Meet the Press or Beat the Press?

This article explores the world of media training for business executives, focusing on the work of three specialists: Anett Grant, Jim Lukaszewski, and Bob Aronson.
BY AMY GAGE — MINNESOTA TRIBUNE

When Anett Grant’s clients call and tell her they’ve been on television, many have already appeared in a state of “sheer white heat,” she says.

Similarly, when Jim Lukaszewski’s clients stand in front of a microphone in the company’s in-house studio, quite a few are overcome with what Lukaszewski calls “mike fright.” The symptoms are familiar: butterflies in the stomach, palms that refuse to dry, a throat that won’t clear itself, an urge to duck and run.

Grant and Lukaszewski are presidents and founders of Media Information Systems Corp. (MISC) and Executive Speaking, Inc., respectively, two local companies that train executives how to deal with the media. Both work with executive groups to dispel some of the myths about journalists and promote communication between business and the press.

Walking to the Wolves

Grant and Lukaszewski sympathize with the skepticism the business community holds about the news media. Each has worked on the journalistic side before. Lukaszewski as a contributing editor to the Minnesota Business Journal and a freelance writer for various statewide publications, and Grant as a freelance writer for national magazines and a news-writing intern for a television station.

Executives think going to the media is like walking to the wolves. We dissipate that fear.

Grant exposes a “rotten apple” theory of the media. “Ninety-five percent of your journalists are trying to do a most professional, dedicated job. They really out to do the best, most honest, most careful job possible. And then, like in any group, you’re going to get 5 percent who are the spoilers. They’re going to get attention by being the ones who humiliate. And you never know who that 5 percent is.”

Grant’s philosophy is shared by a number of executives around town, several of whom say that in addition to feeling suspicious about the media in general, they’re just not sure which reporters they can trust.

“I have some very strong feelings about verbatim or when you’ll print what I say,” says Wayne Portratz, executive vice president of program marketing and communications at Dyco Petroleum Corp. “We don’t know how far we can go; we’re not educated enough [about the media].”

Jerry Wollan, vice chairman of Padille and Spear Inc., a public relations firm, says executives have a great deal of suspicion, and an arm’s-length rapport with the media. “Their peers have been pilloried, taken apart, and flabby,” he says. Wollan tries to give his clients that posture and give them an understanding of the media’s job.

But an understanding of journalism doesn’t always make for solid relations with the press. Mike Mulligan, director of communications at Super Valu Stores Inc., has more of a journalist than a business background. Still, Mulligan says he has been disappointed on a number of occasions with the way the media handle stories, particularly interviews. Last June, for example, during a Teamsters strike at Super Valu’s Minneapolis warehouse, one Super Valu executive gave a 12-minute interview to a local television station; out of that, says Mulligan, the segment the reporter chose to air “wasn’t representative” of the interview as a whole.

“He [the executive] answered a number of questions relative to the strike, most of which were positive in terms of the response we were able to give. The last question was the only one that dealt with a negative issue. That [the TV station] only carried one question on the air—and that was the one they carried. It misrepresented the situation. Because from our point of view at that point, things were being handled pretty effectively. And they chose to focus on the one question that reflected that, yeah, we were losing some business because we were not physically capable of keeping up with it.”

“It’s not that what was said was untrue,” Mulligan concedes, “but it was just very, very unfortunate that they chose to focus on something that was generally inconsistent with the tenor of the conversation.”

“Sometimes, many times, inadequate preparation of people on our side of the microphone is at fault, but the media is still capable of taking things out of context.”

Media Techniques

Lukaszewski and his clients, the Lukaszewski Media Relations, the goal is to fight fire with knowledge. “Our message is clear,” he writes in his MISC handbook, To Be Successful, You Don’t Have To Be Smart. “To be successful, you must become familiar with their goals and objectives and, most of all, prepare yourself to the publics you need to reach.”

Anett Grant, who believes in teaching by example, recalls that last year when a local television station produced a documentary she predicted in her newsletter, which quotes from the program when it aired, she said she was 97 percent correct.

Bob Aronson, executive director of MISC’s seminars division, and Lukaszewski, who admits he “arrived at this [his business] out of frustration” with the news media, stress two main points in their executive seminars: that interviewees have rights and that they should meet the press prepared. They encourage their clients to write down 10 questions they’d hate to be asked and 10 questions they’d love to be asked—and then answer them.

Lukaszewski also warns his clients to avoid technical jargon, to phrase their answers in laymen’s terms. “Executives assume the reporter knows as much about their business as they do, and that is not correct,” he says. “They get caught up in internal corporatise.”

Furthermore, he asserts, any business person who believes a journalist ought to know the details of his or her company or latest windfall is practicing “institutional arrogance. Reporters care, but they have no great interest in the individual.”

Explaining the Issues

Grant says one of the biggest challenges for executives on television is to learn to explain their issues to the audience that may not be informed on the subject. Grant frequently tells her clients, “This isn’t a trial. It isn’t a case. This isn’t a legal case. This is television.” She teaches executives to respond to questions with complete answers, rather than offering fragments that could later be distorted.

Some of these executives really have to go on and defend things that are impossible. I think the media right now is after ‘big is bad and small is good,’ in terms of business. So they’re naturally being kind of a watchdog.

Although Grant and Lukaszewski say they share a similar goal—to train executives about the media—Grant comes at it from a different direction. Lukaszewski emphasizes the journalist’s viewpoint, employing what he calls “the journalistic technique.” But Grant operates from a theatrical background. She coaches her clients—most of whom have been slated for television appearances—in speech and breathing patterns, rhythm, body movement and dress.

Sixty percent of the people who watch television news do so while eating dinner, she says, so she encourages her clients to respond to the interviewer quickly.

Unlike MISC, Executive Speaking Inc. does not attempt to formulate strategy, but works from the premise that each of its clients says is true. “When [my clients] tell me something, I believe it, so that my goal is to help them take the power to get that belief across in a way that is going to make them feel proud,” says Grant. “I don’t work as a public relations firm; it’s not my strength.”

Instead, she attempts to elicit different behavior options from her clients. “I seek to build their skills. So many people have the idea that there are techniques. They think, ‘Well, acting. What is acting?’ Acting is concentration. It’s a way of capitalizing on experience you’ve had to generate emotion.”

Like Lukaszewski, Grant tells her clients to put themselves in the reporter’s place—”they want a good story, a news story”—and asks them to write answers to questions they should avoid and questions they should answer. She also tells them to respond to any and all questions. “I don’t think people should avoid answering a question,” she says. “Because you cannot get honest behavior if you’re getting dishonest communication, unless you’re dealing with a trained actor. And none of the executives I’ve worked with yet have any kind of acting skill. So you’re dealing with basic behavior.”

In Training

Despite some practical differences, MISC and Executive Speaking Inc. begin their clients’ training the same way: on videotape. At MISC’s group seminar sessions, each participant is walked individually through a long, narrow windowless hall and ushered into a room where Lukaszewski and Aronson subject his client to a deliberately “tough” interview, using questions gleaned from the extensive research he conducts on each participant’s company. The tape is later played back and reviewed—usually to the dismay of the interviewee.

Most executives have never seen themselves on TV, Aronson says, and are shocked by their voice, stiff appearance. They’re also usually surprised by what comes out of their mouths. “The microphone brings out incredible things,” he says. “People usually keep talking if you leave the air in front of them.”