Eye contact is a really important component of communication. The words we’re speaking matter, of course. But audiences judge us in all sorts of non-verbal ways too. By looking into our eyes, for example, to work out whether they can trust what we’re saying.
So in this video, ACM Training’s media trainer, Richard Uridge, channels his inner Kenny Craig (a rubbish hypnotist played by the Little Britain actor Matt Lucas) and shows how a Post-it note can help.
Simon and Garfunkel weren’t talking about media interviews and presentations when they sang the line “slow down you move too fast.” But it’s good advice all the same.
If you move too fast when speaking publicly, your audience will struggle to keep up. Give a point a chance to sink in before moving onto the next point.
Let it breathe…
And don’t have too many points – it’ll be hard to squeeze them all in without leaving your listeners and viewers by the wayside. S is for Slowly – another episode from ACM Training’s wise old owl, Rich Uridge, in the Z to A of Media Training.
The Z to A of Media Training (because everbody starts at A)
You know what’s important when you’re giving an interview or presentation. But the audience doesn’t – unless you them them! Tagging is promotional technique that allows you to make your key messages loud, clear and “sticky.” In other words stick in people’s minds rather than go in one ear and out the other before you’ve barely finished speaking.
You use tags and labels on Christmas presents and suitcases so why not in interviews and presentations?
In this episode of the Z to A of Media Training, ACM’s lead media trainer, Rich Uridge, explains why broadcast media training is as valuable now as it ever was because it’s the discipline that underpins pretty much all editorial content.
The Z to A of Media Training (because everbody starts at A)
Cosy chats with friendly desk sergeants. Daily calls to the duty inspector from the newsroom of the local paper. Off the record briefings for the gentlemen of the press. A more symbiotic and trusting relationship between the media and the police…
All of these things and much much more have been said by the media commentariat over the past few weeks. Largely by retired journalists (and here I must declare an interest) recalling the good old days and conveniently ignoring the one thing that has changed both policing and reporting on policing out of all recognition since they dictated their copy from a red phone box: social media.
Nature, they say, abhors a vacuum. Facebook, Twitter and, especially it seems, TikTok love one. In the absence or scarcity of official information in rushes a tidal wave of bilge. So-called amateur sleuths (I’m inclined to call them idiots) broadcasting breathlessly that they’re convinced – without a shred of either evidence or decency – that Bulley was being held against her will by shadowy figures. A private underwater search company stating unequivocally that the poor woman’s body could not have been in the river, as if the sonar equipment they were using was somehow any less fallible than the humans operating it.
And all of this, of course, making the agony suffered by the Bulley family even harder to bear and the job of the police investigating her disappearance even harder to do.
Much of the criticism levelled at Lancashire Police has been ill informed and unfair. Particularly the condemnation of their decision to go public with highly personal information about Bulley’s private life. They didn’t do so lightly, I would have thought. Nor without the family’s consent. Details of her struggles with alcohol were about to be made public anyway, after they were leaked to the media as an exclusive – possibly in return for money. So they decided to reveal the information themselves to lessen the value and impact of the leak. Better to keep ahead of the narrative as police press officers might put it. What else were we to do, they might reasonably ask of all those questioning their approach including the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, the home secretary, Suella Braverman, and the leader of the commons, Penny Morduant.
To this point specifically, I believe the police were right to reveal at least some of this information but wrong in the way and to the extent they went about it. They knew, presumably from day one, that Bulley was vulnerable. So they should also have known from the outset that at some point this information would be made public, warned the family accordingly and together drawn up a plan to manage it. They may have done this to be fair; I have no special insight. But if they did, the public part of the plan could have been handled better.
The police initially said at a news conference Nicola had “a number of specific vulnerabilities” which meant she was “graded as high risk.” This crucial issue was rather lost in the remaining 30 minutes or so of the conference which seemed to be more of a point by point rebuttal of criticism of the inquiry than an update on a missing person. I’ve watched the conference in its entirety twice. It certainly wasn’t the “utter disaster” as some of the more colourful coverage suggests. It certainly was a thorough and detailed description of the inquiry to date. It also nailed some of the more outlandish, to use the words of assistant chief constable, Peter Lawson, “ill informed speculation and conjecture.” (And, by the way, it was good to see the conference chaired by Mr Lawson, not by the senior investigating officer, Rebecca Smith. Sometimes the messenger is as important as – or even a part of – the message).
Picture credit: Getty Images
But what that conference also did – ironically perhaps most successfully of all – was get every journalist wondering exactly what those specific vulnerabilities were. Indeed, this was the very first and last question asked by reporters – almost inaudibly, off microphone – at the conference. This line of questioning was only going to louder and more persistent. To not have anticipated this and dealt with it there and then was problematic. All Mr Lawson said at the time was “I feel we’ve said as much as we can about that. It is personal, private information known to the investigation but foremost in our thoughts, in addition to the integrity of the investigation, is the privacy of Nicola’s family…”
So what changed in just a few hours? Because later that day, in a follow up statement, the police added that those vulnerabilities included alcohol misuse connected to the menopause. This smacked of being bounced into saying more by events, rather than being in control of events. I’d have been inclined to release the two statements simultaneously at the news conference. I’d have advised omitting the menopause point entirely. It’s too personal and, on the face of it, much less pertinent than the alcohol issue. I’d also have explained the background to the release and attempted to reassure the public – and women in particular – that this was a highly unusual move in response to irresponsible coverage and wouldn’t become a routine part of missing persons inquiries. To avoid losing the focus on these really important points I’d have shortened the conference and left out anything that sounded defensive. There’s a time and a place for that. And it isn’t when a person is still missing.
