Reputation Matters with Penny Mulvey

Reputational Risks of Cyberspace Journals like My Space

2007-07-16T16:08:00.000+10:00

Nick Bracks, son of Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, very publicly crashed the family car last week. The Premier gave a heartfelt media conference in response to this event which every parent would have sympathized with. Nick had been drinking. In fact he had a blood alcohol reading of 0.129, when as a P-plater, he should have recorded a .0 reading. In Victoria (Australia) there is zero tolerance for P-platers.

Perhaps that should have been the end of it. Nick will have his day in court. He has had an immediate loss of licence. Thankfully no one was seriously injured. Is the premier in the end, responsible for the actions of his son?

Normally, one would answer, he is not. Nick Bracks is 20. However, Nick Bracks, like 99.9% of young people has a My Space page. And here lies the rub. He uses his My Space page as a personal journal, boasting about his drinking exploits for all to read. Suddenly a foolish son crashing his car takes on a whole new dimension. Mr Bracks Junior has created a significant reputational issue for his father and the Government of Victoria.

Whistleblowers and disgruntled employees are potential reputational hazards during a media crisis, but have you considered the hidden reputational dangers through My Space, Blogs and Second Life? Many people live fantasy lives on line. Often the fantasy and reality meld, providing opportunities for rants against friends, family, society and employers.

Keep a radar out for negative blogs or My Space postings. Your staff is an important part of your message. If employees are using the web as a space for a public whinge, it has the potential to chip away at your reputation as an employer of choice, or as an organisation of high esteem or whatever your reputation might be.

If you do become aware of some negative material being posted by an employee, tread very carefully. Perhaps they haven’t thought through the potential damage they could cause. They might just see their rantings as an opportunity to let off steam. A quiet word might be all that is necessary.

A similar issue re My Space was exposed a few weeks ago in the aftermath of the tragic shooting in the centre of Melbourne. Both women who were injured, one shot and one severely punched, had My Space pages. In these pages, they represented themselves as very worldly, with raunchy photos and sexually provocative statements about themselves. Their parents spoke out about this portrayal of them in the media, saying they were not like this. Unfortunately, these young women had not thought about the potential public nature of their pages.

Perhaps Gen Ys don't think through the consequences of posting intimate details of their lives for potentially the whole world to read, or perhaps that adds to the vicarious danger of their posts, but for parents and employers their words can have damaging repercussions. Develop a reputational radar. Find out how cyberspace is being used by your staff and your children. And perhaps a quiet reminder of the potential dangers of public exposure might be all that is needed to help your Gen Ys be a little more circumspect in the public detailing of their lives.

Ribena - A Lesson in Redemption

2007-05-10T12:50:00.000+10:00

A PR student from the University of South Australia has inspired this blog after seeking my opinion on Ribena.

Let's look at the facts:

GlaxoSmithKline, the large multinational pharmaceutical company and owner of Ribena, a blackcurrant-based drink product, has been making misleading claims about the Ribena product.
These claims relate to the Vitamin C content in the ready-to-drink products.
These claims, specifically that "...the blackcurrants in Ribena contain four times the Vitamin C of oranges" are false.

The Undoing of a Multinational:

It was in fact two 14 year old schoolgirls who have led to this extraordinary reputational and financial crisis for Ribena and its parent company.
However, it has taken nearly three years and a large fine from the Fair Trading Act for the Company to take this very public stance.

New Zealanders Anne Devathasan and Jenny Suo decided in mid-2004 to test the vitamin C levels of some juices, including Ribena, Just Juice and Arano, for a school project.

“We were playing around and just stumbled upon it,” Devathasan told ABC news. “We chose our topic by chance. We did everything by chance and suddenly it just came up.” (source: http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1091029)

The two schoolgirls did the right thing. They contacted GSK with their findings, but received no response. So they took it to the New Zealand Advertising Standards Authority and eventually a television consumer affairs program got wind of this amazing little science project, and the rest is history.

With the wisdom of hindsight, GSK's radar should have gone up on receipt of that letter - 14 year old school girls or not, they claimed to be able to disprove significant claims made about the company product.

That is a key component of good risk management, specifically reputation, develop a good radar for potential reputational crises. That means developing systems which allow proper customer feedback, follow up on complaints, enquiries, suggestions. Treat your customer and your staff with respect. Listen to them and learn. Your staff at the coalface have invaluable information re the perception of your organisation.
You want to improve your reputation?
You want to understand your reputation?
You want to protect your reputation?

