How to think like a journalist:

There's a big misperception about journalists.  Like lawyers, many people rate journalists just above cockroaches, but below rats on the evolutionary chain.  And that's debatable since I know some who value a cockroach much more than they do a laywer or a journalist.

No, I'm not Superman, just a journalist...

But, speaking as a longtime journalist, I'm here to tell you that they're just like you.  They're human beings, they have good days and bad, they bleed if cut and they weep when confronted with human tragedy.

I remember covering Columbine and seeing the circus it had become just a day after the shootings.  Hundreds of reporters, technicians, producers were scurrying all over the park, looking for stories, trying to find any new tidbit of information they could report on.  And to me, it was exciting, thrilling, it was why I became a journalist in the first place.

But I also remember many other reporters who looked tired, sad, done with the whole thing.  I distinctly remember watching one reporter file a report for a network and afterwards she turned around, put down her microphone and said simply, "I'm done.  I can't do this anymore."  She left and never returned to the park.  I sometimes wonder what happened to her.  At the time, I couldn't understand why she would just walk away from such an important and monumental story.  Years later, after 9/11, I understood her fatigue, her frustration, her disgust with being constantly tired and sad.  And so I left as well.

I tell you this not to elicit sympathy, but to paint a picture of the journalist as a human being.  They are prone to weakness at times, they are biased, they sometimes do things with their gut and let the chips fall where they may.  It is for this very reason that you have to try to understand how a journalist thinks in order to meet their needs and make your future PR pitches a success.

I've already covered what constitutes news in previous entries, but let me quickly recap for those who may have missed it.  The general parameters journalists use when deciding on what is newsworthy and what isn't is as follows:

1.  Timeliness
2.  Proximity
3.  Impact
4.  Relevance
5.  Wow factor

But even with these guidelines, there are always disagreements among newsroom staffers about what story should be covered and which one should be left in the futures file.  There's a very good reason for this.  Think about it.  While timeliness and proximity are pretty set variables in the equation, others like impact and relevance, even wow factor can throw the entire decision-making process out of whack. 

For instance, I'm not a parent.  I don't really have a paternal bone in my body.  My interests lie elsewhere.  So a story pertaining to a baby crib recall just doesn't hold that much interest for me.  Certainly I recognize the impact and relevance it has for my potential readers, viewers and listeners, but because of my personal bias, I might only assign this story as a :15 second reader while a colleague might push for a full :90 second package complete with live shot and graphics.  We both recognize it's a valid story, but it's how we approach that story and handle it's coverage that separates us.  And that difference has everything to do with who we are as people.

Would you like to play a game?

With that in mind, I want you to take a moment and play a game with me.  I call it the newsroom quandary exercise, and it's a great illustration of the difficulty of the decisions newsrooms face very day.

I'm not assigning a time limit here (although in my class, I give my students about 10 minutes since they're usually discussing this in a group and debating their points).  If you can do this exercise with two or three others, you'll get more out of it because you'll notice how vastly different their opinions are from yours.

First, let me tell you who you are.  You are a producer for a local television news station, let's call it KDEN, for convenience sake.  Your audience is primarily the front range of Colorado (Denver and its surrounding suburbs).  One final thing.  The mission of your particular station is to deliver hard-hitting, "quality" news stories. Your program also features a local business report.  There's more but we'll get to that after the first part of the exercise.

You have 11 stories before you.  You can only cover six of them.  You have to choose which six to keep and which six to cut.  You're on the clock, GO!

1.  John Elway elopes and gets married during private ceremony in Hawaii
2.  State officials declare snowpack well below normal, warn of severe summer drought
3.  Governor hopefulls attend caucus debates the night before, (story to include caucus results)
4.  10 killed in plane crash in Florida (1 coloradoan believed to be on board)
5.  Police break up massive drug ring in aurora
6.  5-car pileup kills one, delays traffic for hours on I-25 during morning rush hour
7.  Baby crib recall issued for nation
8.  Local filmmaker wins Oscar for best documentary
9.  Local non-profit opens spay and neuter clinic, estimates millions to be saved by City
10.  150 laid off from Coors.
11.  Police still on manhunt following shooting on Capitol Hill the night before (Police press conference included)

Honestly, that's a tough, tough list.  Certainly there are days when producers don't have that many stories to choose from.  Yet, there are days when there are even more. 

How did you choose?  What did you cut and what did you leave in? Here is my list in no particular order.


Elway gets married
Police manhunt
Snowpack below normal
Baby crib recall
Coors layoffs
drug ring break up

It was a tough one for even me as the estimated millions saved by the local non-profit is tempting to pick.  But I made a decision that it was a story that could be covered at a later date with little or no loss to the impact of the story. 

