This week another media interview has given spokespeople, media and PR professionals in all business sectors a chance to learn how to handle the media during a very difficult interview.
The Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) report into baby deaths at a Cumbria hospital is just the latest in a series of incidents that has shaken people’s faith in the health service. It follows in the wake of the report into Staffordshire Hospital – and, as we point out in our media training courses, ‘following in the wake’ is a favourite media catch phrase because journalists love trends.
Jill Finney, former deputy chief executive of the CQC appeared on the Today programme on Monday to defend the organisation’s performance. Or was she just defending herself? Listeners will have to draw their own conclusion. Finney spoke clearly and calmly, despite the emotive nature of the issue. However, she also sounded defensive and many listeners would detect an element of buck passing.
Presenter Jim Naughtie starts, understandably, by putting the principal accusation to her that the CQC had wanted to have the report into the deaths at the hospital deleted.
“We reviewed the report,” she explains. “There was not a decision during that meeting to delete the report. We agreed that the report needed much further work, not a decision to delete that report.” She does well here to be very clear and firm. Naughtie then puts it to her that investigators at Grant Thornton came to the opposite conclusion.
“One individual believed that a decision had been made to delete it,” says Finney. “The other three individuals in that meeting do not recall that decision. I made it available to them (Grant Thornton) and urged them to read it.” Again, she’s very clear here but the formal, cold language is rather odd. It suggests distance, even disdain. Who are these ‘individuals’? They’re people, aren’t they? They could also be ‘colleagues’ or ‘one of us’?
Either way, simple, natural language would make Finney sound more sympathetic. People tend to reach for formal language when they’re under pressure or they’re feeling nervous, and audiences pick up on this very quickly. Shortly afterwards she opts for management jargon when she says that the report ‘didn’t do a deep enough dive.’ She goes on to explain that it wasn’t ‘sufficiently thorough’ but again simple, easily understandable language always works best when communicating via the media. Finney needs to show that she’s a human being as well as a public sector manager.
She uses the word ‘tragic’ a number of times and she’s right to acknowledge the human tragedy that lies at the heart of this incident but she could go further. Taking the opportunity to express genuine sympathy and concern for those who have died, and their family and friends who are grieving, would be better.
Naughtie then asks her outright: “Was the CQC’s performance adequate?” Finney starts by referring to the report but this looks like an excuse. The findings of the report may well back up her point but she should start by stating her case simply and clearly, stressing that it’s something that she personally believes based on her own experience.
Not surprisingly, Naughtie sensing some evasion, asks her outright again and here Finney suddenly introduces another important message, something which if anything is more newsworthy. She says that the performance ‘was not adequate’ and that ‘CQC should have done more.’ She then goes into the history of CQC, explaining why it could never have delivered the service it was charged with.
The fact that she has suddenly introduced it now makes her sound defensive. If she had stated it clearly at the start of the interview it would have sounded more convincing and she could have shaped the whole interview around these point.
Worse still, Naughtie again asks an obvious, simple question: if she thought that the CQC could not deliver, then why didn’t she say so at the time? Again, on the defensive, Finney’s language is formal and stilted. ‘Officials were appraised of that challenge,’ she tells us. However, she then switches to the kind of language that she could and should have been using earlier when she says: ‘People in CQC tried their very best.’
At this point Jim Naughtie mentions the father of one of the children who died at the hospital and then refers to him by name. This would have been a great opportunity for Finney to express some sympathy for the bereaved or at least to acknowledge that human beings and human suffering is at the heart of this issue. But she doesn’t.
Coming back to the problems the CQC faced from the onset, Naughtie sums up the situation. “So what you’re saying is that what happened was inevitable? That the CQC didn’t have enough staff and resources to do its job?” Finney agrees. Journalists will often sum up what their interviewees are saying. After all, this is their role. As we say in our courses, if you’re happy with this summary then that’s fine but if it doesn’t match what you want to say then be very clear about rebutting it and substituting your own words. Better still provide the summary yourself – at the start and the end of the interview. This allows you to take more control of what the journalist and the audience take away from the interview.
Finally, Finney tells us that the redaction of the names prompted ‘a complete media feeding frenzy.’ Dead children, grieving parents, officials apparently avoiding responsibility, redacted names – this story has it all and so it’s hardly surprising that the media are interested. However infuriating the media might be it’s not a good idea to criticise them. Research shows that even though the public might have a low opinion of journalists, when those in the spotlight criticise them people tend to side with the media.
This is a very difficult interview and Finney comes across as calm and reasonable. However, she doesn’t seem to have a key message or focus – something we always advise in our media training courses. She also lacks any human warmth and that, in this situation, is perhaps a more serious deficiency.
Media First are media and communications training specialists with nearly 30 years’ experience. To find out more about our Crisis Media Management training, contact us here. Don't forget to subscribe to our blog.
