What precautions to take when being interviewed by the media

An outstanding post from Mark on the WUWT blog after the stitch up on James Delingpole.

A bit of cut n paste for you media whores!

I have some expertise in PR and media relations and here is a primer on handling documentary producers.

Before the interview:

* Do not sign the release form/waiver until after the interview. Do not sign a release form that is a blanket release. Add in a line that limits your release to that day’s date and up to the current time of day. That prevents a subsequent ambush interview also being covered under the released.

* Carefully limit the length of the interview in writing when you agree to the appointment. I suggest a maximum of 30 minutes. No one is usually on camera for more than 90 seconds (if that) and 30 minutes is more than enough time for them to get what they want if they are being straightforward. Giving them more time just lets them go ‘fishing’ for some gaffe or misstatement. Don’t let them.

* Have someone there on your side who is going to be your watchdog. Get someone who doesn’t have trouble disagreeing with people and holding them to their word. They should be like your defense attorney.

* Ask for a specific list of questions in advance. Print it and have it with you.

* If they have any problems granting any of the above, you should take that as an almost certain sign that they are up to no good.

* Assume that they are recording the entire time they are in your presence, even if it appears the camera is off. Once they put a radio microphone on you, carefully manage when it is on and off. Turn it on and off yourself. A good tip is to actually clip it to the back of the chair you are sitting in instead of your belt. That way you can’t forget and wander off with it during a break.

* Try to negotiate the right to see the finished documentary before it is aired. Any producer will be reluctant, even if they are on the up and up because it’s more work. However, how they respond to this discussion can be telling. Point out that you’re not asking for any editorial input (which they would never agree to anyway), you just want to have some idea of what to expect before it airs.

* Remember that ALL professional documentary makers have already decided their angle on the story before they begin. Any claims to the contrary (such as “we’re just taking a neutral look at both sides”), should be taken as evidence that they are not being up front with you. Making a documentary is hard, time-consuming and expensive. They wouldn’t go to all that trouble and expense if they didn’t think they had an important and compelling angle on the story.

* Always research the people and the company making the documentary. When they first contact you ask lots of questions about who’s involved in production, who’s backing the project, which production companies are being used, where it will air, etc. Google all of this and follow the threads. Generally zebras don’t change their stripes.

* A few days before the interview ask who else they’ve already interviewed (to save costs they tend to group production sessions together). If you can, contact those people and ask how it went.

* Just as they are getting ready to roll, reach into your pocket and take out your own audio recorder (or cellphone with recording app) and turn it on saying “you don’t mind if I get this for my notes do you?”

* Doing video interviews is hard. Very hard. Coming across naturally and clearly is tough even for skilled news presenters and politicians. So if an interviewer wants to make you look bad, they have a head start if you’re a novice. This why I strongly suggest doing some practice sessions with a friend. Get out your camcorder, sit down interview style and go through a list of likely questions several times. Have your friend get tricky and try to mess you up. Have fun. Then make some popcorn and watch it. Make notes. Do it again. A little practice is better than none but a lot of practice is ideal.

During the Interview:

* Strictly hold them to the agreed length and remind them when they arrive and when the interview starts.

* Keep your answers very short and very focused. This can take practice because we all like to ramble on. Don’t! It never comes across well, even in a friendly interview.

* After they have asked each question, feel free to take a few moments to collect your thoughts before you start your answer. They will edit out the question anyway. Do not ever let them rush you. Do not ever engage in a rapid fire back and forth because this is where you are most likely to misspeak. Your watchdog friend should feel free to interrupt with “Let’s take a break” right in the middle of a question if they feel it’s appropriate. If you take a break, remember, mic off.

* If you feel like you are in the process of flubbing answer, immediately stop and say “that’s not correct, let me try starting over” and then just start over. Feel free to do this multiple times if necessary. If they try to use the start of your flubbed answer, it will look pretty bad for them when you release your audio recording showing they used something that they knew was “not correct”.

* If they surprise you with a question that you are unprepared to answer. Immediately stand up. The reason is that it can be a very effective technique to ask their “zinger” and let the shot hang on your uncomfortable expression. If you stand up, the camera shot is of your zipper – something they are unlikely to linger on for very long. Keep in mind that standing up is the only sure way to “scrub” an interview shot. Feel free to use it as often as needed. A good pretext can be reaching over to get your print out of the questions so you can note that this question wasn’t on there.

* If it is becoming clear that this is a hostile interview, don’t waste time making grand points that eloquently prove your case. If it’s good for your position, they simply won’t use it. This is like a legal deposition or police questioning. What you say can only be bad for you, never good.

