We laud the move by President Noynoy Aquino to have the members of his official family go through a workshop on “Handling Media”. This is a clear signal that the new Chief Executive values the role that media will play in his administration. The benefits of this workshop should be visible within the next few weeks as his administration steps up its bid to establish a clear agenda and identity.
Given that our esteemed colleague, Carol Esposo-Espiritu is conducting the “Media Handling” workshop, President Noynoy should rest assured that his cabinet officials will be learning from a master of the craft.
We hope, however, that the Cabinet would view the Espiritu workshop from a better perspective.
They should not expect her to “teach” them how to “handle” media. That much-abused PR term “handling media” is a major fallacy.
Media cannot and must not be “handled”.
Media has its distinct and important role. It has its own way of doing things and going about its job. No one can dictate or control the culture of media and the behaviour of journalists. It is better for all of us to leave them alone to do their job.
At best, Cabinet members should only expect to learn one important thing: how to handle themselves during interviews and other interaction with media.
The lesson begins with a good appreciation of the reason why Cabinet members face media. “Media” means “bridge”. Media is the valuable link that connects the Noynoy Aquino presidency to the people he is sworn to serve.
It will be good for our Cabinet members to keep in mind two very important things when they face media.
First, that they are the alter ego of President Noynoy.
Second, that during media interviews, they are not really just talking to a reporter or an anchor person – they are actually speaking to the Filipino people watching television news in the comfort of their living rooms or listening to radio news updates while driving along Metro Manila’s clogged thoroughfares.
How they behave and conduct themselves during those interviews do not affect the reporter or anchor person. It affects the viewing and listening publics.
For example, that condescending and angry blast made by Education Secretary-designate Armin Luistro regarding media’s “uselessness” in the debate on sex education was felt more by us than by the pack of journalists to whom the remark was thrown. Listeners and viewers must have recalled the feeling of being scolded by a strict principal or schoolmarm when they heard that now-famous Luistro tirade.
We hope Espiritu would advice Luistro that President Noynoy may have been collateral damage in that unfortunate exchange with media. Luistro definitely planted a negative first impression. If that kind of exchange is repeated in the future, the impression is reinforced and becomes “image”. Unless our experience of him through media radically changes soon, the “image” can become “reputation”. And unless he watches it, the “reputation” can become a negative Luistro “brand”.
And that negative Luistro “brand” could take its toll on President Noynoy himself.
Here’s a piece of valuable advice I often give to government and private sector personalities whom I have been privileged to bring through media interview rehearsals. I always underscore that during media interviews on public affairs and news programs, a government official or business executive “can say what he or she feels, but cannot dramatize that feeling”.
It was perfectly alright for Luistro to say that he is “disappointed” with the role that media has so far played on an issue besieging his turf. Said in a civil and professional manner, we could have all understood and shared what he felt.
But that angry and condescending manner in which the remark was hurled at media hit us all. And now, we have a negative impression of him. He could have handled himself better if he knew he was not just speaking to media but to all of us.
Does the principle of “saying how one feels but not dramatizing it work”? I believe so.
One of the best persons I have worked with on practice for media interviews was a former Armed Forces chief of staff who later became part of the diplomatic corps.
He was an firm adherent to the principle. In so doing, he gave the AFP a fresh, new face. For once, we saw a battled-tested general who spoke to us through media interviews without the arrogance and the fierce commanding voice we associate with men in uniform.
Under his watch, the public approval rating for the AFP moved up from the negative zone to a positive 10. That was a first-time feat.
Our cabinet members can surely learn a lot from him.
No comments:
Post a Comment