Talking Point

Angry Julia loses it for a minute

By Craig Regan

It’s a blip in the scheme of things but a clear case of Do As I Say, Not Do As I Do. I’m talking about Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s ticking off of a journalist at her Adelaide media conference this morning.

Press Gallery journalists rightfully praised Gillard for giving one of her strongest performances ever in front of a media throng. That was until the final moments when The Australian’s Michael Owen asked about her role in the downfall of Kevin Rudd.

"So you just fell into the leadership?" he said at one stage – and kept going. Her response showed what not to do in front of an otherwise benign media pack.

"I’ll answer your question but, ah, just ... I’m not listening to this rudeness, I’ll answer your question and then I’ll give a question to your colleague, thank you very much... “I’m not going have you just speak to me like this. End of sentence. I’ll answer your question and I will take a question from your colleague.

"Your question is internally inconsistent. Let me answer it...well, I’ll answer it thanks very much... If you stop talking then I’ll give you an answer, but I can’t give you an answer if you keep talking.”

The appearance of Angry Julia not-so-deft sidestepping an issue might have been a play aimed at presenting her as a PM with renewed authority, but went dangerously close to portraying her as out of control.

That the reporter has since apologised doesn't quarantine footage fo the incident making the nightly news. 

It wasn't quite on the scale of K Rudd’s Unhappy Little Vegemite YouTube video, mind you, but it's still not a good look.

At Lighthouse, we use media training to enable clients to handle questions exactly like this. So here's some free advice.

The most graceful response is to pause, stay silent until the questioner has run out of steam, acknowledge the question and answer or re-direct it, on your own terms.  

Remember, it’s a reporter’s job to ask hard questions and probe. Ripping strips off them just distracts from the messages you were trying to convey.

Whitney funeral will be media- managed to keep the peace

 

By Craig Regan

 

The news that Whitney Houston’s publicist has arranged footage of the late singer’s funeral service to be distributed throws a spotlight on a lesser-known media management practice called “pooling.”

Pooling is where one media outlet is chosen to film an event and shares the footage with competitors. It’s commonly used to limit media attendance where space is at a premium or their presence might be upsetting.

Witht he Houston story, squeezing a herd of American TV crews into a small Newark church wouldn’t have made much sense.

Barring attendance point-blank would have encouraged ultra-competitive reporters to push the envelope and sneak in a camera. The footage will be made available to TV news and sent all over the Internet.

Pooling is usually a good compromise even if it goes against the grain for many reporters.

Back when I was working as a go-between in media-police relations, pooling was sometimes used at funerals or at open-air crime scenes where evidence had to be preserved.

It’s a little-known fact that police find it useful to have access to TV crews’ unedited footage at events like homicide victims’ funerals . The rationale is that killers are often known to their victims - their behaviour might provide evidence to build a case – so cops often do some kind of deal with the media to maintain their distance.

A pool camera closer to the action can quietly provide the better footage that TV needs.

I went to biker funerals where allowing TV crew access would have been like throwing petrol onto a smouldering fire. If access for one crew (on the condition that they shared their footage) kept the peace, that was a good outcome.

PM shows she's not listening or atrociously advised

By Peter Laidlaw

Roll-up, roll-up, roll-up - The great Australian Labor Party circus has hit town and you are sure to be entertained by a wonderful team of entertainers - including a few clowns, a number of knife-throwers, invisible men and tightrope walkers, led by not one but two ring masters who can't tame the lions behind them.

Yes for at least the sixth week in a row (though I must admit I have stopped counting), the "phantom" challenge by the former PM, one K.Rudd, to topple the current PM continues to dominate newspapers and the airwaves.

We have seen media reports about who is backing whom.

We have heard party colleagues claim that it was not possible for Rudd to return as a leader having previously led and failed (despite those same colleagues being around when Kim Beazley was returned as the ALP leader in 2005 after having held the throne four years earlier).

We have listened to carefully crafted words from Rudd and Gillard and their supporters to dismiss the challenge as simply being a media speculation ....and wondered if Mark Latham would introduce his Conga Line of Suckholes descriptor to the current situation.

And then we read that the riot act had been read to the party – Stop Talking - it's only giving oxygen to the story!

With that, I was not holding out much hope for any explosive revelations coming from Four Corners story on the only battle taking place in federal politics - Rudd vs Gillard (Tony who?).

But being a political junkie, I removed myself from the family room - having just lost a debate with one of the kids over whether Kev vs Julz's would be more entertaining than the new Channel 7 US import Revenge - and flicked on the box in the bedroom to hear the old familiar Four Corners theme and Kerry introducing "The Comeback Kid?".

I was interested but not surprised when a line-up - including a former Rudd staffer (who got some good PR for his new book), a right wing union bod, two former ministers (now lobbyists) and another political staffer-turned-lobbyist - gave their views on Rudd and what happened.

In reality it was a bit ho-hum and in my view would not really give much fuel to the leadership fire. Any newsroom would be scratching hard to get much out of the story to give the "challenge" more life.

But then came the PM!

And to much celebration within newsrooms around the country came a very poor response to the question of whether her office had prepared her speech accepting the role two weeks prior to Kevin being shafted. If this was the case and she knew about this, there would be a huge question mark over the credibility, already tainted by her "no carbon tax" pledge and commitments to independent Andrew Wilkie regarding pokies.

The PM had repeatedly stated that she was not behind a planned campaign to dispose of her old boss and that she only made the decision to challenge for the leadership the day before.

After several unsuccessful attempts to get a straight answer to the questions, we heard "I have just given the best answer I can." If that was the best answer that could be given by her, one has to ask the question: Why on earth did Gillard grant the interview in the first place?

As I have long believed and advocated with clients - you don't always have to say yes to a media request. If Julia had taken such a position, we may have been saved at least a day of leadership talk in media and Julia may well have saved some face before the public.