Humphrys gives Brown ‘a hard time’
Imagine your spokesperson is hauled over the coals in a hostile interview for something that he never said. He holds his own in the interview but comes across looking defensive. What can you do, after the fact, to salvage the situation?
This is the exactly the challenge faced earlier this week by the PRs at 10 Downing Street when Prime Minister Gordon Brown faced John Humphry’s on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, which airs weekday mornings to an audience of almost 9.5 million.
Would you:
- forget the incident and just move on?
- complain to the reporter’s boss and demand an on-air apology?
- issue a statement, citing proof of the journalist’s error to the rest of the national media?
- request supplementary interview where your spokesperson can personally set the record straight with listeners?
- something else?
The folks at 10 Downing Street chose to No. 2 as their strategy. As a result they got a ‘clarification’ delivered in a light hearted tone on air the very next day which, it’s been reported, has further deepened the rift.
Reporting a journo to the boss when a mistake is made is no way to make friends, even if the journalist in question is one of the nation’s highest profile and most respected.
And having done so, it was folly to expect John Humphrys to deliver the corrected message to his audience, on behalf of the Prime Minister. I just can’t imagine him saying, “You know listeners, Mr Brown was right; I was wrong. My researchers screwed up my briefing notes, and I was unnecessarily aggressive towards the Prime Minister. ”
Me? Well No. 2 would not have been my choice. With No. 3 you’re just fanning the flames and broadening the story’s reach (not to mention making your spokesperson a target going forward). No. 1 does have appeal. The old ‘change the subject’ strategy has served many of well time and time again.
But I think I’d have picked No. 4 on this occasion. Our job is to build strong relationships with people working in the media. Once the facts are established why not ask the journalist to book the spokesperson for a second interview where he can speak directly to the audience and have a better chance of getting his message across? It would be a tough interview, but nothing Mr Brown isn’t used to already.
I’m not British. I don’t live in the UK. I’ve no particular political axe to grind here. But as media relations practitioner I am interested. I’d love to hear what the rest of the PR blogosphere thinks and how they would have handled it.
Filed under: Media, public relations
Subscribe to our feed
Subscribe by Email
I am British, and I’m old enough to recall governments of the right and of the left condemning BBC bias. (Norman Tebbitt used to on behalf of Margaret Thatcher; Alastair Campbell did so more recently on behalf of Tony Blair.) As a neutral, this makes me think the BBC has it about right – but it doesn’t help answer your question about how you handle your client.
But I did sometimes find myself lecturing clients on the concept of a free press. (It was Margaret Thatcher who used to shrug her shoulders and say ‘you can’t have a free society without a free press.’) Perhaps that’s why I no longer have clients to handle, just students to lecture…
What did he get wrong?
In a previous “interview” with Brown it was so benign compared to the previous session with Cameron that many people complained to the BBC. This session helped to mend fences on the matter of the overt leftist bias of the BBC.
Every day we hear politicians state “facts” that have no substance, and these go unchallenged except where they are so obviously lies.
The last I heard was that Britain has the lowest debt for over 20 years. This is not so, and also makes no allowance for the billions of “hidden” PFI costs to come onto the account book in the coming years.
To try to answer your question the interviewee should at the interview state that the facts are wrong, since he-she should have knowledge of what is being discussed. The BBC does not “interview” the Prime Minister without the agenda being clearly set out and agreed BEFOREHAND.
Regards.
I am not sure it matters what Mr Brown does at the moment as he is clearly in over his head. He knew what to expect from John Humphrys and quite clearly got outwitted. In the larger picture, the best option is to resign as he is not what I would call a “conviction politician” or leader. It is more damage limitation now as the goods are damaged, possibly beyond repair. Unfortunately that is unlikely to happen. I do believe his strategy to be fatally flawed. Did Mr Brown ever have a personal brand?