I chose NOT to include the pileup knowing that it would have been covered already by previous shows, plus, a follow up to the story the next day would offer more perspective and allow for a more in-depth story.  It might also be a story I hand off to the 10pm news for deeper coverage.  The same holds true for the award winning local documentary filmmaker.  I wanted to put in the caucus story, but by the time I get to it, it's almost 24 hours old.  A better follow up story is required for me to be able to put it in my broadcast.  Finally, I chose not to cover the Florida plane crash because it's not confirmed a Coloradoan was on board, and the national networks will cover that story better than I can at this point. 

What were your reasons for choosing what you chose?  I'd love to hear them.  Listen, there are no real right or wrong answers in this.  Frustrating isn't it?  The best you can do is make your decisions and be able to justify your decisions if asked to do so.

Now, the hard part.  You need to rank the stories.  In other words, what do you lead with, and in what order do you cover them?  Here is my ranking:


1.  Police manhunt
2.  Snowpack levels low
3.  Baby crib recall
4.  drug ring break up
5.  Coors layoff
6.  Elway gets married

My top three are all stories that have an immediate impact on my viewers.  The police manhunt (complete with police press conference), the cuacus and the recall all have the potential to impact the lives of area residents. There's also a contextual issue to deal with here.  While the possibility of a severe drought in the summer may seem like a long way off in March, based on the fact that Colorado is still suffering the effects of our last drought, it takes on a larger meaning.

In much the same way that school shootings have taken on a larger profile since the Columbine shootings, when news happens that is related to a previous big story, it can also take on a bigger presence.

Now, keep in mind, that producers also must decide how to handle each story.  Would you give more time to the crib recall?  Maybe you'd move Elway farther up.  Or perhaps you'd focus on the layoffs.  These kinds of decisions will be influenced, like it or not, on your personal biases.  Producers have to decide which ones to give a package to, which ones to just assign as short readers and which ones to provide graphics for, soundbites for, plain video for.  Each of these decisions take up time in your newscast.  Producers have to decide where in their broadcast each story will be placed.  Some in the A-block, some in the B-block and so on. 

As you can see, there are a ton of decisions that go into putting together a newscast.  The same holds true for newspapers and radio broadcasts.  Radio reports generally get 2-3 minutes, tops, to report on the news of the day, while newspapers only have so much space to print their stories, complete with graphics, sidebars and photos.

What this means to you:

First, as you can see, it's vitally important to keep up with the news of the day.  If you know that an important event is happening on a Thursday, you should know about it and try not to hold an event on the same day, or make a pitch that day as it could get lost in the shuffle of the coverage of the news of the day.

Second, knowing what the news of the day will give you an opportunity to make a pitch that relates in some way to what a news outlet is already covering.

Third, by understanding how these news decisions are made, you'll be able to better tailor your pitch to meet their needs.  If, for instance, you know that one news outlet prefers hard news stories over more feature stories, then you can adjust your pitch to meet that requirement. 

This exercise also helps in understanding the pressures journalists are under.  If you can understand the personal biases involved in these decision-making processes, you're less likely to get frustrated when a pitch is declined.  A story you pitched on Monday and was decined on Tuesday might be a viable story when news gets slow a few days or a week later.  It might be a good time to repitch.

As always, I'm available to answer questions and take your feedback.  In the meantime, have a great St. Patrick's Day!

Want vs. Need

In case some of you have been living in a cave for the past four days, I'm here to fill you in on what's been going on.  Let's see, it snowed in Denver all weekend, USA beat Canada in Hockey, oh, and Tiger woods apologized to the world.

My last entry took a look at his apology and dissected what he did right and what he could be criticized for during the admittedly emotionless prepared speech.  Immediately following the speech, the internet, talk shows, television analysts exploded with their take on the press conference, what he said, how he said and why it mattered.

One of the most prominent complaints or criticisms I heard on Friday, and into the weekend, was that the entire rigamarole was a huge waste of time.  Reporters, producers, editors, photographers, all news veterans lamented that the press conference was broadcast live on network and cable stations, live on the radio, streamed live on the internet.  "Why was this 'news'?" they cried.  This cry was echoed by many in the general public who missed a chance to see Drew Carey be accosted by an 80 year old woman because of the apology.

Millions complained, millions watched:

I had my own theories as to why news networks devoted so much time to Tiger's conference.  I chatted with some friends of mine still working in newsrooms and got their take.  Many agreed that while it wasn't an earth-shattering or life-changing event, it still presented news value to their audience.  Simply put, they felt it was something that held interest for the viewing, listening and reading public.

