At Clapperton Media Training, we spend a lot of time helping senior executives navigate media interviews. Often, the biggest challenges aren’t about confidence or messaging. They’re about assumptions.

One training session from the past year illustrates this perfectly. During a media training session with a senior executive in the financial transactions sector, a particular phrase came up in a practice interview:

“Fiat currency.”

For those unfamiliar with the term, it refers to currencies such as the pound or dollar that derive their value from collective agreement rather than being backed by a physical commodity like gold.

It’s a standard term in financial circles. Nothing unusual there.

However, when the client’s PR adviser suggested that not every journalist would be familiar with it, the response was blunt:

“Why would I want to talk to morons?”

Let’s park the tone for a moment. There is, arguably, a point worth considering. If every journalist covering that executive’s sector fully understands terms like “fiat currency”, then simplifying language might feel unnecessary. But that’s not how media works in practice. Journalists are not a uniform group of specialists. Even within business and financial media:

  • Some are new to the beat

  • Some are covering adjacent sectors

  • Some are generalists with a wide brief

The journalist who reaches your ideal audience may not be the deepest technical expert in your field. And even if they are, their readers or listeners may not be.

The “first day” problem

Every journalist has a first day. At some point, they are covering a topic they don’t yet fully understand. That doesn’t make them incapable. It makes them exactly what they are supposed to be: curious. And that curiosity is what drives good interviews.

If an executive assumes knowledge that isn’t there, two things happen:

  • The message becomes harder to follow

  • The journalist starts to shape the story themselves

That’s when control of the narrative begins to slip.

Not knowing something is not the issue

Describing someone as a “moron” for not understanding specialist language is obviously unhelpful. More importantly, it reveals something deeper: A lack of empathy for the audience.

Journalists are experts in:

  • Asking the right questions

  • Finding the story

  • Communicating clearly to their audience

They are not necessarily experts in your sector. Nor do they need to be.

That gap is where the opportunity lies.

What this means for spokespeople

The most effective spokespeople understand one simple principle:

Your job is not to demonstrate expertise. It is to make your expertise usable.

That means explaining terms without patronising, avoiding unnecessary jargon and meeting the journalist where they are Crucially, recognising that clarity is not a compromise. It is a skill.

Where preparation makes the difference

This is exactly the kind of issue that benefits from proper preparation.

A well-briefed spokesperson understands: who they are speaking to, what that person is likely to know or not know and how to address them fluently. Better still, structured media training allows executives to experience these moments in advance and adjust their approach before it matters.

The bottom line

The problem in media interviews is rarely the complexity of the subject. It is the assumption that everyone else understands it in the same way.

Executives who recognise that gap and bridge it effectively are the ones who:

  • Get their message across

  • Build stronger relationships with journalists

  • And ultimately see better coverage

And it all starts with a simple shift:

From speaking to impress, to speaking to be understood.

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:

  1. Shorter Attention Spans: The window to land a point has shrunk from minutes to seconds.

  2. Fragmented Trust: Institutional trust in “old media” has shifted, requiring a different tone and level of transparency.

  3. 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.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​