar journal might decide that article is just what they have been looking for.
Target your media audience and your news toward one another. Aim them at one another and correct course en route.
What is trash to one media outlet might be a front page, above the fold, #1 story hit to another one.
You want that other one.
*["News" isn't even necessarily new, as we all know from annual stories like "back to school" and "tuition is rising" and similar. Sometimes people like to hear about things they already know.]
Some media pros cynically say that "news" is whatever an editor or news anchor says it is that day [sort of like the old saw about the law being whatever the last judge said it was]*.
There is truth in that perspective and you can learn something critical from it: News is not necessarily information that ranks high on any objectively measurable scale of historical significance or importance.
But, true or not, that isn't very useful in your quest to make your firm's stories into "news." So here is a more helpful definition to help guide your media and public relations strategy and frame your messages.
News is information of particular interest to the audience of the media outlet you are targeting.
Look at that a bit closer. Notice the key criteria is not any external definition of importance or value: instead it is audience-dependant. If the audience doesn't care about the information then it really does not matter if you care, or if I care. It isn't news.
The other variable in the definition is also critical. News is only news to the particular audience of the media outlet you are targeting. Doesn't that seem obvious? But it is often overlooked. The audience for USA Today is not the same as the audience for the New England Journal of Medicine or MSNBC or The O'Reilly Factor or The New Yorker.
A misunderstanding of those two points accounts for the bulk of failed media outreach. This is just as true for professional publicists as it is of people like you who just want to spark a story about their firm. Each day tens of thousands of press releases are sent to the wrong media outlets and an equal number of phone calls are placed to the wrong busy journalists.
In a previous post I noted that your new associate hire is not news to the largest TV station in a city of two million people. Neither is your remodeled board room, your new marquee sign or your charity golf outing with the local Lions Club.
On the other hand, any one of these firm events might be news to your local weekly community shopper paper or local bar association.
Remember: "information of particular interest to the audience of the news outlet'
What about your brilliant 2500 word article on the latest developments in the right of publicity? Not news to the TV station nor to the weekly shopper. But your state bar association or a special interest bar journal might decide that article is just what they have been looking for.
Target your media audience and your news toward one another. Aim them at one another and correct course en route.
What is trash to one media outlet might be a front page, above the fold, #1 story hit to another one.
You want that other one.
*["News" isn't even necessarily new, as we all know from annual stories like "back to school" and "tuition is rising" and similar. Sometimes people like to hear about things they already know.]
Crisis communication: #2
This is part two in an ongoing series on "crisis communications."
To read part one: Crisis Communications #1
As I explained in part #1, "crisis communications" is a term of art in the media and PR business. It refers to handling the media and public opinion in an emergency. Sort of like those in-case-of-fire escape plans we are all supposed to create for home and office, but usually don't.
You need such a plan. Our first step to creating your crisis communications plan was to designate both a spokesperson and a backup spokesperson who will be your only conduit to the media and public during the crisis. This minimizes the change for contradiction and other problems. [See "Crisis Communication #1]
Step 1: Designate a spokesperson, and a backup.
If you are a solo practitioner this is not a problem, right? Wrong. Even if you are a solo, you need to go through these steps. There are still people in your life and your practice who have to be part of your plan.
When bad news hits the spinning blades journalists and others [police? worried clients? insurance adjusters? ] will frantically start trying to make contact. They might call you. Or they might call your receptionist, your landlord, your family, or your part time law school intern.
Do you want your part time law school intern struggling to answer delicate questions about your practice on your behalf out of a misplaced sense of loyalty?
Designate one person who is the ONLY person who can speak on behalf of the firm in a crisis. Make this clear to all. One person talks. No one else. Make sure everyone knows this and has the contact information for that person. Make sure everyone knows to not be rude to the media. Just tell them you can't speak for the firm and pass the contact along.
Now your intern, your legal secretary, your kids, your spouse, your law partners and your landlord all have clear instructions not to talk on your behalf about the crisis. Right?
Next, designate a backup person. Why? In case your spokesperson can't be reached. Let's say your spokesperson is the nexus of the emergency. Lost in a plane crash, washed off the deck of a cruise boat, kidnapped by terrorists, incarcerated out of state, on vacation or just stranded with a dead cell phone battery. Whatever the case may be.
Make sure your back-up person is someone you'd want speaking on behalf of the firm. Think of this as the equivalent of naming a PR or granting POA. This person could save you or kill you. Make sure it is someone you can trust.
And make darn sure your spokesperson speaks. It does no good to designate a spokesperson who does nothing.
Now you have a spokesperson. What should that person do?