I was curious, so I asked for the viewing numbers from the press conference.  According to Monday's rating numbers, as provided to me by a local television station, the televised press conference received a rating of 13.6.  This equals approximately 210,000 households viewing the event (note - this is out of an estimated 1.54 million potential viewing households in the Denver market). 


Put another way, this is a larger group of viewers on average than watches the late night, 10pm news broadcast on the leading station.  A 13-share is pretty darn good for any time slot on just about any day.  Salespeople can make a lot of money selling advertising for a show that continuously gets a 13 share.

Also keep in mind that this number does NOT include cable viewers in Denver at the time, which was estimated at about 60-percent during the press conference.  This means it's likely that 210-thousand number could jump considerably when those viewers are included.  It's not unrealistic to imagine that the number could double.  This means it's likely that nearly one third of the potential household viewers could have been watching Tiger read his statement on live television.

But does this answer the question as to "why" it constituted news?  No, not really.  Remember, I've gone over the general characteristics of what defines news.  Proximity, timeliness, impact, relevance and wow factor.  I'm not going to go through each characteristic and apply it to Tiger's apology.  But I am going to look at this from the point of view of want vs. need.

A cautionary tale:

When I was producing talk radio, I worked with a talk show host, Erin Hart, who was solid, but sometimes had a hard time grasping the difference between what her viewers needed to hear and what the viewers wanted to hear.  I remember one day when she was adamant that we spend the day talking about the mass starvation and genocides taking place in Africa.  At the same time, there were had been a recent police shooting, a news report about the failing DPS system and, of course, her favorite target, conservative Colorado Governor Bill Owens was still in office.

I insisted that any of those three topics would generate more interest, more conversation, it was talk radio after all.  No, she just KNEW that people would care if she could just tell them what was going on half a world away.  She was determined to MAKE them care.

We spent three hours with one phone call and received a stern lecture from our program director at the time.

Certainly news carries an aspect of information you need to know.  For instance, you need to know if the car you're driving will stop when you apply the brakes.  You need to know if there's a toxic dump in your neighborhood.  You need to know if there is a dangerous person prowling around your area.

But in reality, these are stories that are covered in a very quick, basic reporting style.  Just the facts, ma'am, and then you're informed.  But news covers a lot more than just those types of stories.  They cover stories of interest, stories of the odd and unusual and stories that the viewers, readers and listeners will find interesting.

These are stories of want, not necessarily need.  Tiger's story was a story of want, that much is clear.  Network executives believed that there was enough interest in Tiger's first public statement since the incident that they pre-empted regularly scheduled programming to carry it.  But I believe the decision went far beyond just the wow factor element of the story.

I believe they looked at this through the same prism they use when making decisions about news programming in general.  There was interest in the story, first, because it was Tiger.  He's a celebrity, a major celebrity.  But more than that, there was timeliness and relevance and, in some cases, impact.

Many, many Americans struggle with marriage infidelities.  To see a person like Tiger go through the same issues, it makes him seem more human, more relatable.  This adds relevance to the story.  There is timeliness, obviously, because it was happening right then.  Then there's the impact.  There is an economic factor to take into consideration.

According to AP, trading on the stock market took a huge dip during the apology.  Then, right afterwards, it ticked up again.  Sponsors who depend on Tiger's endorsements are struggling to figure out what to do with him and his now tarnished image, while others have already dropped him.

You see, this story mattered.  Sure it was one man and it didn't involve any heinous crime.  But it still mattered to millions of Americans.  In this instance, the people determined what was news, not the networks.

There's a reason why shows like American idol gets so many headlines.  It can turn a song like "Pants on the Ground" into an overnight hit because people watch it, and people talk about it.  Because of this, your local news and the networks will devote time in their coverage to shows like Idol.  It will bring in viewers and that's important to stations struggling with budgets.

What this means for you:

Let's face it.  If news covered only the important, need to know only, stories that many define as news, would you watch?  Maybe you would, but many, many others would not.  This isn't the age of Edward R. Murrow anymore.  It's the age of the internet and news takes on a lot of different faces today.

As a small business or non-profit, you have to weigh this want vs. need issue when deciding on what to pitch to a news organization.  Sure, your event may be for a good cause, and it is worthy of news coverage because people SHOULD know about your efforts.  But is it something that the public is really interested in?

You have to look beyond just the "what people should know" aspect and find something in your story that will really interest people.  You can do this by listening to what people are talking about in grocery store lines, listen to talk radio, read the papers and watch the local news.  Look up the most popular Twitter subjects, check in with some pop culture blogs and see what is being talked about.  In order to successfully catch the attention of the public, you have to know what they're talking about and what they're interested in.

