The comedic story goes that Henry Kissinger, a celebrated diplomat and former U.S. Secretary of State, walked up to a bank of television cameras at a news conference and, addressing the journalists, quipped: “I sure hope you have questions for all my answers.”
The reporters laughed. They shouldn’t have. Kissinger had every intention of delivering his messages and had no plans of going beyond them. He was good with the media. In the 1970s – back during his time of shuttle diplomacy with Israel and Arab leaders – it made him an international superstar.
The Kissinger story is an old one. I have used it in media training dating back to the 1990s. I no longer do such training, having put myself on ice – for the most part – while I serve as CEO of the Kyiv Post. I find perceived conflicts can make unexpected appearances, somewhat like Banquo’s ghost in Macbeth.
However, one thing I can do is facilitate a dialogue between the newsmaking community and that of the news (print, broadcast, online, etc.) communities. Quite often, one is thinking in Farsi and the other Swahili. The result is misunderstanding – particularly in Eastern Europe, and specifically with the Kyiv Post.
In a recent example, a public relations company contacted us wanting to place a negative story – what we call ‘black PR’ – that maligned a competitor of its client. We could label the story ‘Advertising’ at the top, as it was in editorial format, but the agency would not divulge the name of its client.
We (the Kyiv Post) refused to run the ad under any cirumstances. I have no doubt that the PR company found another press outlet in Kyiv that was more than willing to take the story. My educated guess is that 25 percent of the stories in Kyiv-based national newspapers are purchased – ads dressed up to look like legitimate new stories.
This is not journalism. It is a bastardization of journalism. The PR company is not a PR company, but a bastardization of a PR company. However, in Eastern Europe, it is a common situation.
However, other misconceptions abound. Having worked both in the PR and the journalism worlds, I outline just a few of the myths and truths associated with the interaction of legitimate news and well-intentioned newsmakers
• “I got only bad questions at the news conference.” This is a common complaint when an interview didn’t come out as well as expected. One of the first things a media trainer will tell a client is that there are no bad questions, only bad answers.
• “All that reporter cared about was selling newspapers.” Unless things have changed since I was a beat reporter – and I know they haven’t – journalists rarely make the connection between the job they do and selling newspapers. They just want a good story.
• In an advertisement for his CNN program, Larry King Live, the former host remarked: “A good interview is when the person being interviewed answers the question asked.” Not necessarily. A good interview is when news is made – whether or not it is on that particular question.
• “That reporter had already written his story in his head before even showing up for the interview.” For a busy journalist, it is not unusual to project what his or her lead paragraph might be. It is incumbent on the newsmaker to deliver effective messages that direct the story.
• “I went off the record, but they quoted me just the same.” For a while, Associated Press had a rule of not accepting off-the-record quotes. I have advised clients not to go off-the-record on really sensitive matters that would embarrass them if printed.
I have often wondered what would happen if journalists took the same media training newsmakers take. Would there be some cosmic standstill, with both sides going away disappointed? I don’t think so.
To begin with, each side wants the same thing: To make news. The avoidance of making news is not the object of an interview. If that were the case, why bother meeting with the media at all?
An international PR company with which I am familiar at one time advised clients never to go on the U.S. television program “60 Minutes,” which, at the time, practiced ambush journalism. “Why do an interview and get your heart ripped out and stepped on?” was the reasoning.
It was a viewpoint.
There are cases, of course, where the newsmaker has his or her idea on what to make news and the journalist wants to ask about something else entirely, or pursue a totally different angle. This is a legitimate arena for mental combat and where effectively communicating messages is important.
The relationship between journalist and newsmaker is adversarial, though it needn’t be unfriendly. This is necessary to facilitate a free press, and for the journalism community to maintain its role as society’s watchdog.
Having been on both sides of this fence over the years, this should be a healthy relationship.
Kyiv Post CEO Michael Willard can be reached at [email protected]
