What I wish I'd said, by Tony Blair's PR engine
27/03/06 09:50 Media
issues
The Prime Minister's comments reported this morning
are clear enough - there's a video link on
this page
in which you can see him admitting that the
announcement that he would not serve a complete third
term may have been a mistake. That's not what the
Express says he said of course; that paper says he
said it was a 'total catastrophe' which, although he
and some others might think it, is a complete
misrepresentation of his actual words.
What I find hilarious about this is Downing Street's attempt to come into the story later and 'clarify' things. The radio this morning was full of whoever 'Downing Street' actually comprises. Currently Downing Street is saying what he meant was the announcement rather than the decision not to stand, which is fair. Earlier a report on BBC London said Downing Street had denied he'd said he made a mistake.
Unfortunately for Downing Street they've had to stop that, because what he said is actually on tape and the audio is now doing the rounds. My life as a reporter is frequently made difficult by people in PR or marketing telling me what was actually said in an interview they didn't attend. Years ago I was berated by the marketing manager of a computer distributor because one of his colleagues 'didn't say' something I'd quoted. Well actually, he did, I told them, and you weren't on the call so you wouldn't know about this. But I've spoken to him, came the reply.
It's easy to say something you didn't actually mean when you're put on the spot, anyone can understand that. During a media training session once I used the old 'silence' trick to see whether the MD would fill the gap by waffling, and he accidentally told me his company was in merger talks with a telecoms company (he watched the tape later in disbelief, conceding that he'd said it but stressing, even in confidence, that it just wasn't true and he didn't know how he'd ended up saying it). Had this been a real interview he would almost certainly have lost his job as a result. He was reasonable enough to concede that this would have been his own fault. Not everyone does so. On another occasion I was accused of fabricating a story that a printer manufacturer had been involved in a 'row'. There was no row, said the MD, this is a lie - when he'd stood up at a public press conference the week before and said there had been 'bloodletting' in the boardroom.
If people would be honest enough to admit they gave a wrong impression, over-egged a story to gain more attention or if they were to say they wanted to bring a bigger point out and hoped for a chance to do so, that would be one thing. If there are any PRs reading, though, please please educate your clients. Tell them that if they genuinely didn't say something they need to make this clear, but if they mean 'I wish I hadn't said that' then they need to take a vastly different approach if they want any sort of amendment published.
What I find hilarious about this is Downing Street's attempt to come into the story later and 'clarify' things. The radio this morning was full of whoever 'Downing Street' actually comprises. Currently Downing Street is saying what he meant was the announcement rather than the decision not to stand, which is fair. Earlier a report on BBC London said Downing Street had denied he'd said he made a mistake.
Unfortunately for Downing Street they've had to stop that, because what he said is actually on tape and the audio is now doing the rounds. My life as a reporter is frequently made difficult by people in PR or marketing telling me what was actually said in an interview they didn't attend. Years ago I was berated by the marketing manager of a computer distributor because one of his colleagues 'didn't say' something I'd quoted. Well actually, he did, I told them, and you weren't on the call so you wouldn't know about this. But I've spoken to him, came the reply.
It's easy to say something you didn't actually mean when you're put on the spot, anyone can understand that. During a media training session once I used the old 'silence' trick to see whether the MD would fill the gap by waffling, and he accidentally told me his company was in merger talks with a telecoms company (he watched the tape later in disbelief, conceding that he'd said it but stressing, even in confidence, that it just wasn't true and he didn't know how he'd ended up saying it). Had this been a real interview he would almost certainly have lost his job as a result. He was reasonable enough to concede that this would have been his own fault. Not everyone does so. On another occasion I was accused of fabricating a story that a printer manufacturer had been involved in a 'row'. There was no row, said the MD, this is a lie - when he'd stood up at a public press conference the week before and said there had been 'bloodletting' in the boardroom.
If people would be honest enough to admit they gave a wrong impression, over-egged a story to gain more attention or if they were to say they wanted to bring a bigger point out and hoped for a chance to do so, that would be one thing. If there are any PRs reading, though, please please educate your clients. Tell them that if they genuinely didn't say something they need to make this clear, but if they mean 'I wish I hadn't said that' then they need to take a vastly different approach if they want any sort of amendment published.
|