Guy Clapperton, Author at Clapperton Media

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.

Lead trainer Guy writes

Look, I’m a podcaster. I’ve been one since 2018 with my current offering, The Near Futurist, and years before that I had a thing called HR Podcast – so obscure even Google has forgotten about it (not that this needs to be a bad thing, it was pretty rough and ready).

So I do know a bit about podcasting. It was all a bit DIY and you could put it out onto the Internet and people could listen to it in their own time, unlike a radio broadcast. There are many such examples still being produced.

And as a useful concept I believe it’s dead. Let me explain.

The radio now carries podcasts

My wife and I generally listen to BBC Radio 4 in the mornings. First it’s the Today programme and if we’re not behind our desks at 9am then it can be a number of things: this week it’s been More Or Less, followed eventually by Woman’s Hour.

Thing is, you can search the BBC website for “Podcasts” and you’ll find that day’s Woman’s Hour, no problem.

You can listen to it in your own time by all means. But is scheduled radio that you timeshift actually a podcast or not? I’d edge towards “not” myself but the BBC says it is. So are The Infinite Monkey Cage, Desert Island Discs and a load more. One or two programmes actually announce themselves as podcasts while they’re on the air.

And that’s not all.

The Traitors

That’s not just a clickbaity subhead (although if you’ve clicked onto this piece and want to read about The Traitors, welcome – this is your bit!). The popular TV programme of this name is not a podcast, obviously – but the supporting programme, The Traitors Uncloaked, describes itself as a “visualised podcast”. This is broadcast at a fixed time, after the main programme, on BBC1 and is definitely a TV programme. To rub that in it is followed by ANOTHER, AUDIO-ONLY podcast.

Meanwhile one of the most popular podcasts that exists is Diary of a CEO with Stephen Bartlett. This doesn’t describe itself as visualised but you can watch it. It’s definitely on video.

Is it actually a style rather than a genre?

So, just to annoy people who want to train people for appearances on these things, a podcast might now be on audio or video or both, it can be broadcast to a schedule or downloadable, it may or may not be on a major broadcast platform and there are a load of programmes available to stream that aren’t podcasts at all.

Which is why I believe podcasts, as a useful category, are dead. If anyone wants training to appear on something they describe as a podcast then by all means my team and I can help – the attentive body language while you’re looking relaxed and the tone while you’re sounding casual but hitting important messages are things we can support. There’s definitely a podcast “style” that isn’t the same as a formal interview.

But things keep moving in the media. And if any trainer, PR person or other sort of media professional tells you “podcast” actually means something specific these days, I’d be concerned they’re looking at the media of 2018.