Ensure those staff have easy channels to feed information back up along the communication line!

The Current State-of-Play

GSK is eating humble pie. It has obviously received extensive advice from risk management specialists who have formulated a strategy for recovering the reputational losses.

In any media crisis, the first piece of advice is apologise if that is warranted.

The second is use one spokesperson, preferably the boss.

John Sayers, Managing Director, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, Australia, features in a television ad which can also be viewed on the Ribena website.

This is what he says:

"Recently you may have heard about some issues relating to Ribena "ready to drink" products. We stated that some Ribena products contained a level of Vitamin C that was incorrect. The testing method used to determine the level of Vitamin C was unreliable and we were unaware of this at the time. Testing methods revealed that Vitamin C levels in a number of our 'ready-to-drink' products deteriorated over time and did not meet the Vitamin C level stated on the nutritional information on the pack. We've removed the Vitamin C claim from our packaging to reflect this. We're also in the process of changing our testing methods and are working to improve these products to ensure this can never happen again."

"We also made the claim that '...blackcurrants in Ribena contain four times the Vitamin C of oranges.' This may have misled you to believe that Ribena contains four times the level
of Vitamin C than in the same quantity of orange juice. That was never our intention and is incorrect. We are sincerely sorry for any confusion caused."

"I'd like to assure you that we're working hard to restore your confidence in Ribena."

- John Sayers

If you read it carefully, you will see he hasn't apologised specificially for making an incorrect claim. Nor has he apologised for deceiving the public. Mr Sayers apologies for 'any confusion caused'.

We, of course, think he has apologised, but it is slightly different - probably as the result of legal advice.

The next piece of advice is be as honest and as transparent as possible.

The above statement is available on the front page of the Ribena website, as well as The Facts, which seek to address in more detail, information about this product. It also is flagged on the front page of the GlaxoSmithKline Australia website.

All the information is designed to draw us back to the drink that is as old, or older than we are. It is part of our lives. It will continue to be part of our lives.

The underlying message is: we (the company) made a mistake, please forgive us because you know us, you know our product, the product is just the same (it just doesn't have anywhere near the amount of Vitamin C we claimed it had).

The promise is a reformulation of the much-loved drink, and a commitment to restoring 'your confidence in Ribena'.

It is classic crisis management. The next step will be a different advertising campaign which will move us into the new look product. 'Apologies' will be removed from the website, and GSK will be actively rebuilding the image of Ribena. There will probably be giveaways, and other promotional gimmicks.

Has the company redeemed itself? Not yet, but it has begun the journey and it is following the textbook. The costs will be huge. The damage is done. GSK is now scrambling to contain that damage.

"...if only" we heard an anonymous whistleblower whisper...."if only we listened!"

Broughton Hall - reputational lessons

2007-04-20T17:16:00.001+10:00

For the last six days, Victoria's major news outlets have repeatedly covered a story surrounding the sad deaths of five elderly patients at a Melbourne nursing home. It has been a classic case of a not for profit agency floundering in the face of a full-on media assault.

Broughton Hall is part of a larger aged care agency called Benetas. The staff and families of residents have been under seige since the story broke the Saturday after Easter.

As Management failed to adequately answer the media's questions, others weighed in to the empty space. Alleged whistleblowers made increasingly outrageous allegations, politicians of both the state and federal shade commented, more enquiries were called, all based on a whiff of scandal.

The facts as we know it.

Five people have died. They were all very frail, with compromised health, and vulnerable to such virulent bugs as gastroenteritis.

Salmonella has been confirmed in some of the deaths (but not all) and some of those still recovering.

The rumours.
1/ There has been a cover up with staff being under pressure to backdate health forms.
2/ A whistleblower at another Benetas facility has claimed sexual abuse by staff towards patients, and when the issue was raised was moved and eventually had employment terminated.
3/ A former chef at another Benetas facility has spoken of very poor hygiene standards in the kitchen.

Latest claims.
Broughton Hall's water has been tampered with, causing the salmonella outbreak. This has yet to be proven by the police or the Department of Human Services, although they have confirmed that the water is being tested.

The Enquiries.
A total of four. Two federal, one state and a coroner's enquiry into the deaths.