In their defence most police press officers are way down the command chain, have no rank and I’m sure are regularly ignored when asked for advice. But that doesn’t make the advice wrong. They should be speaking truth to power and asking the SIO or ACC:
Be absolutely clear: what is the purpose of this news conference or release?
Is it to give the public an important update on progress or to seek further public help – an appeal for witnesses for example?
It it to protect the family from potentially hurtful information – true or otherwise – being put into the public domain by unscrupulous and insensitive media coverage or social media commentary?
Or is it to defend the force and more to do with reputation management?
The first two, sir or ma’am, are justified. The third is not. Until well after a missing person is found. Alive, or as it would now seem in this desperately sad case, dead.
Sharper-eyed viewers have spotted a rubber mask in the background of some of my online videos. So here I put him (it?) in the foreground, centre stage as it were and explain why he’s my mate. Spoiler alert. Watch to the very end. And please do not adjust your sets.
Want to know why I could get away with robbing a bank?
Because years of editing radio programmes with razor blades have removed much of my fingerprints. If you want to avoid journalists removing many of your important points in a media interview then you need to be disciplined so that your words – and your reputation – don’t get shredded.
And here’s how, in the first of a brand new mini series from the people that brought you the Z to A of Presenting (because everyone starts with A) – the Z to A of Media Training.
Spot the new(s) desk btw!
The Z to A of Media Training (because everbody starts at A)
Captions are really good at making your videos more accessible. And handy for people who want to follow what you’re saying without having the volume turned up (even if it’s just in case the boss is listening). But it’s really annoying when those captions aren’t in the right place. The audience want to see your mouth. And your eyes. So here’s a bit of fun advice about positioning those captions so they help rather than hinder the whole business of communication. Yes! It’s the latest episode in the Z to A of Presenting.
No not that F word! But the F pattern that describes the way the human eye takes in content from a screen. A quick scan from left to right along the top of the screen (the top bar of the F). A smaller scan just beneath it (the second horizontal bar). And a glance up and down the left hand side (the upright of the F).
Eye tracking and heat mapping studies of the human eye established this browsing pattern and, based on that research, web writers and designers were encouraged to string the hooks – the words and images – that grab a potential reader’s attention – somewhere along the F. Not bury those hook so far down that they wouldn’t be seen let alone read. Except maybe the F pattern no longer applies.
I say this because I’ve just updated my iPhone to iOS 15.1 and I’ve noticed the address bar has moved to the bottom of the screen (see screenshot). This may seem like a modest layout tweak. But this is HUGE change. It’s akin to the change from top-loading to front loading washing machines. Seriously, I don’t think anyone has yet fully thought through the implications. It could, for example, mean that the screen space just above that box with the URL in becomes as important as the top of the screen. So perhaps the F will morph into an E.
That said, what hasn’t changed it is that words still matter. Always have. Always will. Top loading and front loading washing machines have clothes in common. F pattern or E pattern websites have words in common. The right word in the right place is always going to do better than the wrong word in the wrong place. So it’s worth asking: is this the right place? Right down the bottom here with the address bar (at least on my iPhone)? I’m keen to know your thoughts…
Still not sure what the F pattern is? Then here’s a quick video we put together for one of our clients who used our Ask the Owls service on our YouTube channel.
This post first appeared on LinkedIn and will be leading me to update (yet again) my modest little book Writing for the Web which is available to buy here and on the Apple and Amazon bookstores for just £4.99 which is probably less than you spend on coffee everyday and will give you a buzz for weeks.
UPDATE: Since posting this I’ve discovered that it’s possible to change the location of the search bar back to the top of the screen. So maybe news of F’s death is a little premature. If, like me, you want to change back to the old location go to settings>Safari>Tabs and select the Single Tab radio button as per the screenshot.
The first volume in ACM Training’s Wise Owl how-to series is now available in the Apple Bookstore. As an e-book only (for the time being at least) the publication of Writing for the Web – why reading differently means writing differently is not quite up there with the excitement I felt as my first front page lead thundered off an old News of the World hot metal printing press back in my days as a cub newspaper reporter. But hey, that’s the post-Gutenbeg era for you eh?! At only £4.99 in the UK and a similar price in 50 other countries I reckon it’s brilliant value for money. But then I would say that… I’m the author. Judge for yourselves and please let me know if you agree. Or not.
Don't like your own voice? Here's why it sounds odd when you listen to yourself giving interviews.
acmtraining 18 hours ago