Because in the end, news is rarely about what the public needs to know, it's almost always about what people want to know.  Call it "infotainment" if you want, but it's the world we live in and it's not going to change.  If anything, the advent of the internet makes it easier for people to bypass what they see as dry and boring news and go directly to the sites that feed their desire for something interesting.

This is what you're competing with and if you pitch only stories that feed the need and ignore the want, you're going to struggle to raise the profile of your organization.

There's no crying in golf!

It's 9:31 am, Friday morning, February 19, 2010.  Tiger Woods finished his nationally televised apology about ten minutes ago and now the talking heads and pundits are clamoring all over themselves to judge his words, actions and decisions in the wake of, what appears to be, the biggest sports story of the day.  Click the link above for a full transcript of Tiger's apology, courtesy of KCAL news in Los Angeles.

I'm not here to judge Tiger.  Nor am I here to judge his apology.  To paraphrase a great writer,  I come not to bury Tiger, nor to praise him.

Instead, I come to analyze.  Small business owners and non-profits should have watched the Tiger press conference.  If you didn't see it, you missed public relations magic in the happening, along with a ton of other behind-the-scenes activities that made today's apology even more fascinating than it already was.

Before I go further, I have to offer up a disclaimer or two.  First, I am a Tiger fan.  A big Tiger fan.  He is a compelling athletic figure, and the best golfer in the world we have seen in over a generation.  I also never felt he owed anyone besides his family an apology, public or otherwise.  He didn't break any laws, he didn't cheat the game, or its fans, to quote several pundits online.

But as pressure mounted from fans, the media and, particularly, his sponsors, he and his handlers from the IMG agency apparently felt the time had come to publicly grovel and ask forgiveness.  And again, I'm not here to judge the apology, just to analyze it from a public relations perspective, and hopefully take lessons from this circus that you can use should you ever find yourself in a situation where you have to make a public apology.

And don't think this could never happen to you.  Small businesses and non-profits are in the arena of public trust.  If you lose the trust of the public, for any reason, your organization will fail.  It's that simple (unless you're a bank, then the government will prop you up, but that's another issue).

Tiger is a polarizing figure.  Many love him, or at least loved him, before this scandal broke.  Many hate him, for his arrogance, for his immaturity, for his game.  Unlike the McGuire apology, who's apology was also handled by IMG handlers, Tiger will have a chance to put this all behind him by being a stellar performer again on the links.

But what about the apology itself?  Minutes after the apology, online writers and journalists were hammering Tiger for being too stiff, for being too unemotional, for being too rehearsed.  Tiger didn't break down, he didn't cry, which has become so expected at many athletes' apologies.  For just over ten minutes, Tiger stood before the cameras and a select group of reporters, and read from a prepared statement.

That's not to say he didn't show ANY emotion at all.  He seemed genuinely angered when he addressed the media's treatment of his wife and child, and when addressing what he calls false allegations his wife ever hit him or that he ever took performance enhancing drugs.

This anger dump, seemed to rub many in the media the wrong way, noting that it wasn't the right time to go after the scribes.  I ask, though, if not then, when?  Sometimes you have to attack a situation, even in a public relations and crisis communications setting.  Had he gone overboard and made personal attacks or truly lost his cool, then I might agree.  Listen, as a former journalist, I nearly always come down on the side of the media.  In this case, however, Tiger had to address these issues and allegations, and showing a little anger is only human, and it's something I think many in the general public can, and will, relate to.

The body of his speech was pure crisis communications 101.  

Admit - He addressed the problem.  He admitted he had a problem.  He pointed to himself, his immaturity, his flaws, his drifting away from his Buddhist teachings, his own poor decisions.  He didn't throw his wife under the bus.  In fact he defended her in glowing terms.  He made it clear that the only issue involved his infidelity, that he felt he was above the rules of marriage and that he was wrong...period.  He did a good job of bringing himself down to earth and appeared humbled, something which, I'm sure, greatly pleased many.

Apologize - He apologized.  He said "I'm sorry," several times, and directed his apology specifically to several groups, from his fans, to his family, to his sponsors, and to families and children who viewed him as a role model.

Correct - He followed that up by saying he has already undergone treatment, sex therapy treatment, and would undergo more treatment to ensure this never happened again.  He spoke of his Buddhist teachings and admitted he had drifted away from those teachings.  He added that a big part of his recovery will involve that spiritual element.

In words and structure alone, Tiger hit a home run in terms of classic crisis communications.  He requested privacy for his family, and even addressed the lack of public appearances or answers by saying the issues facing him and his family were private.  Again, this is something I think most in the general public will understand.  Another check in the positive box for Tiger.

