When the news broke that Gen. Stanley McChrystal was being fired by President Obama, I was conducting training at the U.S. State Department on how to deal with the media. My yearly Media Training course is for senior-level diplomats at our embassies and consulates abroad. The two-day course covers aspects of appearing effectively in the media, as well as handling oneself in the face of reporters’ ploys and tactics.
On Day Two, I discuss the differences between television, radio, and print journalism. I also point out the unique perils of speaking to newspaper and magazine reporters. It was at precisely this point in the workshop that the McChrystal news broke.
What a teaching opportunity!
Adding to the relevance of the breaking story was the fact that two of the workshop participants were posted to the Middle East-Southwest Asia region. These are diplomats for whom events in Afghanistan have a direct and immediate impact.
So what is the lesson I teach regarding handling oneself with a print reporter? There are three critical concerns:
Print Media Have Time to Burn (You)
Print reporters usually have more time to spend with sources than T.V. and radio journalists. Broadcast deadlines are relentless and fixed: If the news breaks today, then the story must be fully in place for the six o’clock news, the on-the-hour radio broadcast, the signature political show on cable, or the Sunday morning talk shows. The 24-hour news cycle is voracious. It demands tasty tidbits and the freshest ingredients for its entrees, and it will not hesitate to suction all such fodder into its maw.
Newspapers and magazines create banquets with slower-cooked, richer dishes. Print journalists often have the time to conduct research on their subject or interviewee. They may be part of a “spotlight” or investigative team that works months on a story. Since they don’t face La Broadcast Dame sans Merci, print reporters can often afford time to educate themselves on a story--and subsequently may question their sources more knowledgeably and precisely.
Print Reporters Can Hang (You)
Here, perhaps, lies the greatest danger for sources, as Gen. McChrystal and his subordinates learned to their sorrow. Because their stories are often more in-depth than those on television, radio, or online, print journalists have fewer restrictions on the amount of time they can spend with sources. They can hang. The Rolling Stone reporter who wrote the McChrystal article, for instance, spent parts of an entire month with the general and his staff.
When reporters and their sources hang out together, they don’t spend all of their time in hard-backed chairs in an office, or folding stools in a military tent. There will be lunches and dinners; time spent chatting in local watering holes, remarks made while waiting for taxis or drivers to arrive.
The Game (You) Is Played Differently
We naturally trust people more if we spend a lot of time with them. But print journalists have the added advantage of disguise! Television and radio personalities constantly remind us who they are visually: They bring with them camera operators, sound technicians, boom microphones, recording equipment and sound booths, and most obvious of all, broadcast trucks.
The print reporter carries a humble notebook, or nothing at all. No “on” or “off” switch reminds us when the recording stops. It is when the sit-down interview ends, in fact, that the source is at greatest peril. Unless one requests a ground rule of “off the record” at this or any other time, and it is accepted by the reporter, you must assume that the interview is still going on.
It is often when the reporter and source have strolled out of the interview room and are chatting of other things, that the unguarded remark that should never have been uttered is expressed.
Jimmy Carter may have lusted in his heart for other women and left the rest of us blissfully unaware of the fact, but he volunteered the information to a Playboy reporter after their interview was “over” and the reporter was leaving the Carters’ home.
As famed media adviser Roger Ailes reminds us, “Recognize that any time you are in the presence of a newsperson, the conversation is fair game for the record.”
Wouldn’t you agree, Gen. McChrystal?
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
BP's Tony Hayward and Surviving Congressional Testimony
In the media training I conduct for executives and political figures, I emphasize a goal of not merely surviving a media encounter, but thriving. In the media as in sports, the individual or team that focuses solely on defense usually will not win. Media appearances offer unique opportunities to reach huge numbers of stakeholders. They should be embraced with enthusiasm, rather than with the notion that escaping with one’s skin is a victory.
Yet some media encounters are barely survivable. When ambush is the order of the day, or where bias is institutionally entrenched, showing sheer guts and stamina can equal success.
Yesterday’s appearance by BP CEO Tony Hayward before Congress demonstrated this clearly. Even before any questioning had begun, the committee members’ opening statements branded Mr. Hayward with a prominent “P,” and led him straight to the stocks like a colonial sinner in an electronic town square.
No one would deny that BP is massively responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the deaths of 11 workers, and untold environmental damage. Nor could anyone reasonably conclude that a Congressional hearing of this type is about investigating anything. A witness who tries to counter the naked political maneuvering in such a hearing is doomed.
Congress doesn’t ask questions in such an encounter—it renders judgments. How then can a witness survive sitting opposite such a tribunal of judges with righteous voices thundering?
In testimony of this type, the ability to absorb punishment without revealing callousness or weakness is the key survival skill. Where authority and competence cannot win the day, steadfastness and accountability must be in full view.
