I wasn’t disappointed. Nugent exploded in response to a simple premise posed by the reporter; that the “Motor City Madman” may be insufficiently moderate to help Mitt Romney in the general election.

A Messaging Opportunity Bleeped Away

I know what you’re thinking: One doesn’t need media training –or a media training newsletter for that matter– to understand that assaulting journalists with sexually oriented threats/insults in the middle of an interview is generally considered bad form. You may also be thinking, “So what? Everybody knows Nugent is a loose canon and he says what he feels. It’s not like he’s a politician.”

But consider this: Nugent had an open mic during a network news morning show, leading up to an election he seems to care a great deal about. And yet if you Google “Ted Nugent, CBS This Morning,” you will not find a nuanced and persuasive political endorsement of Mitt Romney. Instead, you will find a three-minute clip of news porn, flashy and titallating without a sentilla of substantive messaging. We don’t know whether Nugent did, in fact, offer anything more rational elsewhere in the interview, because his detonation stole the show. Don’t blame CBS for that.

Hunting Field Mice with a Bazooka

Was Nugent’s firepower really necessary in response to a very simple –and easily anticipated– question about his political beliefs? The diatribe about dying children had absolutely nothing to do with being politically moderate. There are any number of ways Nugent could have addressed that question without losing his temper (perhaps simply by reminding the reporter that he is not an official spokesman for any candidate, or by pointing out that Romney needs support from those on the far right, too).

A Gift to CBS

CBS This Morning is justifiably being touted as the smarter, “newsy” network morning show. And perhaps because of that, it has struggled in the ratings. Did the producers expect fireworks from a man whose previous statements about the president have earned him attention from the Secret Service? You bet they did. The internet will ensure that CBS This Morning gets credit for that interview for all eternity. Which is exactly how long Ted Nugent may be known as a Media Disaster.

Masterful Messaging
 
Some in Corey’s position would simply have announced the charges, thanked their colleagues, and opened it up for questions. But not this prosecutor. Using proactive messaging and classic bridging techniques, Corey reinforced her key themes: Justice is the priority, for Trayvon and for Zimmerman…The case has been investigated meticulously and according to Florida law…Trayvon’s parents are the surviving victims. These and other messages emerged early and remained consistent throughout the presentation.

Know What to Say, and What You Can’t Say

It isn’t surprising that a seasoned law enforcement official would be careful not to release details of a pre-trial criminal case. Still, it was impressive to watch Corey respectfully yet firmly bat away some of the most pressing reporter questions. What was the specific evidence that led to the charges? Where is Zimmerman being held now? What did he say when he was arrested? Valid reporter questions all, but Corey was prepared not to answer them while the case is pending. Note that even when rebuffing reporters, she often did so with a smile on her face. It was a look that seemed to communicate warmth and sincerity as opposed to irreverence or smugness.

A Commanding Presence
 
If there’s one thing the Trayvon Martin incident has been crying out for, it is someone in a position of authority to step up and reassure both sides that answers will come. And while a long road lies ahead, Corey’s calm and purposeful presentation from the podium suggests that, at the very least, someone is in charge.
 
We don’t yet know whether she will prevail in her prosecution of George Zimmerman. But winning a court case -even one this notorious- is not a prerequisite for being a Media Master.

In an era of prolific “investigative” news programs, furious competition among cable news outlets, and an increasing emphasis on titillating sensationalism over journalistic substance, it seems hard to believe that aggressive, confrontational TV journalism became popularized with one show –and one reporter. And while the show must go on, its only remaining original cast member is finally turning in his press pass at the age of 87.

When Mike Wallace ends full-time duties at 60 Minutes later this Spring, he walks away from a journalistic institution that not only changed the way television reporters work, but also the way PR practitioners think. And while Wallace did his share of celebrity interviews and human interest pieces, it will doubtless be his sledgehammer investigative pieces that stick in –and haunt- the memories of PR practitioners everywhere.

Much will be made of the way Wallace, along with founding 60 Minutes executive producer Don Hewitt, created a niche in TV journalism. This new kind of news show featured hosts doubling as reporters, who pursued their stories through aggressive confrontation, well researched surprise questions, and a refusal to accept weak or “empty” responses. Any statements which seemed the least bit dubious were investigated for accuracy. And all of this took place in front of the TV cameras.

