“Tips for Interviewees”

I’m the first to admit that I’m not a fan of former Kansas City Star columnist Jason Whitlock. I think he’s popular not because he’s a good writer or because his analysis of sports is on point, but because he’s controversial. And in today’s environment, whatever gets page views, ad clicks, or attention wins the day. On Friday, Whitlock took to the airwaves to talk for over an hour about why he was leaving the Kansas City Star for the Fox network.

Whitlock accused the Kansas City Star of all sorts of improprieties, but what his problem boiled down to was that he asked for something from his bosses and didn’t get it.

Join the club.

Obviously, Whitlock didn’t just notice the ethical issues at the Star just prior to quitting his job. The reality is, he was more than happy to overlook those flaws as long as he was getting what he wanted. But when he went to his bosses and asked for them to “maximize” their use of him (he wasn’t specific during the portion of the interview I heard, but I take that to mean giving him a lot more attention and money) suddenly everything he’d witnessed at the paper became an issue of concern.

Much like Lebron James’ silly “Decision” special, Whitlocks “Explanation” episode was just as lengthy, tired and narcissistic. And while such a stunt may go over fine in the world of entertainment (notice, I didn’t say journalism), for the rest of you 9 to 5ers and freelancers and other people who care about whether or not you ever work again, making a point of publicly dissing your former employer isn’t the right call.

Continue Reading…

2.5 years ago Michael Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison for his part in a dogfighting operation. Like any celebrity or politician who has suffered from a damaged reputation, the post-act contrition interview is an important one. By the time the interviewed aired, Vick had already signed with an NFL team, the first step in regaining his career and image. However, that particular step does not make the necessary media interactions any easier.

Here, I break down the pros and cons** of the first 15 minutes Vick’s interview with 60 minutes and give my overall impression of Vick’s interview skills.

The interview begins with Vick describing how he realized the “magnitude” of what he’d done with the guard shut the door to his cell. He cites this as the reason that he “cried so many nights.” He went on to say that the tears were a result of being away from his family and knowing how many people he let down. He uses another 2 minutes to mention that he thought the dog fighting culture was cool, that it resulted in him lying in prison bunk with no on to talk to, and that prison life “wasn’t [his] life.”

PROS

When giving what I refer to as a “Contrition Interview,” it is important to think of which messages you know you want to make. As an outside assessing this interview, it looks as though Vick chose, among other possible things, to ensure he conveyed emotion and obligation.

Conveying emotion is important when the interviewee is a male. In particular, if the interviewee is large or intimidating in anyway. Many perceive African Americans as intimidating figures; Vick is a large African American male and needed to cultivate a soft image. The visual he provided to the audience of him crying was effective. It assists the audience in understanding that despite whatever acts were committed, Mr. Vick is a human being like any other.

Obligation, his other point of emphasis, is also important. Many fans and nonfans of football expressed disbelief that someone who had so much would risk losing it all. Vick did a great job of delivering the message that even he didn’t realize how much he had nor how much he had to lose until it was too late.

CONS

Vick frontloaded too many messages.  Frontloading is a technique you use to ensure that the messages you need to deliver make it into the interview. Working too many messages in up front can result in an intentional contradiction or in you providing information that you would not have had to provide. Both scenarios happened during Vick’s interview.

By immediately going on a somewhat tangential monologue on how he thought the culture (of dogfighting) was cool and painting the picture of him in the prison cell with noone to talk to, he backed himself into a corner.

Brown did not follow up about why Vick participated or funded dogfighting until later. When he did, Vick declined to answer the question. Brown did not bring up the “cool” factor Vick mentioned—a lucky break. A different journalist would have asked him “What’s cool about dogfighting?” Try getting out of that question…YIKES! However, Brown did list a few reasons someone would participate in such activity to which Vick again declined to answer. Unfortunately, after declining to answer the question twice, Vick relents and subsequently answers the question using the same words Brown used.

Journalists often lead their interviewees much like attorneys during a trial or hearing. They use very common and sometimes inflammatory words that stick in the interviewee’s minds making it more likely that the interviewee will substitute the journalist’s words for his or her own.

When pressed, albeit lightly, about whether or not he is contrite, Vick stated “I don’t know how many times I gotta tell—say it. It was wrong.” When listening to and watching the interview, this line is not as harsh as it reads. However, Vick did express mild frustration which led to a breakdown in his ability to articulate his point successfully. Some interviewees never recover from such breakdowns and many time experience a loss of footing from that point on. Vick recovered from this breakdown within the interview’s first segment.

Though I only assessed the first 15 minutes of Vick’s interview here, I did watch the entirety of the interview and developed the analysis and tips below.

Overall, from a communications standpoint, Vick did a very solid and admirable job during this interview. There was a noticeable improvement in his speaking skills, including tone, projection, syntax, word use, and vocal projection when compared to interviews he provided to the press prior to his incarceration and prior to coming under legal scrutiny for the dogfighting issue.

Additionally, he conveyed a genuine sense of grief and weariness over his previous behavior, and regained his direction after becoming agitated. If this were a ‘normal’ interview, I would say that in future Vick should work on being more visually emotive (rather than verbally) and work on connecting with his words as well as connecting with the journalist interviewing him. At times, it looked like Brown and Vick were not in the same room much less the same interview with Brown being expressive and vocally exuberant while Vick was subdued and noticeably careful. Delivery disconnections often make interviewees sound less than sincere. But I’m hesitant to criticize Vick on those accounts. In light of the circumstances Vick’s stiffness and detachment can be forgiven.

