by Roger Ailes
If you’re besieged by a flock of reporters (let’s say on the steps of a court building), try to control the situation by selecting a single question to which you will respond. Look at the reporter who asked the question. Ignore the cameras and microphones surrounding you and speak to the questioner. Try to come in “under” the tone and volume of the questioner, speaking more calmly. If you shout excitedly, the TV viewer may decide that you sound defensive and are therefore guilty.
One of the techniques that I have occasionally advised clients to use is that if a reporter asks a really tough question, respond with an equally tough question. Here’s a hypothetical example. Somebody asks, “Why did you vote against the environment?” You might reply, “Are you talking about House bill #135 that was part of the amendment to the EPA Superfund bill, or are you talking about the Baxter-Sawyer bill, which is in the conference committee now and which would allow a special fund to be set up by 1990 to handle toxic waste cleanup at sites determined to be a hazard by the EPA and substantiated by community standards?” The reporter’s eyes will tell you quickly if he knows what he’s doing or if he’ll retreat and leave you alone. In many cases, he’s just trying to provoke you. If his eyes roll around like pinballs, his knowledge of the issue is probably a mile wide and an inch deep. This technique can buy you time. Ask the question in a very friendly, good-natured way. You don’t have to do it with hostility. You just say, “I need to clarify the point before I answer.”
If you’re able to smile at a time like this, make sure it’s a natural one. If smiling comes hard, concentrate on listening to your interrogators, composing your sentence structure, and choosing specific words for your responses.
A TV DUEL
On a television program in the early 1970s, I witnessed one of the worst examples of someone who was totally unaware of the audience’s sympathy and of the dynamics of hostility. In this case, it was a debate on a pollution issue. On one side was a puffed-up, pompous corporate executive. On the other side was a long-haired, earnest, but somewhat scruffy consumer advocate. The typecasting was classic TV: the “robber baron” versus the “hippie.” The executive and the consumer activist began arguing, and the moderator went back and forth. Finally, the activist raised his voice to the corporate executive and said, “It’s because of people like you that we can’t breathe.” The executive got angry, exasperated, and red in the face. Without thinking, he shouted back, “Young man, there are more important things than breathing!” A hush came over the set and everyone looked stunned, especially the executive. He realized he’d been provoked into making a ridiculous and extreme statement, absurd to everyone.
The news media often try to move you to extreme positions. They try to show both sides of issues as if all issues had only two sides. TV is a time medium. Black and white issues make for clear-cut controversy. The time restrictions and space limitations (plus the short attention span of the audience) make simplification the imperative of the media. They label you as being on the right or the wrong side, liberal or conservative, up or down. They try to move you with their questioning to the most extreme possible position so that they can get a “good” quote. If you ever dare agree with your opponent, the producers will not invite you back because you failed to provide the necessary “drama” of controversy. Of course, they won’t say that. They’ll just throw away your phone number.
In some cases, a reporter might hold his microphone under your chin too long, for a few extra “beats” after you have finished. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that your statement is complete, and he expects you to continue. If the microphone lingers and the camera keeps rolling, simply restate your main theme. Sum it up. Be a stuck record. It’s better to repeat than to dilute your story with what could be viewed as an indecisive fade-out. The tape editor at the studio will tighten the segment by trimming the repetitious dialogue. The same principle holds true in a print interview. Don’t give in to pressure to go beyond the bounds of your position.
When you’re appearing on TV, don’t look around for the monitor, the camera crew, or other production staff. Let the equipment play to you. Don’t play to the equipment. Don’t worry about finding the right camera to look into. It’s the job of the director and/or camera operator to find you. If the interview is outside of a television studio—in the “field”—and you’re near people you know, don’t look at them. Stay focused on the interviewer, even when listening. Always bear in mind that you may be on, even though you’re not talking.
Also, recognize that any time you are in the presence of a newsperson, the conversation is fair game for the record. Jimmy Carter’s famous confession that he sometimes had lust in his heart for women other than his wife was uttered to a Playboy magazine journalist as he was leaving Carter’s home at the conclusion of the formal interview.
Even Mike Wallace, big-game hunter of the unguarded moment, got caught in this snare. As recounted on the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal by TV critic Daniel Henninger in March of 1981, Wallace
was interviewing a banker in San Diego about an alleged home-improvement fraud involving mainly blacks and Hispanics, who supposedly had signed contracts they couldn’t understand, which eventually led to foreclosures on their home mortgages.
The bank hired a film crew of its own to record the interview with Mr. Wallace. The bank’s crew apparently left its recorder running during a break in the CBS interview, and the tape has Mr. Wallace saying, in reply to a question about why the black and Hispanic customers would have signed their contracts, “They’re probably too busy eating their watermelon and tacos.”