* You may need to question the question if it’s of the “when did you stop beating your wife” category. This is perfectly acceptable to do. It’s your interview too. However, never have this kind of discussion with the mic on or in view of the camera. There is usually an additional shotgun mic on the camera that provides a less perfect but still usable audio feed if they choose. Also keep in mind that the interviewer’s radio mic can pick you up as well if they are within a few feet of you.

* If the interviewer keeps circling back and re-asking basically the same question in different ways, that means that he’s not happy with how your response is coming across. In a hostile situation this means you are doing very well! Now the key is to simply smile and “play broken record”. Keep repeating the exact same answer verbatim. Do not expand on it. Do not add to it. Nada. This might feel uncomfortable at first but just do it. They can’t use what they don’t have.

* When you feel that you’ve said what you want them to have then feel free to end the interview (even if the half-hour isn’t up). Just stand up, turn off the mic, grab your recorder, make some polite excuse and make like Elvis and leave the building. Let your watchdog observe them as they pack up and leave.

After the Interview:

* Before they leave, they may want to get what is called “B-Roll” footage of you walking about your environs. Whether you decide to grant this request or not will depend on how things have gone up to this point. If you are sure they are hostile or are unsure, then I suggest not granting this. It won’t help your position and it will give them lots of footage over which they can add their own narrative that will probably be damning to you.

* If they do turn out to be hostile to your position then, sadly, the best you can hope for is that they don’t use any of your interview at all. That means that they didn’t get anything from you that would help them make their case. Congratulations! That’s as close to a perfect score as you can hope for in this twisted game.

I hope that helps…

BBC’s biased reporting of Global Warming

h/t Autonomous Mind

More BBC bias

From the Spectator's Coffeehouse:

The MSM reporting of the cuts has been near-hysterical at times, and woefully lacking in any sense of balance. The BBC, in particular, has no excuse: it has an economics team and a mandate to be a public service broadcaster. Why did it make no mention of the other side of this coin? Is there a D-Notice on good economic news that we haven’t been told about?

Fraser Nelson

TV Licence

A post I did on Corrugated Soundbite's great blog:

I cancelled the telly tax sometime ago – I hardly watched TV as most of the stuff was abysmal, such as X-factor, Strictly Come Lap Dancing and other panem et circenses programs. As for the news, it was either sensationalised trivia, celebrity worship or in the case of the BBC, outright bias which had me reaching for the bendroflumethiazide.

If there are any programs I want to watch I either watch on demand or rent/buy the bluray DVDs. Being a geek, I have networked, using CAT6 cabling, the entire house and can stream media to any TV or PC in the house using NMTs.

Life is much better without TV, it’s more fulfilled and hours of your life are not simply wasted in silence watching angry soaps full of cliché repeating, angry chav-like actors. I like spending time reading debates on blogs, selecting online news from different countries for a wider perspective. Suddenly, news becomes more of a discussion than a one way stream of propaganda. It’s quite liberating.

Cancelling the licence is simple: one phone call, one cancelled direct debit, tear up the letters as they arrive and most importantly: one notice of “implied right of access denied for the following companies: Capita, TV Licensing and the BBC”.

The TV Licensing guy that eventually turned up at my place walked up my drive, read the notice, scratched his head, made a call on his mobile and went away, never to be seen again. And the letters suddenly stopped.

I know most people think you need a TV licence if you own a TV. That’s wrong, it’s any device used to receive live broadcast. You can use a laptop or a TV to view DVDs or other streamable material.

I know most people are worried that they may be caught. Put a notice up and ignore the TV Licence guys – they’re a private company and you can deny them right of access to your property. They are the ones infringing the law if they come up to your property.

They must obtain a warrant to enter your premises but they need to show the court proof that the occupier is watching live broadcast – this is an expensive route and if they have deceived the court in any way, they can be in big, big trouble both as an individual and a company. That is why warrants are extremely rare.

There are also no TV detector vans to catch you – they cross check their licence database with the address. The TV detector vans are empty hoaxes. No one to date has been prosecuted using a TV detector. Because they don’t exist, although the technology is feasible, it is cheaper for Capita to use the database and employ empty threats.

And there's absolutely no way they could stop me from watching live broadcasts using software on my PC using my network, should I choose to.

Like New Zealand, the licence fee will go eventually - it needs a critical mass of people to be aware of the above and then the cost of defending the licence fee becomes too great.

So, come on people, let's do it!

An Appalling Question Time

I have to admit that I avoid watching the spectacle of farce and bias that has become the BBC's Question Time, but last night I joined David Vance and the crew from Biased BBC to watch the programme and comment on Live Chat.