Here are three critical tools for media appearances where the odds are stacked heavily against you:
Nonverbal Messages: When a crisis hits, nonverbal behavior that says “steady as she goes” is a powerful reminder of your personal or organizational competence. Posture which indicates engagement, an unwavering focus on one’s questioners, a willingness to remain in the crosshairs without flinching, and especially strong eye contact, are key nonverbal messages that set of tone of accepted responsibility. Has corporate or institutional malfeasance led you to the witness box? All the more reason to send out an opposite message with every visual tool at your disposal.
Low-Key Vocal Approach: In the long hours of his Congressional grilling, Mr. Hayward demonstrated this skill continuously. A general rule of media encounters is that the more vociferous your opponent is, the calmer you should become. Listeners hear reasonableness in steady pleasant tones, not in emotional storms. If your vocal inflection is muted and you speak plainly, your opponents will brand you as aloof in the face of disaster. Let them. Remain focused and deliberate as you add the third tool of survival:
Bridge and Stay on Message: “Bridging” means moving from the quicksand specially mixed for you by your questioner, to the solid ground of your prepared responses. Decide on the three critical points you want to hammer home in your interview or testimony. Then take every opportunity to get those messages out. Answer topics, not questions. Remember your strategy for this particular media encounter, and stay on that path despite the harshness of your opponents’ attacks.
By employing this approach, you will be using tools—three in this case—that are designed as practical applications of your media strategy. Above all, they will help you with the all-important goal of difficult media situations: staying in control and using the encounter to accomplish your aims.
In “survival media events” like the one discussed here, that strategy will only be achievable in the long run. But you must start the process now.
Yet some media encounters are barely survivable. When ambush is the order of the day, or where bias is institutionally entrenched, showing sheer guts and stamina can equal success.
Yesterday’s appearance by BP CEO Tony Hayward before Congress demonstrated this clearly. Even before any questioning had begun, the committee members’ opening statements branded Mr. Hayward with a prominent “P,” and led him straight to the stocks like a colonial sinner in an electronic town square.
No one would deny that BP is massively responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the deaths of 11 workers, and untold environmental damage. Nor could anyone reasonably conclude that a Congressional hearing of this type is about investigating anything. A witness who tries to counter the naked political maneuvering in such a hearing is doomed.
Congress doesn’t ask questions in such an encounter—it renders judgments. How then can a witness survive sitting opposite such a tribunal of judges with righteous voices thundering?
In testimony of this type, the ability to absorb punishment without revealing callousness or weakness is the key survival skill. Where authority and competence cannot win the day, steadfastness and accountability must be in full view.
Here are three critical tools for media appearances where the odds are stacked heavily against you:
Nonverbal Messages: When a crisis hits, nonverbal behavior that says “steady as she goes” is a powerful reminder of your personal or organizational competence. Posture which indicates engagement, an unwavering focus on one’s questioners, a willingness to remain in the crosshairs without flinching, and especially strong eye contact, are key nonverbal messages that set of tone of accepted responsibility. Has corporate or institutional malfeasance led you to the witness box? All the more reason to send out an opposite message with every visual tool at your disposal.
Low-Key Vocal Approach: In the long hours of his Congressional grilling, Mr. Hayward demonstrated this skill continuously. A general rule of media encounters is that the more vociferous your opponent is, the calmer you should become. Listeners hear reasonableness in steady pleasant tones, not in emotional storms. If your vocal inflection is muted and you speak plainly, your opponents will brand you as aloof in the face of disaster. Let them. Remain focused and deliberate as you add the third tool of survival:
Bridge and Stay on Message: “Bridging” means moving from the quicksand specially mixed for you by your questioner, to the solid ground of your prepared responses. Decide on the three critical points you want to hammer home in your interview or testimony. Then take every opportunity to get those messages out. Answer topics, not questions. Remember your strategy for this particular media encounter, and stay on that path despite the harshness of your opponents’ attacks.
By employing this approach, you will be using tools—three in this case—that are designed as practical applications of your media strategy. Above all, they will help you with the all-important goal of difficult media situations: staying in control and using the encounter to accomplish your aims.
In “survival media events” like the one discussed here, that strategy will only be achievable in the long run. But you must start the process now.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
The World's Most Amazing Public Speaking Technique
For people the world over, speaking in public is a terrifying proposition. Yet what is more exciting than a powerful speech on an important topic? Speeches and presentations have changed history, inspired millions, created instant superstars, and rallied entire nations to action. On a more everyday level, they contribute to professional advancement and help organizations accomplish their mission.
With such a momentous pedigree, you’d think that speaking in public would be an ultra-sophisticated task, approachable only by the best and brightest among us. Yet public speaking is relatively easy, and with practice and experience, immensely satisfying. Stage fright is a significant hurdle, of course—but even gaining confidence as a speaker is easier than we might imagine.