The Political Posturing.
Both State and Federal Health ministers have bowed into the crisis, both hinting of a cover up and both demonstrating their significant commitments to accountability by calling for enquiries.

This is a classic reputational crisis for an organisation. One major issue triggers several other crises, which divert attention from the major concern. Management is exhausted by trying to deal with the attention and has little ability to cope with the relentless nature of the media circus.

Lessons:

Engage proper media advice before any crisis occurs
Have a media crisis plan which is implemented the minute things go awry
Always be honest with the media
Never be defensive
Keep the same spokesperson throughout
Follow the advice of your media people
Bring them in full time during the crisis
Always keep the media informed - this will significantly slow their interest in side issues and ex employees with a grudge
Be prepared to apologise for your mistakes, but don't point the finger at specific staff
Take full ownership of the problem
And schedule at least a day's debriefing after things have calmed down to learn from the process. Invite key staff, media consultant, and other relevant people to attend.

Reflections on Reputation

2007-04-09T16:09:00.000+10:00

I read an obituary in the Courier Mail last week about an elderly man, Cec Anstey, an educator whose passion and commitment had touched thousands of young lives. One sentence read "Honesty, dignity, humility, reliability, diligence, integrity and patient all define Mr Anstey."

Now that is what I call an extraordinary reputation. Note though, that it is not Mr Anstey who is describing himself, rather it is a third person, an observer. You see our reputation is bestowed on us by others in response to the way they perceive us. And the more I reflect on reputation, the more I realise that what drives our personal reputation comes from within - our integrity, our ethics. If our ethics are questionable, it will in the end impact our reputation.

Take for example, former Federal Court judge, Marcus Einfeld. Not only has he destroyed his own reputation, he has brought the Federal Court into desrepute. Why? Because he has been charged with a total of 13 offences - three counts of perjury, six counts of perverting the course of justice, two of making a false instrument and a further two of using a false instrument.

This from a man from whom much has been expected! He was after all a Federal Court judge. He made rulings which affected after people's lives, and yet here he is charged with perverting the course of justice, not once, but six times!!

Reflect for a moment where his reputation is now. Reflect also on all that he is done in the past. Justice Einfeld's alleged desire to avoid traffic fines to the point of being charged with perjury and false statutory declarations, has tarnished everything he has ever done. And no matter what he might achieve in the future, his actions of the present will not redeem his reputation. History will focus on this alleged stupidity, whether found guilty or not, perception significantly impacts reputation.

Returning to my earlier proposition that the drivers of reputation relate to what is within, I would argue that Marcus Einfeld is motivated by ego, self aggrandisement and power. His fall reflects those values. Very different to the inner world of Cec Anstey, a 91 year old who died with an unblemished reputation because his inner motivations flowed out in a way that nurtured, inspired and taught others.

The final words in Mr Anstey's obituary read "His was a life whose vast riches owed little to material wealth."

Which reputation would you choose? What is your value system, your inner motivations?

The Devastating Impact of a 'shattered' Reputation

2006-12-06T12:13:00.000+11:00

Penny's Expert Media Tips
"No one asked....what's the right thing?" Commissioner Terence Cole exclaimed as he handed down his findings into the UN oil-for-food fiasco in late November.

In his 2065 page report he questioned the AWB's corporate culture, which he described as one of 'superiority and impregnability, of dominance and self-importance'.

You see in the end, an organisation's reputation rests with its integrity, its corporate culture and its ability to ask those ethical questions which somehow get lost in the desire for profit, kudos or power.

Eleven top ranking executives of the wheat executives could face prosecution. How does this happen? What kind of an environment leads to what Commissioner Cole described as 'a deliberate policy of deceit'.

The Chairman of AWB, Brendan Stewart, appeared before the media last week to give a statement that no Chair or CEO would ever wish to give. He was responding to the damning report.

I want to put it on the record that most of our people in the AWB group have had absolutely no involvement at all with the matters which have occurred in Iraq during the oil for food program they have seen the company they work with embarrassed and humiliated in the media day in day out. Clearly our reputation has been shattered by the events of the last year as our role in the oil for food program has been examined forensically by commissioner cole. WE have not commented before now on the enquiry, the evidence before it or the allegations or findings because of our respect for the process of the commission. It has been a very long and painful process for all involved. The board deeply regrets the damage done to the company. The board accepts accountability for the actions of management and the culture at AWB during the oil for food program. At the end of the day the board ultimately accepts responsibility for what happened and is committed to making significant changes to ensure it never happens again. Mr Stewart told the media pack.