Probably the worse edition of the programme I have seen. 

The programme kicked off by Dimbers saying that the new coalition government refused to place one of their ministers there unless they removed the failed spin doctor and yesterday's man, Alistair Campbell from the panel and replace him with a shadow minister.

Gavin Allen, the executive editor of Question Time said:

It is for Question Time, not political parties, to make judgements about impartiality and to determine who is invited to appear in the interests of the audience.

The remaining 59 minutes of the programme quickly nosedived into an orgy of Tory bashing, coalition critique and pro Labour propaganda, apart from one minor distraction of Piers Moron blaming Campbell for Iraq and asking him to apologise, which he naturally refused (for fear of opening a can of fake dossier worms).  Amusingly, someone in the audience at that moment jeered: "Dr Kelly". 

John Redwood initially took a surprisingly aggressive stance against Campbell throwing in plenty of blame for the mess we're in down to "Campbell's government".  Unfortunately, an audience packed with liberals clapping enthusiastically like seals whenever Campbell had finished his diatribes and the constant interruptions from Dimbers quickly quenched any semblance of a Tory viewpoint.

This is interesting in the fact that maybe, perhaps the new coalition have started to make a stand against the creep of "progressive" liberal bias that has infested the once great BBC.  Evidence of their complete lack of political impartiality is becoming more public and their ludicrous stance of "the science is settled within the BBC" and their zealous defence of anything regarding the eco-lunacy of the global warming bollocks and windmills variety is frankly staggering.

Could we be seeing the first battle lines being drawn between the new coalition government and the BBC?  Certainly, the BBC's anti-Tory rhetoric is growing stronger.  Do they sense their vast empire may be in danger as the new coalition starts to hack away at the gluttonous tentacles of the public sector?  Maybe.

You can all help with that process yourselves by cancelling your TV licences.  It's very easy to do.  Here's the number: 0844 800 6705.  Just say you want to cancel your licence, they don't ask you why and if they do, just say you don't watch any more telly.

More info here.

5th Blog Post From BBC's Nick Robinson about Ashcroft

Like a dog with a bone, Nick Robinson simply won't let this Ashcroft story go.  Even readers on his blog are staggered at his blatant lack of impartiality.

Perhaps Nick can now focus on Labour's non-doms such as Lord Paul, as Marr did on his Sunday show to a very surprised Harriet Harman.  She wasn't ready for any off-script questions!

However, the BBC remains fully focussed on discrediting the Tories at every step, I'm sure with a little persuasion from a certain Mr Mandleson as well as their collective, ingrained liberal thinking culture within.  As they say, the Tory voting club in the BBC has very few members.  The BBC's thin veneer of impartiality and balance has all but gone and they have shown where their taxpayer funded loyalty lies, as was expected now that the polls are showing the two parties neck and neck.

Favourable reporting from the BBC is important for both parties, as can be seen whenever Labour have complained to the BBC about Tory bias.

However, with the plethora of sites such as the Biased BBC, there are many examples of the BBC anti-Tory bias that we can observe ourselves, even familiar scenes such as allowing Labour their say without interruption and then countering this with downright hostility with any Tory interviewee.

From Nick's blog, RobB sums it up nicely:

So Nick,


now that you've written 5 blogs recently on the Ashcroft/Conservatives and none on the Labour non-doms; maybe to address the BBC impartiality you should perhaps do as David Cameron suggests and "go after the Labour Party and ask questions about their donors and where they pay tax."
 
How 'bout that eh ?

 
Quite.

The BBC at its biased best

It looks like Nick Robinson's blog is going into overdrive as he once again desperately tries to make up for the slow start to the failed coup attempt on Gordon Brown.  Guido and Tory Bear were reporting the news after midday.

The BBC have been piling on the toadying to Not-quite-so-new Labour, completely removing all but the mere hint of a whisper of the Tories from the front pages.

It was rumours abound as Peter "will he, or won't he arrive at Newsnight" Mandelson finally buckled under pressure from Mr Dale to cast his spell over Gordon's inevitable descent into oblivion.

David Vance of Biased BBC fame has report the "sheer pro-Labour entertainment value" of James Naughtie's Today program, where once again the BBC are giving a platform for Labour MPs to get their daily message out unhindered and unchallenged, liberally sprinkled with the usual "nasty Tories" rhetoric.

And of course, best leave it up to the ineffable Pie Muncher Puncher to summarise the situation with his erudite demeanour delivered using a syntax that has upset many a Babelfish: