Guy Clapperton, Author at Clapperton Media

If you’re reading this then the chances are that you’ll be in PR and you’ll have noticed the problems you face are multiplying and going off in different directions. The chances are that you’re facing a “credibility crunch.”

Here’s where it starts. You can use AI to write a press release in seconds, but so can everyone else. This has led journalists to become more cynical than ever – only last week on Reddit I was engaging with someone who’d had a pitch rejected by a journalist because a piece of software had identified it as AI-generated (he was quite annoyed because he’d written it himself).

At the same time, AI search engines (like Perplexity and Google’s SGE) are prioritizing “original expert opinion” and “lived experience” to rank brands. So AI content doesn’t help and false positives when people use software to root out the non-human stuff are a real problem.

(We will pause here to reflect that the journalist using software to detect AI was also using AI so more than a little hypocritical – OK, as you were.)

So PR professionals are under immense pressure to put their executives forward as “thought leaders” because they’re human and then we’re back to the spokespeople being terrified by a live mic or cynical journalist with a difficult question. Many will resort to going really bland and slipping into what I think of as “corporate droid” mode in which case you might as well have gone to AI in the first place.

Help your spokespeople to be human

This is where it’s worth getting help and by all means I have a vested interest. There can be good reasons to opt for external input: someone like me can say something to a C-suite director without having to bump into them in the lift the following day, I will have a different set of experiences to most internal PR professionals and probably more experience as a journalist.

If you want to keep it internal, though, be aware that the needs of media training have changed quite a bit. Here are some examples”

Podcasts are a thing so chattier approaches are more acceptable than they were. Just check what’s happening on popular TV; if you’re in the UK then you might be aware that “The Apprentice” is back but instead of the audience-based review aftershow “You’re Fired” we have the podcast-ish “Unfinished Business”. You can read my thoughts on why “podcast” is becoming a meaningless term here but the informality is probably here to stay.
A consequence is that changing topics in an interview and steering away from uncomfortable areas is still a thing but an audience can spot a clunky change of gear at several paces.
Journalists and other media professionals increasingly expect a personal side to an interview. Not only will they appreciate it but a good interview full of engaging stories and individual content will feed the algorithms and help AI-based searches to find it. Until they change it all again.

The same goes for your own pitches. Not only is using AI to generate them a bad idea but it’s worth checking to see whether your style sounds a bit robotic so you don’t join my contact on Reddit and get the boot for being AI when you’re not!

We recently hosted a skills session for a group of rising PR professionals, focusing on the art of the pitch. It was an energizing day; the delegates were sharp, and as is often the case with these workshops, our team walked away with as many new insights as we shared.

However, the session sparked a memory of a previous training day that serves as a vital “canary in the coal mine” for the communications industry.

The “Podcast” on BBC4

During a past workshop, a junior PR professional shared a pitch she had written regarding complex technology standards. It was highly technical—perhaps a bit beyond her current grasp—but the real issue was the target: The Today Programme.

When we asked why she chose that outlet, we discovered a fundamental disconnect. We asked her, “What actually is the Today Programme?”

Her answer? “It’s a podcast on BBC4.”

For those of us who have spent decades in the industry, the corrections come instinctively: BBC4 is a television channel; Today is the flagship live news program on Radio 4. When we pointed this out, the delegate was skeptical, eventually “conceding” only when a colleague confirmed it was “BBC Radio 4.” To her, the distinction was pedantic; to a communications strategist, it’s the difference between a bullseye and missing the target entirely.

A Portent of Change

While her managers quickly arranged for further media orientation, the encounter highlights a broader shift. As we “mature” as communicators, we must recognize that the incoming generation consumes and defines media in fundamentally different ways.

This isn’t about “making allowances” for younger staff. It’s about recognizing that:

The “New” is the “Now”: In the 90s, the idea of reading a daily newspaper on a handheld screen seemed impractical. Today, it’s the global standard.
Legacy is Relative: What we consider a “Major News Outlet” may be entirely invisible to a digital native who prioritises on-demand, social-first content.
Platform Agnosticism: To a new practitioner, the distinction between a live broadcast and a podcast is increasingly irrelevant.

Is Your Media Strategy Stuck in 2011?

This shift represents a significant risk for brands and C-suite executives. If a spokesperson believes they are “media ready” because they underwent training fifteen years ago, they are prepared for a media landscape that no longer exists.

In 2026, the challenges are different:

Shorter Attention Spans: The window to land a point has shrunk from minutes to seconds.
Fragmented Trust: Institutional trust in “old media” has shifted, requiring a different tone and level of transparency.
New Gatekeepers: The “Today Programme” of tomorrow might actually be a podcast—or a creator’s thread on a platform that hasn’t even peaked yet.