Above all, Wallace refused to give up, or give in. His virus-like tenacity forced his interview subjects to be on their toes with every question. It may be said that Wallace dug deep into his stories, but just as often he allowed his interviewees to do that work: digging themselves in.

For that reason and others, Wallace’s legacy has had a palpable impact on the art of public relations. First and foremost, Wallace taught us that simple catch phrases and hackneyed messages don’t work on every journalist. It is a different reporter on a different network who coined the phrase “No Spin Zone”, but Wallace was operating in that zone decades ago.

Wallace also showed us that PR practitioners need to think very carefully before agreeing to put clients in front of certain reporters; whether they are guilty of any malfeasance or not. Although Wallace was capable of making no-shows seem guilty merely by their absence, this was often the lesser of two evils, the other being Wallace eviscerating an unsuspecting client on national television.

Although Wallace himself will no longer be out humiliating corporate evil-doers, he leaves behind several younger generations of reporters who strive to emulate him –with occasionally regrettable results. Mike Wallace’s tactics can be downright abusive in the hands of neophyte reporters who lack Wallace’s experience and credibility.

News shows of today chase ratings by employing flashy journalistic gimmicks without the content to merit them. There was a time, for example, when hidden cameras were to be used only as a last resort during investigative news pieces. These days, they are ubiquitous.

Mike Wallace didn’t have to go undercover or gratuitously ambush an interviewee in order to be feared by the corrupt elements of society. He was an old fashioned journalist who discovered that the brave new world of television could put a fresh paint job on the field of investigative reporting. Some in the PR world will celebrate his retirement. They would be well advised to beware of those who will take his place.

Today, the popular Republican is still very much alive, and we also know for certain that he won’t seek higher office in 2012, thanks to a lively news conference that underscored why many wanted him to run in the first place.

Whether the topic was his personal decision process, or David Letterman’s incessant fat jokes, Christie was candid, direct, and genuine throughout the nearly 1-hour news conference.

(For the entire news conference, click here.)

Once a Master, ONCE a Master.

I may get some emails on this one. Yes, I realize Christie’s brash tone hasn’t always gone over well. His habit of using curt statements and crude language in responding to his critics has in some cases created more of them. But his style was well suited to this particular news conference, which called for authenticity over scripting, and candor over cliches. Watch the entire video (above) if you have an hour to spare. Better yet, skip straight to the Q&A section which begins three minutes in.

A Newsworthy News Conference that Broke No Real News

Christie’s announcement was predicted. Once he admitted many months ago that he “wasn’t ready” to be president, it would have been tremendously difficult to convince skeptical voters otherwise. So Christie’s task was to end the speculation about his candidacy in a way that would satisfy his constituents (“You’re stuck with me” ), pacify his supporters, and keep the door open for 2016. Christie chose humor, self deprecation, and playful jabs at the local media to make his points. And they were more memorable (and quote worthy ) because of it.

His Suit Won’t Fit Everyone

It’s important to remember that just because a particular style seems well suited to a particular media communicator, that isn’t to say it will work for everyone. Those without a natural sense of humor should never begin a speech by telling a joke. And those who don’t have the plain spoken, street smart sensibilities (not to mention healthy ego strength) of Chris Christie probably shouldn’t address the media the way he does.

I have no idea whether Christie would have made a successful candidate or effective president. But I do know that his announcement that he wouldn’t run qualified him as a Media Master.

It is ironic, then, that she cemented her designation as a Media Disaster in the process.

Increasingly flustered, O’Donnell committed the cardinal media sin of walking off the set when Morgan’s questions turned to the topic of gay marriage.

Let’s Get One Thing Straight 

I haven’t read O’Donnell’s book, so I have no idea whether it touches on the topic of gay marriage as Morgan insists. But O’Donnell’s protests that it is “rude” for a TV host to cover subjects an interviewee would prefer to avoid is either wishful –or delusional–thinking.

Piers Morgan is very different than the man he replaced at CNN, legendary master of the softball, Larry King. And whether you like Morgan or long for the old days, one cannot accuse the former tabloid journalist of preferring sycophantic star worship over controversy, especially when it might bring him publicity of his own. Prospective guests who forget that do so at their own peril.

