A raft of “I don’t want my children to be happy”  headlines followed.

Really? Surely not. Well, no.

This seems to have been a classic case of the reporter “cherry picking” from the many quotes.

So what did Kirsty really say? She maintains it was something quite different, as you can hear (after about 2’37).

All very unfortunate, but there’s an important point here for every media interviewee: you may find the thought of appearing live on Sky News or BBC Radio 4’s Today programme quite daunting, but so often more damage can be done in a print interview. Potentially you have far less control – after all, you could say 1000 words and the journalist might use a mere 100.  And THEY select which ones, not you.

So how do you lessen the chances of being caught out like Kirsty? Consider choosing a media trainer who will put you through print interview scenarios and will then produce an article based on those, coupled with some detailed feedback, not just let you hear a recording of the interview – that is only half the story.

Just ask Kirsty.

This is terrible news!

Why? Well, just in the sense that as the journalist co-conducting their media training, it was much harder to come up with any “dirt” to throw at them during mock media interviews.

This is highly unusual; even the most cursory half-hour Google search on companies usually throws up something negative on the news “radar” – an example of fraud, insider trading, a product recall, disappointing annual results, controversial expansion plans, industrial tribunal, an environmental disaster…

Yet with this client I was faced with almost a  total of one big fat zero.

But wait…I like a challenge and refused to give up.

As a journalist always looking for the “3Cs” – Crisis, Conflict and Controversy – I still grilled them on a major issue facing their industry. This meant the executive delegates went away confident they could handle a truly challenging topic, should the media ever come knocking, rather than swaggering out the door, basking in the warm glow of complacency.

So the key point here is that successful companies, which really walk the walk of corporate governance, not just talk about it, are smart enough to continue to have training to keep them sharp and bang “on message” about what they do. Refusing to rest on their proverbial laurels is just one more factor that contributes to that on-going success.

Of course there will always be companies, which only seek help in dealing with the media when issues begin to unravel. But my work with this particularly successful client shows you don’t stop reporters digging up the dirt by taking away their shovels; you prevent dirt forming in the first place.

This multinational company is Proof that Perfect Preparation Prevents a Poor Performance.

Or, put more succinctly: 6Ps – 3Cs = A+

If you plan to address the public via the media, you need to be absolutely clear about the points you want to make, regardless of the questions fired at you. After all, the occasion should be viewed as an opportunity, not as a favour to a media outlet.

Mr Perry wanted to highlight the US government departments he would abolish if elected president, but his error was stressing the number – in this case three. Alas, an attack of ‘brain freeze’ – which, let’s face it, can happen to anyone – meant he could not recall the third. The impact of this was huge and the underlying impression the cringing viewers probably had was, “If this guy can’t even recall three government departments, how can we expect him to run the country?”

The solution if you find yourself in a similar debating setting or in a media interview? Don’t be too specific. Say something along the lines of, “There are some key areas/departments/issues I want to focus on and they are….” This is good for two reasons – the audience won’t be aware if you go on to forget some of them and the person interviewing you won’t fear you have a lengthy list of points to make and feel a huge temptation to interrupt.

Er, I had a third reason…but well, you know the rest….

(Here an image of toys arcing skyward from a pram springs to mind.)

If true, this seems an utterly daft decision for four reasons:

1. PRs and the media operate on a two-way street, even if some people see them at either ends of that road, while others seek to make them cosy neighbours. Put simply, we frequently need each other (even if we journalists hate to admit it). So pity the next poor council employee who wants the city to know all about what he or she has done to enhance the lives of Merseysiders. They might just find local journalists are too busy covering something else…anything else in fact.
2. The local media might well take a disproportionate interest in the council’s opposition, or frankly anyone who doesn’t have a good word to say about the council. It’s along the lines of “My enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Churlish perhaps, childish maybe, but newspapers are nothing if not a practice unto themselves.
3. There’s nothing an investigative journalist likes more than a cage that’s been rattled and they just can’t resist rattling it a bit harder…again…and again.
4. Finally, it garners a whole heap of negative publicity. The move has come in for significant criticism and ridicule, which simply serves to put the council in the spotlight again, with other councils, media pundits and the people of Liverpool taking a long, hard look. 

