< < Back to Articles
Don’t Let Bruce Willis Handle Your Next News Media Encounter
By Eric Seidel
Bruised and bloody, our hero emerges from battling the bad guys to face a crowd that usually includes police, firefighters, and other rescue personnel, the wounded sidekick, the movie’s love interest, and, of course, the news media. Clint Eastwood (as Dirty Harry) usually flashed a menacing scowl and sulked away. Bruce Willis of "Die Hard" fame took us to the next level when his character’s wife actually punched out an obnoxious reporter.
Let’s face it. The entertainment media have helped shape our attitudes about the news media. Or at least they’ve helped us justify some wrongheaded notions about relationships with reporters. For some, maybe for many of us, there’s a sense of satisfaction in watching the fatuous reporter get what’s coming to him or to her. Though we’ve never outwitted the cruelly intelligent murderer or rescued a high rise and all its occupants from invading terrorists, isn’t it just possible that we’ve borrowed a little of that machismo for our own encounters with the news media?
One ongoing survey of business managers and executives shows that nearly 63 percent still believe "there are times when it is necessary to say ’no comment’" when talking with the news media. What's even worse is that 43 percent strongly agree.
A "no comment" to the news media is the classic case of words gone awry by mimicking bad role models. Beyond the make–believe movie world, we see real, live, important people do it all the time. Politicians, celebrities, and even corporate executives toss an arrogant "no comment" into a pack of reporters and expect it to quell demands for information. More than likely, the now cliché "no comment" will have just the opposite effect.
Here’s why. To you, "no comment" may be a simple and convenient way to communicate one of several possible messages. Either:
- I have no information to give,
- Policy prevents me from answering your question,
- I’ll say something wrong.
- Legal restrictions prevent me from answering your question, or even
- The information you’re asking for is proprietary. Making it public would weaken our competitive position.
All of these are sound reasons not to answer a reporter’s question, not to mention totally appropriate words to use in the process. And the process can be tedious, aggravating and make us feel as if we’re being invaded. So we let emotions rule the day and end up following bad role models by relying on the shorthand "no comment." That says reams about you and your organization, and none of it is good.
Why? Because the reporter hearing those same words actually hears an entirely different message. Often, he or she hears a challenge. What a reporter hears is that you have something to hide or some reason to be evasive. So what's the response? The reporter begins digging deeper, possibly even posing the same questions to people who have no legitimate reason to speak publicly about your company. But does that stop them? Of course not. In effect, you’ve just delegated the task of delivering important messages to those least qualified to do it and least inclined to deliver messages that could help people understand your organization and its motives.
There will always be times when you must decline to provide information or answer a reporter’s question. But there are always better ways and better words for handling the situation. Banish "no comment" from your vocabulary.
As satisfying as it might seem, especially for those who feel they have been mistreated or even abused by the news media, making mince meat our of reporters is a strategy best left to Hollywood action heroes. In the real world, the hero is the one who can face reporters with self–assurance and turn those menacing questions into genuine opportunities to share important messages.
Top
Eric Seidel is a partner in TMT/The Media Trainers®, LLC, an Atlanta–based firm that provides training in news media interview skills and crisis communication. You can contact The Media Trainers® at 770–971–6619.