Next: Crisis Communication #3
To read part one: Crisis Communications #1
As I explained in part #1, "crisis communications" is a term of art in the media and PR business. It refers to handling the media and public opinion in an emergency. Sort of like those in-case-of-fire escape plans we are all supposed to create for home and office, but usually don't.
You need such a plan. Our first step to creating your crisis communications plan was to designate both a spokesperson and a backup spokesperson who will be your only conduit to the media and public during the crisis. This minimizes the change for contradiction and other problems. [See "Crisis Communication #1]
Step 1: Designate a spokesperson, and a backup.
If you are a solo practitioner this is not a problem, right? Wrong. Even if you are a solo, you need to go through these steps. There are still people in your life and your practice who have to be part of your plan.
When bad news hits the spinning blades journalists and others [police? worried clients? insurance adjusters? ] will frantically start trying to make contact. They might call you. Or they might call your receptionist, your landlord, your family, or your part time law school intern.
Do you want your part time law school intern struggling to answer delicate questions about your practice on your behalf out of a misplaced sense of loyalty?
Designate one person who is the ONLY person who can speak on behalf of the firm in a crisis. Make this clear to all. One person talks. No one else. Make sure everyone knows this and has the contact information for that person. Make sure everyone knows to not be rude to the media. Just tell them you can't speak for the firm and pass the contact along.
Now your intern, your legal secretary, your kids, your spouse, your law partners and your landlord all have clear instructions not to talk on your behalf about the crisis. Right?
Next, designate a backup person. Why? In case your spokesperson can't be reached. Let's say your spokesperson is the nexus of the emergency. Lost in a plane crash, washed off the deck of a cruise boat, kidnapped by terrorists, incarcerated out of state, on vacation or just stranded with a dead cell phone battery. Whatever the case may be.
Make sure your back-up person is someone you'd want speaking on behalf of the firm. Think of this as the equivalent of naming a PR or granting POA. This person could save you or kill you. Make sure it is someone you can trust.
And make darn sure your spokesperson speaks. It does no good to designate a spokesperson who does nothing.
Now you have a spokesperson. What should that person do?
Next: Crisis Communication #3
Crisis communications: #1 in a series
"Crisis communications" is a term of art in the media and PR business.
It refers to handling the media and public opinion in an emergency. Sort of like those in-case-of-fire escape plans we are all supposed to create for home and office, but usually don't.
Unlike the case of the rare but catastrophic fire, however, I can assure you that you will experience the much more frequent and just as catastrophic media or public relations emergency. It will happen.
"But I don't handle those high profile cases," many attorneys tell me. "So why would I ever need to worry about that?"
Why? As I explained in a previous post, 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 and the public might become interested in you and your firm in the context of any of these roles, or all of them. Or for some not-so-obvious and less pleasant reasons.
Like these. Your contentious divorce that includes [certainly unfounded] 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 unfortunate attorneys I know who never thought they might need to worry about things like media relations or a crisis communication plan.
At some point you will have a need for crisis communications.
What to do? Take a few simple steps and be ready.
[And get to work on that fire escape plan, too!]
[See Crisis Communications #2]
It refers to handling the media and public opinion in an emergency. Sort of like those in-case-of-fire escape plans we are all supposed to create for home and office, but usually don't.
Unlike the case of the rare but catastrophic fire, however, I can assure you that you will experience the much more frequent and just as catastrophic media or public relations emergency. It will happen.
"But I don't handle those high profile cases," many attorneys tell me. "So why would I ever need to worry about that?"
Why? As I explained in a previous post, 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 and the public might become interested in you and your firm in the context of any of these roles, or all of them. Or for some not-so-obvious and less pleasant reasons.
Like these. Your contentious divorce that includes [certainly unfounded] 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 unfortunate attorneys I know who never thought they might need to worry about things like media relations or a crisis communication plan.
At some point you will have a need for crisis communications.
What to do? Take a few simple steps and be ready.
[And get to work on that fire escape plan, too!]
[See Crisis Communications #2]
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.
Real news --don't cry wolf.
Sometimes it is tough to face facts. Your firm's newly remodeled board room is not headline news to the general public.
Other examples of what is not stop-the-presses headline news include: your new associate; your firm's foursome golf score at the Lions Club fundraiser, and; your nifty new marque sign.
Such happenings are interesting to you and to your firm. Put them in the firm newsletter. Some of them might even be interesting to others in the legal community [a new associate is hired] or your local community paper [the Lions Club outing]. Let the bar association know about the new associate and send the weekly shopper paper a photo of your foursome [with you all holding that three-foot-long fundraising check].
But these happenings are not "news" to the public and you should not try to fluff them up to make them appear to be news. You will fail.
If you cry wolf and try to convince TV cameras to mobilize for such occasions you will lose credibility, annoy the media, jeopardize your relationship with them and the reputation you are working hard to build.