Emotion Motion:

But, what about the lack of emotion?  Is it necessary in 2010 to be overly emotional when making a public apology?  Everyone's doing it.  Politicians, athletes, high school students, convicted criminals, Bank CEO's, everyone.  So maybe we were just shocked that Tiger didn't break down, or trickle a tear down his cheek.

Personally, I didn't mind that he didn't cry, or almost cry, or choke up even a little bit.  As I said earlier, Tiger appeared humble.  He seemed human.  People watching his apology could relate, even if just for a moment, to Tiger in a way they never could before.  We didn't need tears to make him seem cuddly or a more tragic figure.  And here's a thought; in today's cynical world, sometimes the tears come across as fake or as a person simply wanting pity, not real forgiveness.

As a small business owner or non-profit director, keep this in mind.  People, by and large, WANT to believe, they want to forgive.  The really only unforgiveable thing is lying.  Tiger hadn't lied up to this point, and so his apology didnt' have address a false statement or anything else other than this personal indescretions.  If you ever find yourself in a crisis, the one thing you have to do, the most important thing you'll ever do, is don't lie.  If your charity misplaced a million dollars, if your business caused an e-coli outbreak, people will forgive you if you own up to it immediately.  Try to lie your way out of it, or cover it up, the public will never forget or forgive.

Also, don't point fingers.  Don't try to blame someone else for the problem.  Don't try to say, "the devil made me do it."  Accept the blame, take your punishment, don't try to bring others down with you.

Media Backlash:

One of the fascinating aspects of today's apology involves the media reaction to Tiger's apology.  Tiger and the media have had a love-hate relationship for his entire career.  Tiger has maintained a private existence, something which often upsets the golf writers.  He has had an antagonistic relationship for years with reporters, answering questions in short, often edgy tones.  Let's be clear, the media is not Tiger's friend here.

And the media won't be your friend if you ever find yourself in a similar situation.  But Tiger seemed to aggravate the already shaky relationship by limiting the number of journalists allowed into the room, and then by refusing to answer questions.  These actions led to the Golf Writers Association of America to boycott the press conference.  A stupid move in my opinion and one that reeked of a spoiled child taking its toys and going home.  In fact, if anyone was crying today, it was the media, who has reacted in a way so childish, it makes me embarrassed for them.

I think the refusal to answer questions particularly riled the media, and I think that's why, in this case, while I believe the general public will warmly receive Tiger's apology, the media will be more skeptical and judge him more harshly.

Know this; the media feels it's an important aspect to all big stories.  They need to be able to ask questions.  Without questions, a red flag raises in the heads of journalists and we wonder what the person apologizing is trying to hide.  In Tiger's case, he's a big enough celebrity to get away with this kind of move.  You, however cannot.

If you ever find yourself in a situation where you're making a public apology, you absolutely have to answer questions from the media.  If you don't, it looks bad.  It looks like you're afraid of something.  Worse, it looks like you're trying to hide something.

Tiger isn't stupid.  He knows there will still be people out there who will never forgive him for his actions and infidelities.  But listening to his apology, it didn't sound like he was begging for the world to love him, it sounded like he was asking forgiveness from those that mean the most to him, his family, his fans and his sponsors.  And you have to understand that if you find yourself in a crisis situation, you will never please all the people all the time.  There will be those out there who will never forgive.  Don't try to appease the entire world, just those that matter most to you, your customers, shareholders, stakeholders, family, friends, etc.

Most importantly, you will have to work much more closely with the media than Tiger did today.  You will need their help to cast you in a positive light.  This means answering questions, and, more importantly, if the situation warrants it, allowing one-on-one interviews with reporters.  Because you don't carry the same cache that Tiger carries, your road back will be a longer one, but one that can be less bumpy if you grant some personal interviews to repeat your apology and allow yourself to be seen as a human being, a flawed human being, that is trying to make things right.

If it makes you feel any better, even Tiger will likely have to grant a personal interview at some point to ressurect his reputation as a role model, at least among one demographic.  Women aged 28 to 50 were among the most vocal and most angered by Tiger's actions.  Even after today's apology, he likely still has some major salvage work to do with that demo.  And, because he's Tiger, he'll target the one person who has the most pull with that group of Americans; Oprah.  Don't be surprised if he pops up on her show in the next month or so, probably right before his return to competition.

Sadly, you probably won't get the opportunity to go on Oprah to restore your credibility, but you don't have to.  Be sincere in your apology, don't point fingers, admit what you did, set a clear course as to how you're going to fix the problem, and play nice with the media, and you'll find forgiveness will be forthcoming, from most people anyway.