by Roger Ailes
NO PLACE TO HIDE
There is no hiding from the media today. In the United States in 1994, there were 1,512 television stations, 11,558 radio stations, 12,513 newspapers, 12,136 periodicals, and 11,214 cable-operating systems.
Every hour of every day, these news and information-gathering media need to fill an insatiable “new hole” with stories and reports. No one is safe from the relentless scrutiny of some critic somewhere, who uses the news media to publicize—and, sometimes, to sensationalize—rumors and allegations. For better or worse, the news media have become like lawyers. They’ll take on almost any case, often without enough consideration of its merits. Even the Girl Scouts have been attacked these days for “exploiting child labor” when little girls go door-to-door selling cookies!
The late pop artist Andy Warhol once made what sounded like an off-the-wall prediction about all this. He said that in the future, everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes—because eventually every American will be interviewed on TV. If you watch the evening news or pick up a newspaper, Andy Warhol’s seemingly outrageous forecast appears to be coming true. In the past, people in business could be assured that their visibility would be confined within the company. Today, with the news media probing everywhere, it is increasingly likely that even a middle manager will at least be quoted in a trade journal. The most senior executives are almost bound to appear on a cable TV news program or a radio show. As you rise to more prominence in your company, the odds increase that your exposure will include being on a network or local TV news program and being quoted on the pages of major business news publications.
If the idea of appearing on TV in a confrontational format scares the hell out of you, you’re not alone. There are any number of how-to books that can give you useful advice about how to appear on a radio or television program or do a print interview. What I want to do is talk about the goals of the media versus the goals of the person interviewed and give some examples where helpful principles apply. I recommend several tactics, but the emphasis is on strategy.
THE JOURNALIST’S JOB
Before we even begin to discuss strategies for communicating effectively with the news media, we should take a look at the people in the media and get a feel for what journalists’ jobs are all about.
In his book Reporting, Lou Cannon, The Washington Post’s White House correspondent, writes that many people become journalists “because they seek to have some social impact on the world.” He adds that “the reporter’s view that he is performing a sacred calling can cloak him with an annoying self-righteousness about his mission which ordinary Americans find disturbing. Out of this attitude of mission sometimes arises an insensitivity and a belief that a reporter is entitled to ask anyone anything at any time.”15 While many actually believe that a reporter should do exactly that, we have all seen examples of questionable taste, if not questionable ethics, exhibited by reporters.
Hostility toward the press is nothing new. In a book called How True by Thomas Griffith, former editor of Time and Life magazines, there is a quote from a nineteenth-century etiquette book. It advises the well-bred reader that it is improper to order a newspaperman kicked down the stairs simply because he has chosen to make his living in a disagreeable manner.16
A more balanced and contemporary view is that reporters are human, therefore they have biases. But most good reporters work at being fair. Their interpretation of what’s fair, however, is sometimes in question. Many journalists seem to want to tear down the social order or institutions. They want to raise questions about or challenges to the establishment. I think those challenges and questions are good, and I believe in the journalists’ right to ask any question they want. I also believe in people not answering certain questions if they feel they needn’t or shouldn’t. I believe that people have a right not to appear guilty simply because they have chosen to ignore or deflect a question.
I don’t subscribe to the theory that every journalist is out to “get” business—to find a scandal, whether one exists or not. I do believe, however, that there should be a healthy skepticism on both sides: on the part of the interviewer and of the interviewee.
If the executive understands that the press does not exist to serve as his public relations arms, and the executive is prepared to live with that, then the company should establish a policy whereby, except in highly unusual circumstances, its officials make themselves available to reporters. On the other hand, I know one major Fortune 500 company whose policy is never to talk to the press. When the press calls, the company says they’ve moved. The effect of the company’s press paranoia is suspicion and hatred by the press. It will eventually result in a media relations disaster for the company. There are other cases where, in my judgment, a business is too open to the press and becomes a whipping boy. A company must respect the journalist’s goals and simultaneously mind its own business. If company officials can contribute to a story in a manner that will not be detrimental to the shareholders, fine.
TWO VIEWS
Journalists tell me they are sometimes tough on business because business hides from them and they figure there must be something to hide. Businesses tell me that the reason they don’t talk to the press is that reporters always print the negative and never the positive. There is some truth to both arguments. Business should sponsor more forums or behind-the-scenes seminars so that business and the press can get to know each other. That doesn’t mean that the press is never going to be negative, but the press needs to know what is driving the business world. Business also needs to understand that the goal of the press is to gather information, and the press has the right to report negative news when it finds it. Sometimes the press is looking for information to support a story or premise, sometimes they’re just gathering specific data, and sometimes they’re “fishing.”
The first responsibility of the reporter is to his job. If he quotes some vice president in a negative way and it costs that man his career, it may deeply bother the reporter. He may even lose sleep over it. But it won’t stop the reporter from using it.
ONLY KIDDING
One executive came to us after he was quoted in the press and his company’s stock went down three points the next day. He had said some things to a reporter that he thought were “off the record” and they ended up in print. I tell my clients, “The only thing off the record is what you don’t say.” There are some journalists who will respect off the record and there are some who won’t. In general, it’s better not to gamble on this issue.
That executive I mentioned had just been appointed president of a research and manufacturing subsidiary of a large corporation. He agreed to spend a day with a male reporter from a major newspaper so that the reporter could write a personality profile of him. Together, they toured the laboratories, the plant, and the offices of the subsidiary. They became friendly and comfortable with one another. This executive was a “good ole boy” Southerner who enjoyed wisecracking and had an eye for a pretty lady. At one point he passed a very well endowed young secretary, and he poked the reporter in the ribs, winked, and said, “My God, will you look at the build on that little bit of heaven?”
The reporter smiled and said nothing. At the end of the day, the reporter was about to drive to the airport. During the casual parting conversation, the reporter asked the executive, “How come you’re still commuting between company headquarters in Los Angeles and the plant here?” Again, the executive winked and answered, “Because the nightlife is better in Los Angeles.” It was a throwaway remark. The executive thought the interview was over and he was just talking to a “friend.”
When the profile of the executive appeared in the newspaper, it praised him as smart and tough. But it also alluded to his arrogance, sexism, and other off-putting traits. The article ended with a quote denigrating the local nightlife.
Not only did all hell break loose with some stockholders, but the executive also was reprimanded within his company—to his face and behind his back. In a r
age, he called the reporter. “You screwed me!” he yelled. Coolly, the reporter replied, “Before you get your jockey shorts in a bundle, just remember that I let you off light. I could’ve—but didn’t—quote you about the build on that little bit of heaven.”
The reporter hung up. Two days later, the executive was in my office for our first session together. “That son of a bitch,” he whined, “treed me like a hound dog.”
ON OR OFF?
What’s on the record? What’s off the record? The problem is, there are no rules. There are many fine reporters who will distinguish for you between (1) material they’ll use only with your name; (2) material they’ll take on “background” without specific attribution; and (3) material they’ll just use for their own better understanding of the issues. Unfortunately, for many reporters, distinguishing between these categories and remembering (or honoring) confidentiality agreements can get hazy, especially when a story becomes “hot” or when it’s a “scoop” and the reporter is under a crushing deadline.
If the material is interesting, it’s best to go on record or not pique the reporter’s interest. A lot of younger journalists believe that the public interest is best served when they alone decide what counts as off the record. Many, many people have been caught off guard with that new theory. President Reagan’s remark that “we begin bombing [the Russians] in five minutes” was made as a joke when a recording engineer asked him to say something so he could check Reagan’s voice level prior to the president’s weekly radio address. By agreement with reporters, anything said during that routine test is off the record. For literally centuries, presidents have joked with reporters during these kinds of mutually acknowledged, undocumented moments. Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy, in particular, had gentlemen’s agreements with the press about speaking off the record. But some news organizations broke the understanding and played up Reagan’s “bombing” remark in a big way. If Reagan had realized that the off-the-record agreement would not be honored, do you think he would have made the joke? Even less explosive comments can cause problems. So if you have wisecracking instincts, it’s best to keep them in check around the media. Reagan is a professional. He should have known better.
SELLING OTHERS OUT
A good friend of mine who is a reporter told me about an experience he had at an editor’s conference. A grizzled senior editor leaned over his desk, looked at all the young reporters, and snarled, “You know why so many of you are going to get divorced and a lot of you will become alcoholics? Because you are now in the business of selling people out. Your job is to get close to your sources, get as much out of them as you can, and then print it, and don’t worry about them. You say you’re defending the public interest. Your job is to stick it to the guy who trusted you enough to spill his guts to you. And if you can’t handle that, get out of the business now!”
That’s depressing, and it’s only one cynical man’s viewpoint. But there are people who subscribe to it. And the essence of what he said is all too often true. It’s comments like these that cause many to say the media is a jungle.
NO LIES, NO APOLOGIES
At least part of any good reporter’s job is to get people to talk openly and freely. The methods he or she employs are uniquely his or her own. A reporter can bother, flatter, intimidate, cajole, humor, beg, and use a myriad of other techniques to get you to talk. That does not mean that you shouldn’t talk to the press; it does mean you should be aware of what’s going on at all times. The main thing to keep in mind is that reporters are under absolutely no obligation to print what you say, but they can if they choose to, and you are under absolutely no obligation to tell them something that is damaging to you or your business. Until you know exactly what you want to say and have all the information you need, beware of any reporter who tells you he is doing a story on you and/or your company, and that it will be better for you if you talk to him. First, that’s an implied threat. Second, a good way to translate what he’s saying is that he simply doesn’t have enough information to do the story without your corroboration. Third, he may be on a witch hunt. Fourth, he may have damaging information and he wants you to incriminate yourself. If it appears the reporter intends to be unfair to begin with, he’s not going to play fair later. Business goes wrong when it turns down reasonable requests for interviews, reasonable information requested by the press, and reasonable access when there’s no need to hide.
The press is not going to like what I have to say next: I have never known of a person’s being fired because he or she refused to talk to the press and turned it over to his or her public relations department. I have known people who were fired because they gave unauthorized information to the press. If you can, give reporters everything they need to do the story. If you can’t, don’t jeopardize your career because somebody is putting intense pressure on you at the moment. If you do speak, never lie. If you don’t speak, never apologize. Most of the good reporters I know will respect you if you say, “Look, I’d like to tell you more, but this is difficult for me and I’m not authorized to speak in this area. I don’t want to create a false impression by giving simplistic answers, and you’ll just have to respect the fact that I choose not to speak on this topic at this time.” The reporter may still want to come back to you later to confirm something, or use you as a future source, so it’s unlikely he’ll cut off all communications at that point. If he does, what have you lost?
Don’t ever be cowed or pushed because a reporter is on a deadline. That’s his problem, not yours. If you don’t have your facts straight, or you haven’t had time to think about what you want to say, don’t live by his artificial deadline. “Urgent” or “important” are words the reporter is using to describe a situation which exists in his life. There’s a tendency to believe that the situation truly is urgent and to fall into the trap of trying to help the reporter meet his deadline. You have an obligation to try to provide the reporter with the factual information when it’s possible. And in fact, over a period of time, if you’re consistent, the reporter will come to regard you as a credible source and understand that, when you choose not to give him something, it’s not a personal affront. The bottom line is, you have a job, and he has a job: They are not the same job. Don’t confuse them. There is absolutely no reason for hostility toward reporters as a group. Don’t ever try to manipulate the press to gain personal publicity. It will almost always backfire. There’s an old saying in life: “Be careful of what you want, because you’re liable to get it.” In this regard I would say, “Be careful what you say; they’ll probably print it.”
15
MEDIA TACTICS: SCORING ON DEFENSE
Basketball and football coaches have a saying: “You can’t score on defense—get the ball.”
With the media, make no mistake. You are always on defense, but if you do it right, you can occasionally score.
First recognize that the media has nothing to lose by interviewing you. On the other hand, you or those you represent could lose.
How, then, can you prepare yourself to deal with the news media? What are the strategies and techniques for handling journalists? I will summarize the highlights of what we tell our clients. To begin with, don’t ever take a phone call from a reporter you don’t know. First, tell the reporter, or have your secretary tell him, that you’ll get back to him. You need time to check out who the reporter is, what he could possibly want, and why he might want it. You need to think and compose yourself. Mistakes are made when people rush into media interviews without really analyzing the intent of the reporter. What the reporter tells you may or may not be totally true. I’ve met few reporters who will actually lie, but many who have hidden agendas.
Even Laurence A. Tisch, president and chief executive officer of CBS Inc., admitted to The Wall Street Journal on March 20, 1987, that negative reporting by the news media about his budget and staff cutbacks had “broken” his company’s image. “I’ve lost a certain confidence in the press, I must say,” Tisch said in a t
ape-recorded interview. “I won’t be as ready just to talk to people over the telephone.”
One executive was sent to me after he had embarrassed his company by giving a candid interview to a reporter who identified himself as being with The New York Times. My client naively assumed the reporter was legitimate, and he took the call without verifying the caller’s credentials. The “reporter” turned out to be a free-lancer calling from a pay phone. The article, which misquoted the client and maligned the company, ended up in an underground scandal sheet. Pieces of the article later surfaced in establishment publications.
Once you’ve checked the reporter out, you’ll find that most of the time, he has no ill intent: He simply wants information. He’s been assigned a story. If you cooperate and give the reporter facts which are interesting enough to be quoted, your side of the story may at least be heard. It may not appear with the background and explanation you’d ideally want, but you’ll probably fare better than you would by not responding.
Never go into a media interview unprepared. Never try to “wing it.” Instead, discuss the interview in advance with a public relations professional, a media consultant, or other trusted counsel. If you can, review prior newsclips or program tapes to get a feel for the reporter’s point of view. Anticipate likely questions—think through your replies. Reverse roles: If you were the journalist or the audience for the story, what questions or issues would you want addressed? (Be objective and tough on yourself.) Consider: Who is my audience? What do I want my audience to remember (or do) as a result of what I say? Why am I being interviewed (purpose) and why should my audience listen to me? (Address their concerns and bear in mind that the public viewpoint may differ from the corporate perspective.) How will I organize and deliver my remarks?