The Media, like an elephant, never forgets!

The news media is very unforgiving, and has a memory like an elephant….it never forgets! Have you noticed that? It is one very good reason to implement great risk management policies, which include a strong media crisis plan, and guard your business and personal reputation closely.

Why do I say that? Whenever there is an article in the paper about a ‘celebrity’, be they business, sporting, whatever, and they have had media coverage in the past, the past issues will always be rehashed. Even if the article is in the real estate section, talking of the impending sale of the person’s home. With every article ever written about the so-called ‘celebrity’ carefully archived, there is no opportunity for their past to be forgotten. That old expression ‘yesterday’s news is today’s fish and chips wrapping’ no longer holds true.

If you have been yesterday’s news, you can guarantee that any subsequent news appearances will remind us of that news, and you will definitely smell of dead fish!

What I find distressing about this is that no one appears off limits. There used to be a belief that people in the public eye deserved what they dished out. Politicians had no private life. But it now appears that any scandal can be presented in all its sordid detail, because of ‘the public’s right to know’.

Consider Michelle Leslie. Michelle is a young beautiful Australian woman who, foolishly carried two ecstasy tablets in her handbag in Indonesia! We all know Indonesia’s attitude towards drug users. She became caught up in a ghastly court case, and was obviously frightened for her life. Perhaps she was poorly advised, perhaps she was just plain desperate, but she claimed to have converted to Islam. Difficult for a model. She won her life back, returned to Australia and has recently picked up her modelling career.

Is this young woman allowed to quietly get on with her life? Sure she made a huge mistake. Most of us do. Think of the story in the New Testament of the Bible, where Jesus challenged the angry mob threatening to stone the adulterous woman – “whomever is without sin, cast the first stone”.

The same could apply to us, and the media, in the case of Michelle Leslie. In last week’s Melbourne Age, gossip columnists chose to cast more stones at Miss Leslie. They wrote:

She was trekking the catwalk last night in a stripey swimsuit but devout Muslim Michelle Leslie’s previous trek to Cambodia – minus the headscarf – to meet and greet some orphans (it does wonders for a tattered image) and the heart-wrenching tale has just appeared in No Idea. The mag’s publicist, Max ‘Show Me the Money’ Markson, told Diary that contrary to reports, he was not her publicist/agent/manager but chipped in that “Michelle could do Dancing with the Stars!” as part of her comeback. As long as it doesn’t clash with her prayer times and she sprinkles a few sequins on her scarf.

The reason for this invective was that she dared appear in one of Australia's women's magazines in a story with a positive spin. I'd have to say she needs a little positive spin to try and counteract all the negative media she received. She is 24! She is a model. Hardly a veteran media performer, versed in the fine arts of handling media intrusion.

We need to ask ourselves what role we play in causing this feeding frenzy of private people. At what point is enough enough, and individuals’ slates can be wiped clean and they can move on with their lives, safe from the media’s elephant-like gaze?

Mastering the Media

I have just returned from two speaking engagements regarding the media, and it seems people have two recurring issues with the media.

1/ How do I ensure my opinions are not misrepresented?

2/ How do I control the interview to ensure the points I want to make are made?

Misrepresentation

This is not an unusual complaint. However, I would add that it is usually not intentional. We tend to naively think that the media is reporting the news…and the news is true or factual. But of course it is not. It is subjective, based upon the journalist/chief of staff/editor’s particular view on life. Added to this, is the view of the so-called ‘talent’ and numerous other external stimuli which can impact the reading of the event/story.

What do I mean by this? Wherever we go, whomever we encounter, whatever we do, we are carrying with us all the influences that have formed our personality. Our culture, the ethnics and values of our parents, our education, our own adopted values, the joy and pain we have experienced, attitudes to all sorts of issues, both large and small, etc. All these things combine to make us a unique human being. But we are not objective.

So for example, if I am sent to cover a story on stem cell research, it is highly likely I will already have an opinion on the topic. This will be based on my views on the sanctity of life, when life begins, the complexities of science and ethics, if I have a relative or friend with a life threatening illness whose life could be saved by such medical intervention etc. My bias (for that is what it always will be, just as your questions will capture your bias), will frame the questions I ask and the way I interpret the responses.

The way I present the story, even though I am attempting to be objective, and even might think I am objective, will be coloured by my particular outlook on life.

However, there are some things you can do to try and alleviate this concern. Present the journalist with background information that supports your opinions. So continuing with the example of stem cell research, if you are lobbying in favour of human cloning, you would be advised to have some written material to back up your argument. It could include quotes from you. It could include academic research papers on this topic, it could include quotes from other members of your lobby group. It should include your name and title, as often these basic details are wrongly recorded.

Likewise, if you are lobbying against human cloning, you would produce documentation supporting your argument. In both cases, you would be wise to avoid black and white pejorative statements, and support your views with research, as well as quotes from others.

Providing written support documentation gives the journalist something to refer to when composing their article. The interview they conducted with you backs up the written material, lessening the chances of misunderstanding and potentially misrepresentation. Of course, if they are wanting to present a short, simple, black and white argument, they are more likely to compress your responses, increasing the chance of misrepresentation.

So, no simple solutions, sorry.

Controlling an interview

A journalist likes to be in charge of an interview. However, there are some ways you can get your point across. Always answer the question, then move from your response into a particular point you might want to make. Make sure there is some relevance to the comment or you’ll lose your credibility. And if you present your opinions using descriptive, non-jargon language, in ways that are relevant to the journalists’ listeners/viewers/or readers, your points are more likely to be included.

For more media tips keep reading Penny’s Blog. Also go to our website, www.positivemedia.com.au.

And remember…when dealing with the media - Be Prepared!