The answer to ensuring it never happens again is, on the one hand, obvious and easy, but on the other, requires a total overhaul of the organisational culture.

Every organisation must take lessons from the AWB fiasco. You must have systems in place that allow staff to question processes and policies. You must encourage transparency at every turn. You must be vigilant, following up complaints, customer or provider queries, staff concerns.

You must have clear articulated policies that are understood and followed. You need to develop a radar for potential problems.

In the end you live or die on your organisation's reputation. Brendan Stewart describes AWB's reputation as 'shattered'. Where is this organisation's future? How do the staff feel or work there each day? What does it do for morale?

Think preventative rather than curative, because once you hit the media crisis the damage has well and truly been done!!!

Reputation important? Think Mel Gibson

2006-08-03T11:56:00.000+10:00

What a few days it has been for Mel Gibson. He is in the midst of a crisis. And this crisis does not look like it’s going to settle any time soon. Can he resurrect his reputation or is the damage too great? To some degree that will depend how the ‘acute’ phase is played out, and what happens in the next stage – the chronic stage of the crisis.

Gibson’s drunken, anti-Semitic tirade puts his Hollywood future in doubt, the newspaper headline blared this week.

You know the story. Actor, Director, Business, Mel Gibson, is arrested in the early hours of Friday morning in Los Angeles, for drink driving. As the week has progressed, we have watched the story unfold. Gibson allegedly made anti-Semitic remarks to the arresting policeman. He apologised. Not good enough. Much commentary about Mel’s true feelings being aired in a drunken state, forcing Mel to apologise again. In the meantime, the Mel Gibson story has dominated media outlets across the world for five days. Television talk hosts interview Hollywood who’s who, newspapers seek comment from Jewish leaders, radio stations take talk back. And the constant theme – Mel Gibson has revealed his true colours. He could be blacklisted. His career, his organisation, could be dead in the water.

Let’s unpack this from a reputation perspective.

Firstly, what is Mel’s reputation? There is Mel the person and Mel the business. Can they be separated?

Mel Gibson is a brand. He is a multi million dollar brand. That brand needs to be understood and nurtured. That brand revolves around the flawed father of seven, who turned his back on alcohol to save his marriage. It features his return to the Catholic faith and a desire to capitalise on his reputation to make a movie on that faith – The Passion of Christ. Already, through that process, there had been rumblings about his anti Jewish sentiments. It features his marketability. It features his integrity, his charm, his looks. All those things and more contribute to his reputation. His personal reputation cannot be separated from his company’s reputation. They are one and the same.

The next question to ask is 'who gives Mel is reputation?' The answer to that is - his stakeholders.

Who are the stakeholders?

Movie producers, directors, fellow actors, the funders, the distributors, the publicists, the agents, the media, his family, his employees, the list goes on….and ultimately, his audience, his fans. The movie industry is particularly complex. You can’t make a movie without funds. You can’t attract the funds if you have lost your box office draw. You will struggle to make money if your name is mud, if you have been black listed. Think back to the damage inflicted on Hollywood during the McCarthy era, the ‘red under the bed’ hysteria of the1950s.

Who are Mel’s main stakeholders? The powerbrokers of Hollywood, and it is there that his reputation rests. Mel has committed the cardinal sin. He has voiced anti-Semitic sentiments in an industry that strongly relies on the Jewish dollar. The concern being expressed is that Mel has revealed his fundamental, deep-seated beliefs at his weakest moment and therefore no matter what he subsequently says, it will not be believed.

Mel is in serious trouble! And he knows it. As I said at the beginning, he (and his business) are in the acute phase of the crisis, and they are madly attempting to stop the hemorrhaging, because that is what is happening.

There will be fallout. Damage has been done. Did he understand his stakeholders? Undoubtedly. He lost control. He allowed his addiction to take over, for whatever personal reason, and his reputation has been shattered. There will be a financial price. There will be a personal price. The longer the heat is turned on high publicly, the harder it will be to restore. But evidence suggests that it takes up to three years for a company to return to equilibrium after a significant blow to its reputation. How forgiving is Hollywood?

Do you know what are the hallmarks of your reputation?

