Thank you for taking the time to comment on my blog. Your points make me want to be a little clearer on my position which I think will help the debate.

The "cancer" that I think is so damaging is less the people in Corporate Affairs / PR departments (many of which I respect) and more the current attitude of businesses that having an opinion is dangerous and success is avoiding any public reaction or dialogue whether positive or critical.

I think this is so damaging because it creates a vicious cycle where making money by giving a good service is somehow seen as "wrong" and exploitative, and this leads to a misunderstanding of the role and benefits of businesses in our society. It also means that there cannot be an informed debate on how businesses should operate, what risks are acceptable, and what practises are unacceptable.
This lack of discussions reduces the trust that businesses place in people to understand these often carefully balanced puts and takes, and means that people have less and trust in businesses – allowing a stereotype of the greedy CEO or Banker to become the norm.

Media training in my experience is too much about avoiding the question or spinning the question round so that you can deliver "a key message". You sound like you might be different, if only because you have the balls to tell a client they are not cut out for media. Unfortunately in Mr Petter's case this would have been valuable advice.

Thanks again for your comments.

Justin

You included my tweet as part of your posting so I wanted to add to your thoughts. I think generalisations about PR people seeking to hide the truth and stifle discussion are inaccurate and unfair to many of the people with whom I've worked (though I know there are some that match this description). And I do think describing PR people as a "cancer" is somewhat harsh.

Successful PR people build strong relationships with the media and provide spokespeople who are not only capable of putting across the company's perspective, but also make for good TV. As a consequence they are invited back time and time again. That wouldn't happen if they didn't answer questions or didn't tell the truth (their credibility would be destroyed).

I accept that some media training may match the experience you describe, but if so, you've been trained by the wrong people! Any media trainer worth their salt would have had the guts to tell Mr Petter that he is not cut out to be a spokesperson. If he was indeed trained (and I still doubt it), the "coach" also failed to tell him one of the first rules of TV – look at the interviewer not the camera – and they failed to spot or correct his dancing foot! Most importantly they would have told him that you can't get away with non-answers and that effective messages must connect with the audience and the context of the interview – not simply be a list of things that you want to tell people. Spokespeople who are trained well not only represent their companies better, they also communicate more effectively with viewers.

Mr Petter was a disaster for BT and a wate of air time for the BBC's viewers. High quality media training – and probably a different spokesperson – would have allowed BT to present itself in a more empathetic and credible way. Not by failing to answer the questions, but by answering them clearly and well.

Jonathan Hemus

Interesting views Justin, and I tend to agree in principal. However, the main intermediary between business and customer is often the media, who are interested in explosive headlines and selling papers. They have an incentive to ignore the facts around compromise and making a return. Isn't that one of the reasons for "media training"