interview Archives - 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!

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.

Ifg you’re in public relations you’ll be well aware that media interviews are a critical component of shaping a client’s public image and conveying key messages. Many PR companies engage media training specialists—like our team—to prepare their spokespeople for live interviews with journalists. The common concern? Fear of “winging it”—the worry that their CEO or key executive will stumble, ramble, or be caught unprepared on camera or microphone.

However, while poor preparation is definitely a problem, there’s a nuanced challenge that often goes unnoticed: overpreparation. Some executives are so accustomed to meticulously rehearsed responses and detailed briefs that they end up delivering their messages with robotic precision. This leads to an interview that feels less like a genuine conversation and more like a memorised monologue.

The Pitfalls of Overpreparedness

Colleagues in the public relations industry often come across this issue. An executive might know every key point inside out but struggles to vary their script. They have done no preparation for someone asking something not in their playbook. So when an unexpected question arises, they stumble or retreat into delivering their rehearsed lines, failing to engage authentically with the journalist or audience. This over-reliance on scripting can undermine credibility and diminish the impact of even the most compelling messages.

A Cautionary Tale – this spokesperson had done his preparation but…

To illustrate this, we recall a particularly extreme example from a media assignment our lead trainer Guy undertook. He was invited to interview a government minister in Portugal. Leading up to the interview, Ihehad met one of his colleagues—a personable and approachable individual who was straightforward without being overbearing. He was genuinely looking forward to the meeting.

When the official entered the room, he was flanked by soldiers—nothing threatening, but a striking visual. He took his seat between two flags, and then, quite unexpectedly, opened a folder and launched into a pre-written speech, reading aloud to me in full. His PR representative, sitting beside Guy, visibly shrank at the spectacle.

Guy attempted to ask a few questions without being rude, but the minister continued reading his script with a smile, nodding politely as if it were a conversational exchange. When he finished, he shook Guy’s hand and left. Later, his PR team admitted they were as baffled as we were about what it was all supposed to achieve. The minister’s English was excellent, so it wasn’t a matter of language barrier or discomfort.

While this was an extreme case, it underscores a key point: journalists—and in fact, any audience—are rarely satisfied with overtly scripted interviews. Even without the soldiers, a rigid delivery can come across as disingenuous or disengaged.

Mastering, Not Memorizing

At our media training sessions, we emphasise the importance of mastering your key messages rather than memorising answers. Actors, for example, spend years honing their craft to sound natural—even when reading lines—so their delivery resonates as authentic. Most of us don’t share that training, and attempting to produce a perfectly rehearsed performance during an interview can backfire.

When a client delivers a rehearsed, robotic response, journalists quickly perceive a lack of engagement. This perception ramps up the pressure, prompting them to ask more challenging, unexpected questions to test the interviewee’s spontaneity and authenticity.

The Key Takeaway

Preparation remains vital—but it should serve as a foundation for confidence, not a script to recite. A well-prepared spokesperson should be able to navigate interviews with authenticity, drawing on their knowledge and core messages, and adapting to unexpected questions with ease.

If your organization invests in media training—either through our sessions or others—you’ll find that empowering your team to speak naturally about your brand will deliver far better results than forcing them into a scripted performance. Authenticity builds trust and rapport, qualities that no rehearsed answer can truly convey.

Conclusion

Remember, the goal of a media interview is genuine communication, not performance. Preparation should enable your spokespeople to articulate their points clearly and confidently, without sounding like they’re reading from a script. Whether it’s a press conference, an interview, or a one-on-one dialogue, authenticity will always resonate more effectively than robotic recitation.

If you’re interested in helping your team master the art of authentic communication, contact us to learn more about our tailored media training programs. Let’s ensure your executives not only know what to say but also how to say it with confidence and sincerity.

The picture for this post is not an iceberg. Well, it’s not a complete iceberg. The fact is that icebergs are largely underwater so you can’t see them without the proper equipment. What we’ve got here is the tip of the iceberg. About one tenth of one.

You probably knew that but you will be thinking, never mind the pedantry and detail, that’s an iceberg. You’d be right. And yet loads of people still think that when they’re explaining things to the press, the thing to do is to explain all the detail they can. And the result is a confused journalist.

This is very frustrating if you work in PR. You spend ages pitching a story to journalists (maybe even after doing one of our courses, he hinted), you pare it down so it attracts attention and then your client does the human thing of trying to help with all the information they possibly can.

This is where that information can become garbled. The journalist may be a specialist in the client’s field but they may not (and even if they are, their skill will be in writing about it rather than being a practitioner). Their real specialism is in getting stories out of people and constructing a narrative.

So if your client has been working in their field for 20 years and the journalist asks them something, their instinct can be to try to impart everything they’ve learned in those two decades. This is actually going to be a lot for the recipient, who will be doing other interviews too, to take in and assimilate.

Pare it down

In our media training sessions we try help your client to cut down on what they deliver to journalists, podcasters and other stakeholders. If they can start with what sort of headline they’d like to see and work their way backwards from there, they are more likely to offer the important bits rather than every last detail.

Going into too much depth can come from a good place, it’s the client trying to be helpful. It’s just that when you’re talking to someone whose job is to report what’s happening in a condensed amount of words, keeping it simple and cutting out the unnecessary stuff is actually more use than the detailed version.

Basically we all know we can only see about ten per cent of an iceberg above the surface but if someone asks you to show them a picture of an iceberg you’ll show them something like the image we’ve used here. We can help get your clients to do the same – just show the journalist the iceberg.