Practical PR — Hidden traps of media interviews and why you might be the biggest of all

Lawyers are used to controlling detail, nuance and process. Media interviews seemingly strip all three away (although that is an illusion I’ll explain shortly). Time is short, complexity is unwelcome, and words are edited to fit the needs of the story rather than the speaker.

Accordingly, much guidance on media interviews focuses on what journalists might do to extract information or provoke comment. That is useful, but it misses an uncomfortable truth. In most situations, the biggest risk is not the journalist at all. It is the passivity or complacency of the interviewee.

Let’s deal first though with just five basic traps and how to manage them.

Filling the silence

Silence makes people uncomfortable. Journalists know this, but they do not need to exploit it deliberately. Interviewees do the work themselves. A pause after an answer often leads to elaboration, qualification or a speculative aside. Those additions are rarely helpful.

Interviewees who learn to stop talking once their point is made immediately reduce risk. This takes discipline, particularly for professionals used to detailed explanation.

Acknowledging what you disagree with

Another common mistake is responding to a premise you reject. Phrases such as “isn’t it the case that” or “is there not a danger that…” are not neutral. They are invitations to say no and create a convenient headline. (Think: “Reeves denies budget U-turn” if she says ‘no’ to the question “Chancellor, aren’t you having to backtrack again?”)

The trap here is compliance. Interviewees often feel obliged to engage with the framing of the question. A more effective approach is to step back, restate what you can responsibly say, and deliver your message in your own terms. You are entitled to do so and it is often the safest route. However, it’s easy to do this badly…

Failing to acknowledge

…and people rightly fear giving what they often describe as ‘a politician’s answer’. When we hear someone not answering the question that is usually because they are doing so badly, resulting in us shouting at the radio or the TV (I know it’s not just me who does it!)

The theory of how to not answer a question well would take up an article in itself, so the key point to get across here is the importance of acknowledging what’s behind the question. At the heart of that is a willingness to overtly respect the right of other people to their own opinion, no matter how ill-informed, misguided or downright stupid you think they are.

The temptation to over-explain

Lawyers often need to be precise and comprehensive. Media interviews reward neither. Over-explanation creates multiple risks: contradictory phrasing, unintended emphasis or a quote that can be lifted without its qualifying language.

Also, you’re creating too much work for your audience. The most effective interviewees discipline themselves to one or two clear points, expressed in plain language, repeated if necessary, and delivered in a form that fits the media space. This is not evasion; it is realism.

Loss of discipline

Interruptions, repeated questioning and time pressure all increase cognitive load. Under stress, people speed up, abandon prepared messages or attempt to rebut every implied criticism. The result is often a scattered performance that gives the impression of uncertainty, even when none exists.

The trap here is emotional reaction. Interviewees who feel challenged often respond defensively or expansively. Preparation reduces this risk, but so does accepting that some questions are designed to test resilience rather than extract information.

The real trap: self-sabotage

I’ve spent countless hours preparing or training senior leaders to deal with very challenging situations. These are people who have enormous command of themselves – and their message – in front of politicians, at board meetings or dismissing one of their top team.

Yet, they will get it wrong in an interview. How does that happen?
The most important, and extremely common, misconception that leads to this is a feeling the interview is being done to them. The interviewee takes a passive approach, despite having as much control if not more than the interviewer.

That in turn leads to inadequate or ineffective preparation.
Here’s are five tips on how what to do differently.

1. Be selfless. Think clearly about what will be memorable and shareable from your audience’s perspective.
2. Conversely, be selfish. Go in with a very clear idea of a few key points. Better to be remembered for three statements than forgotten for 10.
3. Consider how to be helpful. An interview isn’t a chance for you to show how clever you are or indulge in a battle of wits with the interviewer (who is not your audience anyway).
4. Practice out loud repeatedly, ideally in front of critical friends. Words written down often do not translate into speech or come across as you intended.
5. Be far more familiar with your material than you think you need to be. I’m not talking about memorising from a script. If you are confident someone could wake you up in the middle of the night and ask you to correctly set out the essence of your priority messages, then you’re ready to deliver them when you feel under pressure. (This is not a service I’ve ever had to provide a client but maybe I will one day!)

Conclusion

Most interviews are not dangerous because journalists are adversarial. They are risky because the format exposes human tendencies: to fill silence, to explain too much, to be compliant, to be defensive, and to respond emotionally when feeling cornered.

Nobody can make you say anything you don’t want to say. Nobody can make you answer a question you don’t want to answer. Prepare for the traps for sure; but above all taking control of the outcome as much as possible means preparing yourself properly.