When the Los Angeles Times got wind of this indiscretion and reported it, there was at least a minor uproar from reporters and others about Wallace’s “racially disparaging joke.” Wallace ultimately pleaded “no bias,” admitting that over time he’d privately told jokes about many ethnic groups but that his record “speaks for itself.”
Henninger added, “Needless to say, this has to be the most deliciously lip-smacking bit of irony to pop out of the oven in a long time. Here we have the dogcatcher cornered. The lepidopterist pinned. The preacher in flagrante delicto. This is the fellow who has imputed all manner of crimes against social goodness to a long lineup of businessmen and bureaucrats. From here on out, all future victims of Mr. Wallace can take some small comfort in knowing that although they may stand exposed as goof-offs, thieves, and polluters, he’s the guy who made the crack about the watermelons and tacos.”
I know Mike Wallace, and in my opinion he is absolutely not a bigot. Quite the opposite, he is a champion of human rights, but he’s human like everybody else. And we’ve all been guilty of saying things to friends in what we consider to be a private situation that might be disparaging to certain groups. As a matter of fact, it’s quite normal for reporters and producers to engage in cynical dialogue. Of course, most executives feel—and correctly so—that if it had been them, or if it had been a politician who made that crack, it would have been news for two weeks and possibly could have ended a person’s career. Some reporters did report Mike Wallace’s comments, but it was not pursued and, therefore, was quickly forgotten.
I’ve had clients ask me if they should go on “60 Minutes.” I usually tell them that if they are near retirement, have a golden parachute, and wish to go out in a blaze of glory, that is probably a good way to do it. Otherwise I don’t advise them to do TV programs that are extensively edited. There are too many techniques that they are unaware of. The truth, as I said before, is that they will be interviewed for two hours and the network will use their most controversial eighteen seconds. Those seconds could be remarks out of context or could be the one moment they lose their cool. The primary goal of a program like this is to get ratings.
Nonetheless, I was once interviewed by “60 Minutes.” I consented to the interview because I know the tricks and guerrilla tactics of journalists. I have worked in news. The person interviewing me either was trying to relax me or thought he’d get me to o
pen up in some way in an unguarded moment. He ordered his crew to take a break. But I noticed that, while the crew locked their recording gear in place and drifted away, the camera lenses were uncapped and pointed at me. I heard the faint whir of the camera motor and I knew it was still on. The trick didn’t work, so they officially continued the interview.
If executives want to do the “Today Show” or “Good Morning America” or the “CBS Morning Program,” which are live or live on tape, they have a fair shot at saying what they want to say and being sure that it remains intact. If they do an extensively edited show, they are taking their chances.
When speaking to the press, you have to get used to repeating your story to different reporters while maintaining your energy and freshness. Some journalists (print or broadcast) want to isolate you for a one-on-one interview. Or you may give a series of interviews on the same subject over a period of hours or days. The result is that you may talk about the same subject so many times that you’ll be tempted to say something new or different—if only to avoid boring yourself. Don’t confuse the need for repetition with the need to revise. As far as every new interviewer (or audience) is concerned, you are presenting to them for the first time. Struggle against the tedium and stay with your agenda—as long as it works.
I get a lot of heat sometimes for training people to meet the press. Once I was speaking at a journalism-school seminar, and one of the young people stood up and accused me of doing something immoral by teaching people how to answer questions from the press. It was as if I were somehow advising them not to tell the truth.
And I said, “We always advise our clients to tell the truth. But the thing that disturbs me most is that you are here in journalism school learning how to ask the questions, yet you would deny a person the right to learn how to answer those questions. Remember, this is America. What’s fair for one is fair for the other.”
That ended the conversation.
YOUR BILL OF RIGHTS
Anybody who wants to improve his communication skills has that right. Without training, some very talented and intelligent people would avoid all media situations because they fear embarrassment. A business executive needs training because the press will selectively edit anything he says. It may all be the truth, but only part of it may be relevant. Does a business executive have the right not to answer a question? Yes. Does he have the right to choose his words and not use the reporter’s words? Yes. Does he have the right to learn how to rehearse his responses before he walks out there with a bunch of lights and cameras pointed at him? Yes. Does he have the right to understand the technical nature of the interview-editing process? Yes. Does he have the right to know what to wear on camera? Yes. Should he be presumed innocent until proven guilty even if he refuses to answer certain questions? Yes.
Remember, when you go into a press situation, it’s a natural adversarial relationship. The reporter is a professional. Don’t get into the ring if you’re a rank amateur.
EPILOGUE
If you’ve read this far, you know by now that one of the themes of this book is that we’re all human. We make mistakes. We’re vulnerable. We’re not perfect. The thing that interferes most with communications, at times, is our attempt to prove that we’re not vulnerable—to keep a stiff upper lip or to appear macho in the face of imagined attacks. Here’s a final lesson I learned from one of the greatest entertainers of all time—Judy Garland.
