The media is essential to the life of an advocate.
I hit the sharp end of media engagement when I was CEO of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia (COSBOA) from 2010 to 2021. I wrote opinion pieces for many print and online outlets and appeared on the full range of radio and television programs and news channels. Without this, I would not have been an effective advocate — just an annoyance.
In the beginning I was told by some never to trust the media because “they’ll misquote you”, “they have other agendas”, “you have to play their game if you want coverage”, “they are biased” and “they are all egotistical”.
Whatever, there are some who just hate the media, but those sorts of people normally hate most things.
How did I approach the media? I knew successful advocates who said you just have to show respect and know how the media functions. Seems fair. The next best advice I received was that both you and they have a job to do. Make it easy, be honest, do research and it should work out.
The media people I met — the journalists, photographers, camera operators and others — were like most people: polite and respectful. They were also very well informed.
The relationship with the media became a working one, and I couldn’t complain.
Lessons learnt
I don’t believe I was ever misquoted. Once I thought I had been about Sunday penalty rates. For a little while I fumed, then thought a bit: why would the journalist misquote me? I thought a bit longer and realised that I was probably accurately quoted, and I had just said the wrong thing or — as we say — misspoke.
I think advocates are rarely misquoted and when an advocate complains, especially more than once, you can assume they are trying to shift the blame for sloppy communication.
There were times when I wish the journalist had printed everything I’d said because quotes I’d preferred had been left out. There were other times when I would do a long interview and end up with no mention or just one little quote. I found out that this is how it works: the journalists collect the information and they and/or their editor form the story. That’s their job. Nothing evil or unprofessional.
There were very few times when I felt betrayed by someone in the media — three times, to be exact. Once an outright omission of an important quote and facts from me gave the totally wrong impression of what I had said. That was again about Sunday penalty rates. It caused all sorts of problems. So I was not misquoted so much as selectively quoted — to my detriment.
Another time a journalist from a left-leaning media outlet refused to listen to the facts regarding Sunday penalty rates and published a story the journalist knew was false. I finally learnt a lesson: don’t talk about Sunday penalty rates (a bit like Fight Club).
But the most disappointing was when a high-profile (very right-leaning) print journalist made an accusation about my organisation without checking with me whether it was true (it wasn’t). When I asked him why he didn’t check, he replied: “I knew what you would say.” That’s not journalism; it was cronyism.
Few disappointments
So after more than a decade of media interaction, these are the only three times I found extremely disappointing. That says to me the media is a fine professional group of people, even with all its foibles and differing personalities.
No one should be surprised if a journalist puts “spin” on their story. As long as it is factual there should be no complaint.
With the electronic media, early on I was nearly always given warning of what would be discussed, whether live or recorded. As time went on and I was more comfortable with questions, the media were more comfortable in challenging me. That is what came with the job and was a sign of success.
But I did learn that an off-the-cuff remark could be seized upon as the main story, so I did my best to stay on message.
Another important thing I learnt was about being available. A journalist once told me I received more media than other much larger organisations. Surprised, I asked why. “You are always available,” she said. Again surprised, I asked: “Isn’t everyone?” Seems not, but if an organisation wants media coverage shouldn’t its spokesperson be always available?
One very odd — and rare — behaviour I saw from some was to disrespect photographers and camera operators. Besides the fact that you should be respectful to everyone, why would you not be pleasant to someone who can make you look stupid?
In the end an advocate should be honest, professional, do their research, be available and definitely get media training.
Interesting article – thanks Peter!
Whether I’ve agreed or disagreed with you, I’ve always appreciated your contribution on The Drum too.
Seems like common sense, respect and good manners are beneficial
I wonder of there are any self-declared “bad” lobbyists? BCA? Pokies? Fossil fuels? The tourism industry – that argued to keep borders open – and let Covid take care of itself…. Lobbyists that get in the ear of government to wangle outcomes to benefit their own members : at cost to others?
…. The small business, service industry (cafes, restaurants etc) employees that got screwed over : for the sake of their employers; ostensibly because, we were told, such “necessary cuts” would “lead to more businesses, more employment and better conditions”? …. How did that work out? …. What did that employer “union” do to pull their rogue members into line when they transgressed the boundaries of acceptable employment….
…. those “hospitality, recreation, retail” workers. that effectively took pay cuts and moved to more precarious work conditions, “to benefit employers and customers”?
All “lobbyists” should be banned across the board. Raise a petition and involve your Federal or State Member instead. Lobbyists just push an agenda is all.
Excellent piece from Peter Strong. I too work as an advocate after spending many years as a journalist.
For me, the key is understanding and accepting the role of the media (which is to write genuine news, not to do favours). I also focus on helping reporters understand complex issues so that they write accurate pieces (which is what almost every journalist aims to do).
This latter point is the key to my current role. I work in a sector which is notoriously difficult for new reporters to get their head around, and is easily misrepresented. I’m always available to explain difficult concepts off the record and find talent for reporters to quote (ie, persuade reluctant people in my sector to submit to an interview).
I see myself as a bridge between the media and the people in my sector. I can only do this effectively because I’ve developed a trusting relationship with both these groups. Sometimes I won’t like how something has been portrayed by a reporter I’ve spoken to, but I accept it because my role extends only to informing reporters, not writing the story for them.
quick question – if the the role of the media is to write genuine news, why is there so little “genuine news” available?
Maybe it is akin to Frank Zappa’s description of rock journos. -“People who can’t write, interviewing people who can’t think, for people who don’t read“?
Simple really. That would require them to report actual events without imposing their own personal views on said events. It would also require them to, you know, actually research and verify things. Damned inconvenient I know.
This gives an interesting perspective on the media interview. Like to know who some of the unnamed journalists worked for.