There’s a simple procedure, in fact, that can assure us of greater confidence while contributing hugely to our speaking success. This procedure is so mundane and obvious, however, that we usually ignore it completely. So here’s the scintillating secret to undaunted and dynamic public speaking:
Breathe.
“Well, I’m already doing that,” I can hear you thinking—“and I’m still nervous!” And it’s true that what we call breathing for life doesn’t help us much in public performances. Vegetative breathing is a more or less autonomic response and doesn’t require effort. But breathing for speech is different. We need more oxygen, for one thing, to project sound outward and to lengthen our exhalation (since speech is simply controlled outward breath).
Equally important, we must unlearn the lazy habit of breathing shallowly. For speech, we need to breathe diaphragmatically or “belly breathe.” The diaphragm is a dome-shaped muscle that flattens out when the lungs above it expand, and by that flattening, push out our abdominal muscles. That’s why our belly moves outward when we breathe in.
Diaphragmatic breathing is a bellows-like action that allows the lungs to expand fully and to effortlessly produce a full reservoir of air. That’s the level of oxygen we need to produce strong and resonant speech. But there are some other very positive effects to be gained from using this humble but amazing tool of vocal production.
Here are six benefits of using your diaphragm to breathe fully. Together, they go far beyond the simple production of sound. These attributes belong more to the realm of credibility, authority, and believability as a speaker. And those are characteristics that can take you a long way toward public speaking success.
Six Benefits of Diaphragmatic Breathing
1. Slows your heart rate and calms you physically.
2. Provides oxygen to the brain.
3. Aids your stance and appearance: formidable instead of “caved in.”
4. Gives a resonant floor to your voice which produces the sound of authority.
5. Supports sound to the end of the sentence, where the important words come.
6. You appear confident and in control (rather than gasping or out of breath).
In order of the benefits above, then, good diaphragmatic breathing will: Reduce your nervousness, keep you sharp and mentally present, help you appear prepared and professional, make your arguments credible and persuasive, “punch” the important words and phrases that drive your narrative, and give you the appearance of a practiced speaker who is completely in control.
“And the heart must pause to breathe,” wrote Lord Byron.
Indeed!
With such a momentous pedigree, you’d think that speaking in public would be an ultra-sophisticated task, approachable only by the best and brightest among us. Yet public speaking is relatively easy, and with practice and experience, immensely satisfying. Stage fright is a significant hurdle, of course—but even gaining confidence as a speaker is easier than we might imagine.
There’s a simple procedure, in fact, that can assure us of greater confidence while contributing hugely to our speaking success. This procedure is so mundane and obvious, however, that we usually ignore it completely. So here’s the scintillating secret to undaunted and dynamic public speaking:
Breathe.
“Well, I’m already doing that,” I can hear you thinking—“and I’m still nervous!” And it’s true that what we call breathing for life doesn’t help us much in public performances. Vegetative breathing is a more or less autonomic response and doesn’t require effort. But breathing for speech is different. We need more oxygen, for one thing, to project sound outward and to lengthen our exhalation (since speech is simply controlled outward breath).
Equally important, we must unlearn the lazy habit of breathing shallowly. For speech, we need to breathe diaphragmatically or “belly breathe.” The diaphragm is a dome-shaped muscle that flattens out when the lungs above it expand, and by that flattening, push out our abdominal muscles. That’s why our belly moves outward when we breathe in.
Diaphragmatic breathing is a bellows-like action that allows the lungs to expand fully and to effortlessly produce a full reservoir of air. That’s the level of oxygen we need to produce strong and resonant speech. But there are some other very positive effects to be gained from using this humble but amazing tool of vocal production.
Here are six benefits of using your diaphragm to breathe fully. Together, they go far beyond the simple production of sound. These attributes belong more to the realm of credibility, authority, and believability as a speaker. And those are characteristics that can take you a long way toward public speaking success.
Six Benefits of Diaphragmatic Breathing
1. Slows your heart rate and calms you physically.
2. Provides oxygen to the brain.
3. Aids your stance and appearance: formidable instead of “caved in.”
4. Gives a resonant floor to your voice which produces the sound of authority.
5. Supports sound to the end of the sentence, where the important words come.
6. You appear confident and in control (rather than gasping or out of breath).
In order of the benefits above, then, good diaphragmatic breathing will: Reduce your nervousness, keep you sharp and mentally present, help you appear prepared and professional, make your arguments credible and persuasive, “punch” the important words and phrases that drive your narrative, and give you the appearance of a practiced speaker who is completely in control.
“And the heart must pause to breathe,” wrote Lord Byron.
Indeed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
