The Professional Communicator

Going Beyond the Term “Media Training”

If I’m going to use the phrase “media training” as much as I have so far, then a little perspective sharing and a note of caution are in order. First, perspective: it should be clear that I see media training as a specialized application of skills that are basic to good communicating, which always starts with solid ideas well expressed. The unique nature of the interview requires additional understanding and technique to make sure those ideas are made central in conversations with journalists.

So when we talk about media training, we talk about many things. One important theme is the media itself, understanding how reporters and news organization work, what they are looking for, why they ask the questions they do, and how the internet is changing the news.

Other themes are equally important: identifying a clear story line; developing succinct, well supported messages; understanding the techniques that propel a message-centered conversation; and handling inevitable negatives. Most or all of this can be relevant to any communications process, though it may be more obviously valuable as one prepares to sit down with a reporter from a high profile news organization.

The popularity and near ubiquity of media training in the past two decades has been so focused on the media that we tend to forget that media training provides an excellent model that can be used in other communications sessions as well – hearing preparation, to name just one.

Here’s the note of caution, and it’s particularly important for those of us in the business of preparing executives for interviews and a host of other communications events. Because of media training’s popularity, we must now be careful how we use the term. Most executives we meet today have had a seminar called media training. Those at the VP level and higher may have had multiple media trainings, particularly if they have worked for several companies.

These individuals may feel they do not need another “media training.” And the problematic word may not be “media” as much as “training.” Executives don’t believe they need to be “trained” again, though they may well see the value in practice.

In response to this situation, many of us have stopped using the term “media training,” except in limited circumstances. For example, we offer clients “message review” or “interview preparation” sessions. Or just “batting practice.”

At the end of the day, very few executives fail to see the value of preparation for new, unusual or high profile communications. We should not get stuck on the terminology. Call it media training or something else – it’s the process that is valuable. And we have to make it easy for our clients to participate.

Media Training in the Digital/Social Age

In my last, introductory, post, I said I wanted to expand on the dialogue I’ve had with colleagues and clients during almost three decades in the media and communications training business.  In this post I want to look at the importance of media training in the digital age.  Assuming, as I do, that it remains important.

Let me begin by saying that I have long considered media training as a subset of “communications” training in general.  Media trainers, and PR folks overall, are usually aware that when you peel back the layers of individual need with a specific client, you almost always end up talking about content, which has to be clarified and focused, whatever the audience or the pathway. In that sense alone, media training remains vital in the internet-connected world.

But back in the late 90’s, when I first became concerned about the tsunami of voices, opinions and visual material that flooded us online, my thoughts were at a somewhat higher level.  Like many others, I wondered what would happen if this new medium were to dominate traditional sources of crediblility, particularly news outlets.

Where would the public (and public relations pros) go when there were no clear sources of implied third-party endorsement, no reporters who could be trusted to probe, ask tough questions, be skeptical and then produce coherent stories with an effort to be balanced?

And more specifically, what would happen to those of us who work with spokespersons to help craft their information and points of view into clear, credible, persuasive communications?

Looking back, after 15 years, I was right to be concerned, but while social media has changed the way we communicate and even how we view the world, with a devastating impact on the news business, much remains the same.  Individuals and organizations have embraced social media, and every competent communications firm is focused on digital and social media strategies.  With vastly more people capable of reaching potentially wide audiences than ever before, the need for media training has actually expanded.

Organizations that communicate need to redouble efforts to achieve clarity, reasonable perspective, powerful expression and points of view supported by data and examples.  These qualities are often in short supply in the digital universe, but they are not easily dismissed, as audiences still respond to them.  Particularly media audiences which have, in fact, grown in the online world.

The plethora of new online opportunities to communicate, combined with the need for organizations to enter the digital dialogue through channels they do not own, requires preparation of more voices to handle the requirement for engagement.  And this means – or should mean – preparing many more people to communicate from a common set of facts and points of view – and with a single mission – precisely the work of media training.

What’s happening where you work?  Is media training (or social media training) reaching more people?