Guy Clapperton, Author at Clapperton Media

One of the more interesting things about working with recorded interviews is seeing what happens after the conversation ends. Most spokespeople think the challenge is answering questions well. In reality, there is a second challenge that often receives less attention: answering questions in a way that survives editing. Once they’ve left the interview – that’s when the editor takes control.

Whether the final destination is a podcast, a broadcast interview, a video clip or an online article, editors are constantly making decisions about what stays and what goes. And many interviewees make those decisions far easier than they need to.

The first issue is the rush to start speaking. A question ends and the response begins immediately.

“Umm…”

“So…”

“Look…”

Most people barely notice they’re doing it. The problem is not that these filler words sound unpolished. The problem is that they create uncertainty about where the answer actually begins. An experienced editor can solve that easily enough. The filler gets removed and the quote is tightened. But in doing so, the editor is making decisions on the interviewee’s behalf. They are deciding where the answer starts and what constitutes the core message.

Most spokespeople would prefer to retain that control themselves.

Retaking control of interviews

A better approach is to pause briefly before answering. A fraction of a second is often enough. That pause allows the speaker to decide where the answer will begin, what point they want to make and how they want the quote to sound. It also tends to make them appear more thoughtful and authoritative.

The second issue is a small word that causes surprisingly large problems.

“And.”

Many spokespeople answer a question perfectly well. The answer is complete. The point has landed. Then they hear themselves say:

“And…”

Now they have a problem. Nobody can stop at “and”. The sentence demands continuation. What follows may be useful. It may even be interesting. But it is often less important than the answer that came before it.

From an editor’s perspective, this creates options. If the second point is stronger than the first, the edit may focus on that instead. If time is limited, the original answer may disappear entirely. The interviewee has unintentionally shifted control over the narrative into someone else’s hands. This is why our media training often includes an unusual recommendation: learn to think like an editor. Ask questions such as:

Would this quote work as a standalone clip?
Does it make sense without the previous answer?
Could an editor remove half of it without changing the meaning?
Is the key point obvious in the first sentence?

The strongest spokespeople instinctively consider these questions. They shape answers that are complete, self-contained and easy to use.

At first, this can feel unnatural. People become aware of every word and every pause. Over time, however, a degree of self-editing becomes second nature.

The result is not a more cautious spokesperson. It is a more effective one.

Because the less work an editor has to do, the more likely it is that the audience hears exactly what the speaker intended to say.

At Clapperton Media Training, one point comes up in training sessions more than almost anything else: the first proper answer in a media interview still matters enormously. In fact, it probably matters more now than it did twenty years ago.

Attention spans are shorter. Journalists are working faster. Podcasts, broadcast interviews, online articles and video clips all reward clarity and immediacy. Within moments, an interviewer is already forming a view about how useful, engaging and quotable a spokesperson is going to be. And despite that, many spokespeople still get the opening badly wrong.

Usually, it happens in one of two ways.

The first is the defensive approach. A spokesperson wants to get through the interview quickly and reveals as little as possible. Answers become clipped.

“Yes.”

“No.”

“Mm-hmm.”

There is a well-known interview with a former leader of the British Dental Association that demonstrates this perfectly. The awkwardness people remember from the clip is not really about the later confrontation. The tone is set much earlier. The interviewer quickly realises they are dealing with someone defensive and unwilling to engage. From there, the interview becomes tense and combative.

Short answers are not the problem in themselves. Uncooperative ones are.

The second mistake is almost the reverse. A spokesperson genuinely wants to help. They know their subject well and can immediately think of multiple points, examples and explanations connected to the question. So they try to include all of them. In their own mind, the answer is thorough and useful. To the journalist, it often feels sprawling and difficult to follow. At that point, the interviewer has to decide what matters, what gets cut and what gets reshaped into a usable quote.

That is rarely a good position for a spokesperson to be in.

Journalists and their skills

Journalists are highly skilled at storytelling and editing. But their expertise is journalism, not necessarily the specialist field your client works in. The more editing they have to do, the more control the spokesperson loses over how their point is presented. A useful thing to remind clients is that journalists are listening for material they can use quickly and clearly in a story.

That usually means a concise answer, a clear point and a quote that can stand on its own. If they need more detail, they will ask for it. Too many spokespeople assume they must fill every silence with additional explanation. In reality, that often weakens the answer rather than strengthening it.

The bridge

One structure we frequently recommend in media training is very simple.

First, answer the question directly. Sometimes this really can be “yes” or “no”. Then add brief context. This is where the spokesperson demonstrates expertise and shapes the interpretation of the answer. Then stop. A spokesperson does not need to keep talking simply to avoid silence. If the journalist has a strong, clear quote that requires minimal editing, the job is done.

Journalists make decisions about interviews very quickly. Within the first exchange they are already assessing whether the spokesperson understands the topic, whether they can communicate clearly and whether the interview is going to produce useful material.

That judgement affects the tone and direction of everything that follows. A strong first answer does not need to be long or overly polished. It simply needs to be clear, relevant and controlled. Get that opening right and the rest of the interview becomes much easier. Get it wrong and the spokesperson can spend the next twenty minutes trying to recover.

Want to confuse a journalist? Tell them everything you know about your top subject, don’t worry about focus, just come out with all of your experience. That’s what a number of our media training delegates do in the first interview practice sessions we run with them and it almost never helps.

It’s like this. Journalists are experts in many things: storytelling, interviewing, maybe editing a video or audio package together, collating quotes into a written article. As they progress they may become superb managers and developers of young writing and interviewing talent. They are superb at working to deadlines (or they won’t last long).

They might – just might – also be an expert in your client’s field. Equally they might not. So let’s say your spokesperson has been doing whatever they’ve been doing for 20 years and the journalist uses a light opener like “tell me about yourself” – and the well-intentioned interviewee comes out with everything they can think of that might help.

It comes from a good place and a wish to help. But without focus it’s going to damage an article. If someone is not an expert in your field already, telling them 20 things about it is more likely to end up in confusion than clarity. And that’s when mistakes and factual errors creep in, not because anyone is stitching anyone up but because the interview just wasn’t clear.

Focus is essential

The classic picture of a media trainer is someone who tells you to pick three things and come out with those whatever the question might be. This is extreme and likely to offend journalists who know when they’re being ignored. It’s worth going into interviews with three prepared messages, though, for three reasons. First, you need some area of focus just to stop yourself rambling. Second, if the interview goes off piste then you’ll have something to get back to. Third, it’s actually courteous to the journalist to think about what you want to say in advance.

Stick to a few core messages and try to ram them home. By all means answer the rest, the politician’s trick of ignoring the question is something the listeners and viewers will spot at some distance and it makes the spokesperson look arrogant – but there’s noting wrong with having an intention and a focus for every media interaction.