Now, don’t forget to check out the council’s comment… on not making comments…

So, in brief (something that Murdoch Snr’s responses were, but Junior’s often were not) here are a selection:

-         James wanted to make an apology and Rupert was so desperate to convey his humility, he immediately interrupted his son. Yes, humility is good, but apologies which come very late and seem “shoe-horned” into an interview do not work and can even backfire.

-         repeating the question can buy the interviewee time. James did this on many occasions, often, it seemed, when the question was particularly tough. Don’t over-use.

-         when the line of questioning does not chime with what the interviewee wants to say, bridge to key messages. James did this with phrases such as, “…but what I can say is…”. It’s so much better than saying, “I can’t answer that” and then stopping, which simply invites another hostile question.

-         maintain good eye contact. Again, James was fine with this and looked directly his at his questioner and he also looked right around the table when making a longer statement. Murdoch Snr, however, spent far too much time looking at the table.

-         phrases like, “I don’t know about that”, “I don’t have the specifics on that” and “I’m not aware of the technicalities” will suggest you are not in control or are out of the loop if over used.

-         when interviewers want to pin you down, watch out for the “grandmother’s footsteps” question. We heard it today when the Murdochs were asked how much NoTW executives, who have resigned or lost their  jobs, been paid: “£10 million?….£5 million?”. It’s a technique used for anything that can be quantified and often nudges an interviewee into saying more than they might want to.

-  finally, never repeatedly bang the table. Obvious. 

At the end of a critical day for two of the world’s biggest media players, there were lessons – good and bad – for anyone who might find themselves in the media spotlight, even if its glare probably won’t be as bright as this one.

As for how to handle a “custard pie” during an interview, well…

Like most people, but especially as a tabloid journalist, I’m saddened by it. Yes, journalists have always gone to extraordinary lengths to get a story, but there are, or should be, limits.

Most Fleet Street writers will admit that the way we frequently set about finding and writing up stories can be devious and cunning, but I’m not sure we’ve ever pretended otherwise, which is why in those league tables for “Most Hated Professions” we’re usually keeping estate agents and traffic wardens company.

But let’s not forget that every day the public has the chance to give its view on whether it likes the way journalists operate: it’s called buying a newspaper. Or not.

What the last few days have shown and will continue to show – especially in the newsagents this Sunday morning – is the public will not tolerate the downright disgraceful. And nor will many journalists.

Some people suspect the practice of phone hacking was far more widespread in “Fleet Street” and, although I was never aware of it going on when I was at the Daily Express, I’d be surprised if it was just confined to the News of the World. But I’m sure it was thankfully not the norm.

Yet national newspaper journalists spend every day pushing, probing, ducking, diving and delving to create attention-grabbing stories, usually going as far as we can with what we have. I’ll never forget hearing one editor say to the night lawyer, as the ’paper was about to go to press, “Don’t tell me what I can and cannot print…tell me what I can get away with.”!

It would be a sorry outcome though if this scandal becomes a witch-hunt, an excuse to bash ALL hacks, or perhaps a way to hobble the media.

We have arguably the most free press in the world. Unlike in some countries, we don’t have to give “copy approval” to those we quote, and we’re taught not to be deferential or cowed. We’re pushy, insistent and demanding. And long may we be so.

Journalists are no more “all the same” than any other profession. Just as there are good teachers and bad, fine plumbers and dreadful ones, so the media has brilliant operators, as well as the appalling.

It’s the good ones who have reported accurately on the wrongs or crimes of others; who have made a CEO own up to an environmental disaster, uncovered abuse in an old people’s home, or exposed child labour in a “sweatshop”.

If nothing else, let’s hope everyone – including those quick to condemn journalists,  as well as the reporters themselves – takes a fresh look at how we operate and re-examines what kind of newspaper stories the readers want.

Oh, one more thing: a good story must always have the key ingredient of timing. Arch cynics may point out that, at precisely the time an announcement was due on Murdoch’s possible BSkyB takeover, perhaps the only story that could stall it hit the front pages. News of hacking into the phones of politicians and celebrities didn’t reach a sufficient level of opprobrium to achieve it; no, it was only when the story about hacking into Milly Dowler’s phone broke, a delay began to look inevitable.

For years many people have had their own reasons for wanting to rein in Mr Murdoch, but have lacked the courage or power to do so.

But the public outrage at the latest developments has tipped the balance and made it possible. It has arguably given those who could not bring themselves to take him on before, the justification or excuse to do so now, perhaps sheltering behind the shield of national disgust at the same time.