Have you spoken to your employees, your clients, your competitors? Do you know who your key stakeholders are? Do you understand what keeps them aligned to you? Do you know what would force them to reconsider that alignment? Can you see that, whilst reputation appears to be difficult to measure, the risk of losing it is profound? Do you have a risk management plan, which includes reputation? Do you have a media crisis strategy? Do not underestimate the power of reputation.

As Socrates said many years ago:

Regard your good name as the richest jewel you can possibly be possessed of – for credit is like fire; when once you have kindled it you may easily preserve it, but if you once more extinguish it, you will find it an arduous task to rekindle it again.

The way to gain a good reputation is to be what you desire to appear.

Mel Gibson forgot that!

For further assistance, email Positive Media, penny@positivemedia.com.au. We will help you think through the various drivers relating to your reputation, to create a plan to protect and enhance that reputation and to develop a media crisis strategy if all else fails.

Risky Business – protecting your Reputation.

2006-07-11T09:48:00.000+10:00

Penny's Expert Media Tips

Have you ever reflected on your reputation? How do people see you? Are you trustworthy, a good friend, reliable, friendly, quick to anger, always late…all these attributes go into the mix as people reflect on you as a person. We make similar judgments about local businesses, charities, multi national corporations, churches, governments. The question is how much of those subjective opinions affect the bottom line of the organization?

Corporate reputation cannot be taken for granted. It needs to be understood, nurtured and protected. People’s perceptions of your organisation affect their preparedness to do business with you. All decisions you make impact your reputation. For example, the decision by the Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, to go public on the leadership row is particularly intriguing. His statement in direct contradiction to his Prime Minister clearly impacts his reputation. He is a political animal. Why has he chosen now to speak out? What does he hope to gain? Will the gains outweigh the losses? He is playing for very high stakes.

What about other individuals and organisations currently in the Australian news. For example, Mr Eddie Everywhere. What do you think when you think of Eddie McGuire? The nickname suggests a man who is busy, who has many balls in the air. We all know Eddie is passionate about the Magpies. We know he is a consummate media operator. We know he is a major player in the corporate world. We know he has moved from Melbourne where he presented numerous television shows as well as chairing Collingwood Football Club, to Sydney where he has taken on the role of CEO of the Nine Network.

Is he reliable, consistent, transparent, accountable, authentic? (These are the five attributes often used as reputation measuring sticks.) Like him or hate him, previously we probably would have given him a tick for most of those qualities. Have those views changed in recent weeks and does he carry his personal reputation into the helm of Channel Nine? Are our views of the station coloured by our views of Eddie?

What about P&O Cruises? I’ll guarantee that whatever your previous opinion of the company was, it has taken a significant dive if you have been even vaguely following the Inquest being conducted into the death of Brisbane woman, Dianne Brimble, on board the passenger ship Pacific Sky in 2002. The ultimate issue for P&O is what impact will this public airing of its dirty laundry have on its bottom line? Will the numbers of passengers fall? To try and counter that impact, P&O has been issuing statements about onboard behaviour to try and reassure potential clients that it is indeed safe to travel with their company.

Did P&O employees’ actions at the time of Mrs Brimbles’ death consider the reputation of the organisation? Did they have a policy in place which covered ‘worst case scenarios’? And one assumes the wrongful death of a passenger would come into that category! Given their subsequent actions, it would appear not. Did they understand their reputation prior to Mrs Brimbles’ death? It might depend on how they perceived their reputation.

Was it as a swinging, anything goes holiday where drugs, alcohol and potential abuse of women was acceptable and to be encouraged? Or was it a safe, enjoyable, magical holiday, different from any other, sailing the seven seas, where the world outside was momentarily switched off as you slipped into a cocoon of food, entertainment, and friendship?

P&O’s reputation has been shattered. Only time will tell whether it is redeemable. Eddie’s reputation has been damaged. His future behaviour will to some degree determine the impact of that damage. I suspect it is probably only minimal at the moment. I am entirely baffled by Peter Costello’s actions. Is he an astute politician or has he shot himself in the foot?

It is only by understanding how your reputation has been formed, that you can actually seek to honour, protect and build on it. Develop a keen eye as these stories unfold in the media, and you will start to appreciate the value of developing strategies which insure against reputational damage!

If you would like to know more about corporate reputation, contact penny@positivemedia.com.au or visit our website www.positivemedia.com.au

The Media, like an elephant, never forgets!

2006-04-24T14:18:00.000+10:00

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

2006-04-07T16:15:00.000+10:00

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!