Once the Cameras Roll, It’s Too Late

Was Morgan persistent, stubborn, even obnoxious in his pursuit of the gay marriage question? Certainly. It was O’Donnell’s job (and that of her communications staff) to be prepared for that style. I’m not sure why O’Donnell was so determined to avoid the gay marriage topic when she is so willing to discuss other controversial issues. But regular readers of this series know that walking off the set is a tragically ill-advised way to handle a rough interview. The only way to make it worse? Put up a transparent pretense that you are being “pulled away” by your people. These tactics only make the interviewer –in this case, Morgan– look like the rational one.

It’s Still YOUR Interview 

None of this is to imply that an interviewee is obligated to answer every question; quite the contrary. But if certain topics or questions are to be made “off limits,” it is imperative that the interviewee: (a) be prepared to rationally explain why, (b) practice and execute bridging techniques to get back to key messages, and (c) maintain composure at all times.

 Otherwise, a reporter’s persistence can turn a friendly promotional opportunity into a bona fide Media Disaster.

The admirable performance came in response to a very simple question from Wallace; “Are you a flake?”

Don’t Dignify the Question

Bachmann accurately described the flake question as “insulting.” Insulting questions don’t require direct answers. If she had taken the question literally, Bachmann would have joined the unfortunate ranks of Richard “I Am Not a Crook” Nixon and Christine “I’m Not a Witch” O’Donnell.

Keep it Civil

Bachmann may have been on a slow burn as soon as she heard the question, but she didn’t let it show. Experienced -or well trained- media communicators know that losing one’s temper is the easiest way to create an even bigger story. Arguing, insulting the reporter, or taking off a mic and walking off the set will always ensure that your interview is remembered for your behavior, rather than your messages.

Prove It!

By far the most impressive aspect of Bachmann’s response was her use of specific examples. Reporters cannot do their job without a healthy skeptical streak. When you punctuate your points with statistics and/or examples you appeal to their rational sensibilities. Bachmann might simply have stopped after she labeled the question insulting. By immediately following that up with a long list of her personal and professional accomplishments, she provided a way for us to question the “flake” label.

Wallace has since apologized for his line of questioning. But it won’t be the last time Bachmann faces tough interviews now that she is officially running for president. Campaign success will depend, in large part, on whether she remains a Media Master.

Mark Bernheimer providing media training for the daughter of a 9/11 victim on NBC’s “Starting Over”

Media training orientation:
“An interview is NOT a “Q&A session”

If you’ve attended my media training, you’ve heard this before. In fact, I even have a name for it: The Sarah Palin Principle, a reference to the former candidate’s media challenges during the 2008 campaign.

But after today, perhaps the concept should be renamed The James Clapper Principle, after the U.S. Intelligence Chief who illustrated it beautifully during an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer.

Watch as Clapper faces questions about a terror arrest he knew nothing about (Relevent portion begins at 3:40).

Was it Really His fault?

Some may say this is not a true example of an interview mistake because the blame more likely belongs with Clapper’s aides, for failing to brief him properly. Others will insist the buck ultimately should stop with Clapper himself. But in the end, it makes no difference. Regardless of whose fault this was, it illustrates the dire need to be prepared for every interview. If an ally of the U.S. arrests terror suspects on the day of your interview, it is beyond imperative that you be prepared to address (notice I didn’t write “answer”) questions regarding the incident; particularly if your job title has the words “intelligence” and “director” in it.

The Gaffe Becomes the Story

Clapper’s lack of knowledge of the London terror arrests may not have been earth shattering, but it was news. And now it’s the most memorable moment of the interview. Diane Sawyer deserves credit for circling back to Clapper’s claims of ignorance. The truth is, there wasn’t much of a story there, until Clapper haplessly created one.

The Difficulties of Damage Control in Real Time

It’s a primal fear among interviewees: getting a question for which you have no answer. It is far easier to prevent that from happening than to fix it once it has. Once Clapper realized he didn’t know, he could have tried subtly bridging to a key message, or deferred the question to one of his co-interviewees. But Sawyer is no cub reporter, and these tactics likely would have failed. Instead, Clapper simply came clean. He didn’t pretend to know, guess, or obtrusively change the subject. Whether his sincerity will ultimately mitigate this Media Disaster remains to be seen.