Who knows where this whole hideous saga will lead – every hour seems to bring a new revelation – but, as a reader and journalist, I still want reporters to be fully paid-up members of the awkward squad, committed to uncovering good stories.

But those stories should never come at any price.

But if you should be invited on to the programme (or any news programme for that matter), remember, you’re not there to do the presenters a favour.

If you merely satisfy every question with a quick response, there’s a very high chance you’ll have squandered an enormous opportunity.

And that’s just what we think Dr Bob Jones did yesterday.

Evan Davis interviewed him about a report from the NHS Information Centre, which shows that the number of young people getting Type 2 diabetes in England and Wales is growing.

Jones, the lead clinician in the audit, got off to a slow and hesitant start. First lesson: hit the ground running. (You can hear Davis is rather non-plussed by his answer and at this point the listener begins to feel a little anxious or uninterested.)

When it comes to the question about cost implications, Jones pretty much just repeats the question and it’s for Davis to put the cost into context and give us the attention-grabbing statistic. Second lesson: make sure you bridge to what you want to talk about, don’t simply be led.

Whether it was because the interview was very early in the day (6.50am) or he’d been so immersed in the report, that it no longer fired him up, Jones failed to convey passion for a subject that is probably very important to him. Third lesson: if you don’t sound excited about your subject, why should the listener be interested?

There was the distinct impression Jones did not have clear key messages to convey, which was why this was ultimately a missed opportunity. But, in his defence, perhaps he had little warning of the interview or went on reluctantly.

That said, I suspect he probably really kicked himself when he left the studio…or if he didn’t, the NHS Information Centre’s PR manager probably felt tempted.

I’m sure Dr Jones has some fascinating points to make about a report on a really interesting subject.

Let’s hope he has another opportunity to make them.

It’s the one that starts, “Oh, by the way Mr/Mrs So-And-So, while you’re here, what’s your take on the unfolding news story about….”

It should be feared by any interviewee because a) by this time he/she has already begun to relax and can almost hear the plaudits from the corporate comms team and b) it’s the one the PR exec has probably not briefed him/her to anticipate.

The journalist, on the other hand, has probably been trained to use the “final question” trick to elicit either another story, or perhaps the Really Big Story, rather than the one the interviewee thought would be making the headlines and which has filled the rest of the interview.

Today it was BBC Radio 4’s World at One host Martha Kearney’s turn to try the technique out on former Prime Minister Tony Blair. Have a listen at about 20 minutes into the programme.

Up until this point, in an interview about the political turmoil in Syria, Blair had done what he arguably does best in media interviews – say nothing of substance, whilst seemingly answering every question in a forthright manner.

Then Kearney tried the “While you’re here…” approach on what she rather comically termed “The Big Brown” question about the Tony-Gordy feud, currently making headlines, thanks to Ed Balls’ leaked documents.

But Blair recognised it for what it was (a nice big shovel with which to build a very big hole) and refused to grab it.

He’s not alone; many other interviewees, especially those who have had good media training, will spot it too and sidestep it probably more deftly and subtly than Mr Blair.

But now and again someone will “grab the shovel” and fall into a nice big hole of unfortunate quotes. And that’s why we journalists will keep asking the question. (Though as media trainers, we’ll also tell you how to handle it!)

So there you go, an insight into the tricks of the media trade.

Anyway, while you’re here reading this blog, can I just ask you about why you…….

He’s often criticised for being overly harsh on his interviewees and it’s not surprising some company spokespeople are media trained specifically to handle his probing – some might say extremely aggressive –  style.

But today he highlighted brilliantly how both a national spokesperson and a government minister can get an interview hopelessly wrong by committing basic errors.

The topic, Is Britain Prepared For Drought?, was about how the Government has declared some areas of England as being officially in a state of drought.

First up to discuss the matter was Craig Bennett of Friends of the Earth, followed by Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman.

Humphrys started by asking Bennett what he wanted the Government to do.

Instead, Bennett just listed what it hadn’t done, so Humphrys asked him the question once more. And again Bennett talked about the Government’s “precious little action”…to which JH asked in an exasperated tone, “To do what?!”. This was a gift of an opportunity for Bennett to tell the minister what he wanted her to do.

But no, instead it was squandered, thanks to marketing speak: “To put the long-term measures in place and have a strategic response,” responded Bennett. Eh?