In her twilight days, Judy was so ill that she often couldn’t complete a show. Alcohol and pills had taken their toll. Her voice was almost gone and she had trouble controlling her vibrato. When I met her, I was so shaken by her voice in rehearsal and her appearance that I couldn’t understand why she had such a loyal following. But anyone who saw her in conceit understood her magic. The audience identified with her “humanness.” They identified with her frailties. They understood her vulnerability. When she sang at Carnegie Hall and tried to hit the high notes in “Over the Rainbow,” twenty-eight hundred people were praying for her to make it. She understood that.
If you can get the audience to pull for you, you’ll always win. After all, audiences are just like you. They’re human. They care. They’re sympathetic. They’re supportive. The audience wants you to succeed. Show them that you care about them.
Try your best, just as Judy did every time she went on stage. Draw strength from others. An awareness of your own vulnerability and the vulnerability of others will make you a better and more human communicator. And only a human communicator can become a master communicator.
USER’S GUIDE
CHAPTER 1: THE FIRST SEVEN SECONDS
Summary
• We make a quick assessment of other people within seven seconds of first meeting them. What sort of instant impression do you make on others?
• Food, shelter, and clothing have always been listed as the prime essentials of the human survival kit. Communication belongs in that grouping.
• Good communication starts with good conversation. It is an art comprising listening, reacting, enthusiasm, empathy, and a mutual understanding of thought.
• Communication is a process of shared comprehension.
• The common denominator to success is the understanding and efficient application of the basic principles of communication.
• Implicit or openly stated in every job description is the requirement to be an effective communicator.
• The ten most common problems in communication are:
1. Initial rapport is not established with listeners.
2. Body movements are stiff or wooden.
3. Material is presented intellectually, not involving the audience emotionally.
4. Speaker seems uncomfortable due to fear of failure.
5. Eye contact and facial expression are poorly utilized.
6. Humor is lacking.
7. Speaker’s intentions are not made clear due to improper preparation.
8. Silence is not used for impact.
9. Energy is low, resulting in inappropriate pitch pattern, speech rate, and volume.
10. Language and material are boring.
Questions/Exercises for Discussion and Reflection
• Practice reading people’s nonverbal communication by: (1) watching television with the sound turned off; (2) from a distance, observing people talking on public telephones; (3) discreetly studying the interactions of people seated near you at other tables in a restaurant. How many different emotions can you identify by watching their facial expressions? Whether they are talking or listening, what do you interpret about them from their body language? Try to guess the nature of their relationship to those they engage in conversation.
• On a small index card, write down the list of the ten most common communication problems. Bring the list to a business meeting, speech, class, or local government meeting. How many of the problems do you detect in anyone who is speaking? Based on the principles of this book, what advice would you give the speaker to remedy his or her communication problems?
CHAPTER 2: TELEVISION CHANGED THE RULES
Summary
• Television has set the style of a modern communicator—relaxed, informal, crisp, quick, and entertaining.
• Television’s fast pace has made us an impatient society. Make your point quickly and be interesting.
• Using mental images enlivens communication. If you can see a picture in your mind and describe it, others will stay tuned in. See it and say it.
• In the television age, we are all broadcasters. Each person is his own message, whatever medium he chooses.
Questions/Exercises for Discussion and Reflection
• Develop your ability to use colorful language by comparing one thing to another, using the term “like a …” For instance, the poet Carl Sandburg said, “Life is like an onion: you peel it off one layer at a time, and sometimes you weep.” If you were to make a comparison using the phrase “Life is like a ——,” how would you fill in the blank? Think of
something memorable that happened to you and complete the thought “That experience was like a ——.” Or, recall a strong emotional reaction you had and apply it to finish the thought “It made me feel like a ——.” Have fun with this—be a little outrageous, exaggerate, or use “poetic license” in your word choices. However, try to avoid using clichés. See if you can use language in a fresh way. You’ll enjoy doing this more if you ask a friend to brainstorm with you about how to fill in the blanks, or if you turn it into a party game involving a group of people.
CHAPTER 3: YOU ARE THE MESSAGE
Summary
• Take an inventory and list personal assets that help you communicate—physical appearance, energy, rate of speech, pitch and tone of voice, animation and gestures, humor, and so forth.
• There is no established fault-free “communication posture.” You have to be yourself at your best without any drastic changes in personality. Nobody can play you as well as you can.
• Once you have reached a successful level of communication, you do not change or adapt your essential self to different audiences or different media.
• All communication is a dialogue, whether it be with one person or a thousand and one.
• A good communicator takes responsibility for the flow of communication, whether speaking or listening. Don’t rely on people to accommodate themselves to you. You are in charge of every communication situation you’re in.
• Audiences tend to respond to visual signals over verbal signals sent out by the speaker. If the speaker is somber and uncomfortable, his message becomes negative, too.