I have thrown away many hundreds of news releases based solely on the sender and my past bad experience with that sender. After having wasting precious time reading weekly, boring, lengthy, self-promotional announcements of "events" so excruciatingly mundane they likely bored even the participants, I just gave up on that source for good. If such a firm were to announce they were handing out $100 bills on the sidewalk no one from the media would show up because no one in the media reads their releases anymore. Or takes their calls.
If you are caught crying wolf the media will treat you like a pompous windbag at a cocktail party--avoid you, ignore you and likely ridicule you from outside of earshot.
My newsroom knew of such serial offenders. Firms and publicists who clogged our in-boxes and fax machines with drivel became the butt of office jokes. A joking reporter might burst into the lunch room in feigned breathlessness waving a faxed release from such a firm and exclaim, "Did you hear?? Tweedle & Dumm has added an additional part-time receptionist to its satellite office in Small City!!" and the reporters at the lunch table would burst into laughter.
Don't become that firm.
Does that mean law firms can't earn media coverage? Absolutely not. There are an amazing array of possibilities for getting earned media for your firm.
But attorneys must be realistic about what is "news" [and in what target media a particular event or announcement is newsworthy].
If you want coverage in the mass media you must only promote your most interesting events in the freshest and most engaging fashion. Find the "news hook" and create an engaging story that will cause an editor to read the second paragraph, or a channel surfing soccer mom to watch the rest of the spot.
Otherwise you could end up being the subject of newsroom jokes rather than front page coverage.
Other examples of what is not stop-the-presses headline news include: your new associate; your firm's foursome golf score at the Lions Club fundraiser, and; your nifty new marque sign.
Such happenings are interesting to you and to your firm. Put them in the firm newsletter. Some of them might even be interesting to others in the legal community [a new associate is hired] or your local community paper [the Lions Club outing]. Let the bar association know about the new associate and send the weekly shopper paper a photo of your foursome [with you all holding that three-foot-long fundraising check].
But these happenings are not "news" to the public and you should not try to fluff them up to make them appear to be news. You will fail.
If you cry wolf and try to convince TV cameras to mobilize for such occasions you will lose credibility, annoy the media, jeopardize your relationship with them and the reputation you are working hard to build.
I have thrown away many hundreds of news releases based solely on the sender and my past bad experience with that sender. After having wasting precious time reading weekly, boring, lengthy, self-promotional announcements of "events" so excruciatingly mundane they likely bored even the participants, I just gave up on that source for good. If such a firm were to announce they were handing out $100 bills on the sidewalk no one from the media would show up because no one in the media reads their releases anymore. Or takes their calls.
If you are caught crying wolf the media will treat you like a pompous windbag at a cocktail party--avoid you, ignore you and likely ridicule you from outside of earshot.
My newsroom knew of such serial offenders. Firms and publicists who clogged our in-boxes and fax machines with drivel became the butt of office jokes. A joking reporter might burst into the lunch room in feigned breathlessness waving a faxed release from such a firm and exclaim, "Did you hear?? Tweedle & Dumm has added an additional part-time receptionist to its satellite office in Small City!!" and the reporters at the lunch table would burst into laughter.
Don't become that firm.
Does that mean law firms can't earn media coverage? Absolutely not. There are an amazing array of possibilities for getting earned media for your firm.
But attorneys must be realistic about what is "news" [and in what target media a particular event or announcement is newsworthy].
If you want coverage in the mass media you must only promote your most interesting events in the freshest and most engaging fashion. Find the "news hook" and create an engaging story that will cause an editor to read the second paragraph, or a channel surfing soccer mom to watch the rest of the spot.
Otherwise you could end up being the subject of newsroom jokes rather than front page coverage.
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.
"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.
Helping the media --an example of relationship building
When I received the voice mail from a wire service journalist I was home ill with some sort of summer cold/viral ick. I had a headache, my throat was sore, my chest full of flem and I "sounded like a duck" [according to one of my kids]. I had slept for most of 24 hours.
The journalist was putting together a national story on a critical legal issue. Those on the "other side" of the issue had already commented, taking the opportunity to swipe at "us" [the perspective I was representing]. The story needed a balancing comment from our side in order to run. The deadline was looming. The journalist left me a cell phone number.
It was Friday at 4:35pm and I'd been out of my office all day, ill. Could I find someone credible to offer a suitable comment?
I was tempted to pretend I hadn't received the voice mail and to go back to sleep. Instead I started making calls. While I called I was sketching out talking points on the back of an envelope. After fifteen minutes of frantic dialing I was batting .000. No one I trusted to say the right thing could be reached that late on a Friday. It was approaching 5:00pm. So I picked the phone up one last time and called the journalist.