3 Things You Can Learn from the Vick Interview

1. Don’t be led, no matter how many times the journalist plays leader.

When Brown asked Vick why he participated in dogfighting, he said, in effect, (politely and professionally) it doesn’t matter why I did it, it was wrong. He was right to approach the question in this manner. In a case such as his, the public has already formed an opinion, he is speaking out after the fact. His job is to show that 1. He is willing to talk about the situation and 2. He is apologetic. He shouldn’t allow himself to be raked over the coals. Unfortunately, once he was pressed, he relented instead of returning to his previous statement (repetition) or moving on to a new message.

2. Choose the right messages for you ahead of time.

It’s important to choose messages to deliver prior to the interview. Messages are not lies or made up statements. Messages are merely points of emphasis and are not an indication of insincerity or a desire to mislead. If you are planning on participating in an interview without preparing your messages (different from memorizing any statements or facts etc.) than you are leaving yourself open to a failed and potentially embarrassing result.

3. Choose the most credible outlet that will accept you for an interview.

In Michael Vick’s case, this was an easy one. This is a story wanted by almost every media outlet. However, some of you will be confronted with a need to use the media to convey a contrite message and 60 minutes will not be an option. When choosing a media outlet, do your research and assess how previous interviewees have been treated. Try to determine whether or not the outlet is generally responsible with its stories. For non-celebrities you will have to balance a need for a popular news outlet to accept your interview and the need for a credible one. Make the best choice, none of the outlets will be perfect.

This article was originally published in August 2009 and has since been updated. Please do not repost or publish without permission from MediaStrut.com.

**Note: MEDIASTRUT analyzes communications matters and challenges. As such a site, it is not our role to discuss whether or not justice was served in the Vick whether he should be allowed back into the NFL, or any other issues unrelated to the area of communications and related consultations. MEDIASTRUT is not associated with Michael Vick and cannot confirm whether Mr. Vick received assistance in preparing for his interview with CBS’ 60 minutes broadcast.

Kristin Van Ogtrop Interviews Jillian Harris

So you’ve been asked by your local newspaper to give an interview. The reporter says they want to ask you about whether or not you’re considering a run for local office. You’re an entrepreneur, active city hall meetings, and a graduate of a nearby university. You figure the next step is to run for city council, you feel like you can do a better job than those schmucks who are running things now.

But you’re nervous. The media is always out to get people. Journalists twist your words and make it seem as though you’ve said things you didn’t say. Things get taken out of context and you believe it’s imperative that you make a list of things NOT to say. That way, the journalist can’t screw you over…because you didn’t say anything wrong.

During the phone interview, the journalist asks you a bunch of questions.

You tell the reporter that you love participating in city meeting, you want to make your community better, and although you haven’t officially decided to run for the council, you’d be honored if you had the chance.

The reporter asks you why you wanted to run. You want to mention the fact that your kids are school age and you’re concerned about budget cuts in the local school system; however, you are not prepared to discuss statistics and you’re not sure if you should mention in the paper where your kids go to school. Why identify them if you’re not sure you will run.

25 minutes later, you hang up the phone proud of yourself because there were no awkward silences or tense moments during the conversation. You answered all the reporter’s questions and navigated around any pitfalls. You aced the interview.

Or so you think.

A week passes by and your story still hasn’t run. You call the journalist who interviewed you and you ask them what happened with your story? When will it run? The journalist said that the paper’s editor is going to run the story the next day; however, you probably won’t be quoted.  You question the reporter as to why your quotes won’t be used. After all, you took time out of your day to make yourself available. He says “Listen, you’re a nice enough guy but there was nothing we could ‘use.’”

Photo courtesy of Nick Dilulio Files

You’re confused. “So what’s the story about?” you ask. The reporter tells you that another local business owner has announced that he has formed a planning committee to explore a run for city council. And that his desire to run is based on the current housing crisis and the fact that the city is in dire need of affordable housing and solid urban planning.

Your name is a mere footnote in the article after 25 minutes on the phone and days of stressing and worrying and practicing what you would say.

What did you do wrong?

I’ve seen many interviewees make the mistake of planning what NOT say but failing to plan what to say. Before an interview you should always have 3-6 messages (depending on the subject matter and length of the interview) you want to emphasize.

Not only will this make the interview more interesting, it also ensures that when you are asked questions that could potentially be a trap, you always have a subject matter to fall back on.

For example, the business owner who was profiled in the article in which you were a mere footnote had at least 2 messages. He introduced the reader to why he wants to run and also the fact that he was serious about running a fact he conveyed by mentioning the formation of a planning committee.

Instead of choosing NOT to mention at all why you’re considering a run, you should have prepared for the questions surrounding your reason for considering running. If the reporter asked you what’s wrong with the education system, you could have given a general answer. For example, you could have said, you believe students in the city would benefit from some curriculum changes. Perhaps, they could be better prepared. Regardless of the specific issues within your local school system, these are general points that would be both noncontroversial and also establish you as the education candidate should you choose to run. If pressed, you could have told the reporter that if you run, you will explain what you mean more fully while reiterating your point that based on what you’ve read and researched thus far, you believe educational improvements would be beneficial.

If asked about your children, you could have given a very honest answer such as “I’ve not yet made a decision about running so I don’t want to single out my children or their school; however I do have school age children and I monitor the quality of their education very closely and would be interested in doing so for all of our city’s children.

Other messages you could have had prepared could have had to do with how entrepreneurship would prepare you for such a run, a touching anecdote about growing up in the city, or stressing your support for the local university. Any number of positive things could have been emphasized.

Messages are not lies. Messages are not talking points. Messages are not bad. Having messages ready to emphasize ensures that you are prepared with sincere and articulate answers that will reach the reporter and the journalist. It also helps increase the likelihood that you will not spend a half an hour of your time providing information that will not be used.

More on messages and message development to come!

http://www.mediastrut.com