At this point the nation surely had to be screaming, “GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU MEAN!” or, as JH put it, “Such as?”

Alas, Bennett talked about measures to end “unsustainable extraction”. What?! Thankfully JH translated for the listeners: “Stop taking water out of rivers and underground aquifers?” Quite.

After some more boiling down of what Bennett was trying to explain, JH turned, possibly out of sheer irritation, to Spelman.

But she too got off to a grim start, talking about prioritising water supplies.  Baffled, JH responded, “What does ‘prioritising water supplies’ mean?” After more decoding of her  “Sir Humphrey-speak”, when she should have been using plain, clear “John Humphrys-speak,” Spelman did at least offer one example about garden centres to illustrate her point.

But she then went on to refer to a “Peter Kendall” from an interview earlier in the programme. Pity those who’d missed it, who were then thinking “Who he?”. So JH stepped in to explain Kendall was from the National Farmers’ Union. Thanks John.

Spelman did seem to recover a little, but went on to speak of “extreme weather events”. Cue JH translation: “More droughts and floods in other words”!

(Okay, here’s a quick test: could what you say on the radio or TV be said over the fence to a neighbour? If not, don’t say it. Who in their right mind would tell Fred-next-door “Oooh, I think we’re in for some extreme weather event this summer”?!)

So what do we have here? Well, both interviewees spoke as if they were still stuck in a policy meeting at their headquarters, instead of placing themselves in the kitchens or cars of the listeners.

They missed a huge opportunity. All the time Humphrys spent translating their quotes could have been used to make additional (clear) points. And all that marketing/corporate babble made them sound remote and out of touch too. This is doubly disappointing when clearly both Bennett and Spelman had interesting points to make and are capable of being engaging, credible interviewees.

But they also largely failed to create examples, which would have instantly conveyed their key messages. Never forget radio is a very visual medium. Well, it is if you take the time to create “word pictures”.

Instead, with rare exceptions, their quotes about drought were well, as dry as an East Anglian field.

Once upon a time in Media-land, in between news bulletins, journalists chased ambulances and some would even hang their jackets on the back of their chairs and head to the pub…..and still have time to create brilliant copy.

This was also an era when public relations people helped clients craft beautifully-worded holding statements, mulled over key messages for days and drafted a press release or six for the client’s casual perusal.

Not any more.

Now Media-land is spinning so fast on its axis of news, it’s almost a blur and you can’t see the join between one news bulletin and the next. It’s a place where newspapers are pretty much out of date before they’ve even been printed.

So we all have to be more efficient and faster… just to keep up. But with speed comes error.

And of course we all make mistakes, even if we journalists may be ever so slightly reluctant to admit them. But when we have not only a national newspaper article to write, but also a piece for the website, a blog, perhaps a podcast and some qwertylicious tweets to bash out before mid-morning, please be understanding, if not forgiving.

It also explains why, when we’re under pressure, it’s the stupidity of others preventing us doing a half-decent job, that really winds us up.

But first let’s state for the record: there are many fantastic PRs and PR agencies.

What’s more we work with lots of them.

They’re the ones who understand exactly when our deadlines are, when to call, when not to call, and, above all, can spot an amazing story when it’s merely twinkling in their peripheral vision.

However,  just a trawl through yesterday’s offerings under the Twitter hashtag #PRFail show just how wrong others can be.

Check out these tweeted howlers:

• “Truly annoying: PR call claiming ‘big increase’ in use of a service. ‘How much?’ ‘They haven’t told me.’ DON’T MAKE THE CALL THEN”
• “If you want me to come to your event, emailing me at least 2x a day everyday is not the way to do it.”
• “‘I want to be featured in your magazine. I’m willing to pay but don’t want to buy an ad’.”
• “Just got an email from a PR with lots of facts & figures about their product, but no mention of what the product is”
• “‘Dear Publicist’ … My email has my name in it!”

And let’s not dwell on yesterday’s press release about a product to make your wellies lovely and clean….except they apparently didn’t  get the spelling of er, wellies quite right and implied they had a product for cleaning something rather more personal…

So, if you suspect your PR skills aren’t as sparkling as a freshly-washed wellington, we’d be delighted to run a general PR or a specific press release writing skills workshop  for you and offer top tips and key media insights.

Above all we won’t put the boot in…