The Reality Check

It is incumbent upon all of us to stay curious. It is worth auditing the skills you and your leadership team believe you have and asking: Are these tools fit for today’s reality? If your spokespeople are still preparing for the media of 2011, they won’t just be out of touch—they’ll be invisible.

Does your team need a media refresher? We help brands navigate the bridge between legacy authority and modern communication. If you’d like to discuss a media training refresh for your team, we should talk.

Reach out to Jo at jo@clapperton.co.uk to set up an initial consultation.

Many executives believe they’re being helpful by offering lengthy, detailed answers during media interviews. They think they’re providing maximum value, demonstrating their expertise, and being polite to the journalist.

But here’s the truth: what journalists actually want is clarity, not quantity.

The Mindset Shift Spokespeople Need

A tight, disciplined answer serves everyone better. It helps the journalist understand the story quickly, demonstrates confidence, keeps the interview moving, and — crucially — keeps your spokesperson in control of the message.

Long answers hand narrative control to the journalist, who’ll extract whatever fits their angle. Short answers keep control firmly with the spokesperson.

What to Tell Your Spokespeople

If you’re preparing someone for an interview, try this simple reframe:

“They probably won’t take in absolutely everything — just tell them the thing that matters.”

It’s remarkably liberating for executives. It stops them trying to impress through volume and leads to far stronger coverage. As a bonus, it makes the journalist’s life easier too.

This Is What Media Training Fixes

We spend considerable time showing spokespeople how to give shorter, sharper, more useful answers — without sounding curt or evasive. It’s one of the fastest improvements organisations notice after training.

If your spokespeople tend to over-answer, wander off-topic, or bury their strongest point under layers of context, this is absolutely coachable. The transformation is rapid.
If you’d like your next interview to be cleaner, clearer and far more journalist-friendly, get in touch at Guy@Clapperton.co.uk.

PR teams put enormous effort into pitching stories. Angles are refined, copy is polished, targets are carefully selected, and client messages are aligned with what journalists actually need. When it all works, when the timing is right and the angle lands, that effort should translate into strong coverage.

Yet time and again, the story unravels within the first thirty seconds of the interview. Not because the pitch was wrong. Not because the journalist had an agenda. Not because the story lacked substance.

It falls apart because the spokesperson’s first answer is simply too long and that single moment quietly shifts control of the interview. The first thirty seconds really are make or break time.

Why the first thirty seconds carry so much weight

Forget the pleasantries and scene-setting. The first substantive answer is where the real interview begins. It’s where tone, authority and direction are established.

Journalists do not arrive hoping to improvise. They arrive prepared:

They know what their editor wants.
They know what their audience expects.
They know the angle they need to deliver.

That first answer tells them whether the person opposite understands those realities. A concise, relevant answer that clearly speaks to the publication’s audience signals competence and awareness. The journalist relaxes. They know they are dealing with someone who understands the job and can deliver usable material.

A long, inward-looking response packed with internal enthusiasm and vague messaging does the opposite. At that point, the journalist takes control. They begin shaping the story themselves, steering the conversation toward what they need, not what the organisation hoped to say. The narrative is no longer in your hands.

The comms gap few leaders recognise

Many senior leaders prepare for interviews from a single perspective: their own. They know why the organisation is excited, they understand the strategy and the detail and they see the internal value clearly.

What’s often missing is any serious consideration of the audience. The message hasn’t been translated from “why this matters to us” into “why this matters to you”. So the first answer tries to cover everything, says too much, and lands nowhere. That is the moment the interviewee cedes control. Quietly, unintentionally, and very early.

A simple fix

Whether spokespeople are trained professionally or coached internally, the remedy is straightforward:

Keep the first answer short.
Aim it squarely at the publication’s audience.
Demonstrate instantly that you understand the journalist’s brief.
Offer something quotable.

When you or your client do this well, journalists are far more open to the wider messaging. The organisation’s story shapes the coverage, rather than being reshaped by it. When it isn’t, the rest of the interview becomes damage limitation.

Why this matters for PR teams

PR professionals invest huge effort in story development, pitching and relationship-building. Allowing coverage to be derailed by an overlong first answer is a costly and unnecessary risk That’s why first-answer discipline is a core focus of our media training. It’s a small adjustment with disproportionate impact, often the difference between “We got a mention” and “We landed the story we wanted.”

Because in media interviews, power shifts early, very often in the first sentence.

And timing, as ever, is everything.