I was honest. Yes I wanted to help but couldn't locate anyone this late in the day. I'd be happy to make a comment myself if needed. My talking points were ready. What could I do to help?
As often happens in the news business, things had changed. The story had morphed and they needed a comment from another group now. The journalist was grateful, but moving on to other things. I reiterated my willingness to help, gave the journalist my cell phone number, and with no small measure of relief I got off the phone.
Checking email I found three emails from that journalist dating back to the morning. Ouch. I really had dropped the ball. But I couldn't help being ill and had done my best to help.
As long as I was at the computer I quickly typed my talking points on the issue and spent a few minutes polishing them --just in case-- until I felt satisfied. Most newsworthy issues never go away. I knew these talking points would come in handy again. I signed off and went back to bed.
On Sunday I received two voice mails. Office and then cell phone. Both from the same journalist. That story had been on hold for two days waiting for another source. That other source had failed to follow through and was no longer returning calls. The journalist was at the airport ready to board a plane. The story needed a comment to run and if it did not run that day it would die. They would even reframe the story to make my comment fit. The journalist had worked on this story for a week and it was in danger of dying! Could I help?!?
I fired up my email while I called the journalist's cell phone. I was forwarding my previously-polished talking points as I listened to the journalist's story again in real time. I sent the email to the journalist as we spoke. The comments were reviewed and I was told "they were perfect." The whole thing took about five minutes.
The story ran. The first hit was in the Chicago Tribune. The next was Forbes. More than two dozen other major hits followed and innumerable secondary market hits. Then the blogs got it. A Google news search for my name the next day found my name and that article in the number one spot and sprinkled down the pages thereafter. That would be called great coverage.
But the best part for me was the journalists' reaction. I received four follow up emails thanking me for taking the call, for following up, for preparing the comments, and mostly for my willingness to do what was necessary to help save that story. I even received a "get well soon" message.
You tell me. Did my fifteen minutes sick-day work result in a long term media relationship that will pay off for years to come?
That was a rhetorical question. The answer is "yes!"
The journalist was putting together a national story on a critical legal issue. Those on the "other side" of the issue had already commented, taking the opportunity to swipe at "us" [the perspective I was representing]. The story needed a balancing comment from our side in order to run. The deadline was looming. The journalist left me a cell phone number.
It was Friday at 4:35pm and I'd been out of my office all day, ill. Could I find someone credible to offer a suitable comment?
I was tempted to pretend I hadn't received the voice mail and to go back to sleep. Instead I started making calls. While I called I was sketching out talking points on the back of an envelope. After fifteen minutes of frantic dialing I was batting .000. No one I trusted to say the right thing could be reached that late on a Friday. It was approaching 5:00pm. So I picked the phone up one last time and called the journalist.
I was honest. Yes I wanted to help but couldn't locate anyone this late in the day. I'd be happy to make a comment myself if needed. My talking points were ready. What could I do to help?
As often happens in the news business, things had changed. The story had morphed and they needed a comment from another group now. The journalist was grateful, but moving on to other things. I reiterated my willingness to help, gave the journalist my cell phone number, and with no small measure of relief I got off the phone.
Checking email I found three emails from that journalist dating back to the morning. Ouch. I really had dropped the ball. But I couldn't help being ill and had done my best to help.
As long as I was at the computer I quickly typed my talking points on the issue and spent a few minutes polishing them --just in case-- until I felt satisfied. Most newsworthy issues never go away. I knew these talking points would come in handy again. I signed off and went back to bed.
On Sunday I received two voice mails. Office and then cell phone. Both from the same journalist. That story had been on hold for two days waiting for another source. That other source had failed to follow through and was no longer returning calls. The journalist was at the airport ready to board a plane. The story needed a comment to run and if it did not run that day it would die. They would even reframe the story to make my comment fit. The journalist had worked on this story for a week and it was in danger of dying! Could I help?!?
I fired up my email while I called the journalist's cell phone. I was forwarding my previously-polished talking points as I listened to the journalist's story again in real time. I sent the email to the journalist as we spoke. The comments were reviewed and I was told "they were perfect." The whole thing took about five minutes.
The story ran. The first hit was in the Chicago Tribune. The next was Forbes. More than two dozen other major hits followed and innumerable secondary market hits. Then the blogs got it. A Google news search for my name the next day found my name and that article in the number one spot and sprinkled down the pages thereafter. That would be called great coverage.
But the best part for me was the journalists' reaction. I received four follow up emails thanking me for taking the call, for following up, for preparing the comments, and mostly for my willingness to do what was necessary to help save that story. I even received a "get well soon" message.
You tell me. Did my fifteen minutes sick-day work result in a long term media relationship that will pay off for years to come?
That was a rhetorical question. The answer is "yes!"
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
