The world of journalism recently suffered a great loss with the passing of veteran 60-Minutes broadcaster Mike Wallace. Known for his gruff demeanor and tough interview style, his name could strike fear into the heart of anyone who had ever served in the role of company spokesperson. Thanks to his reputation as a relentless interviewer, Wallace is no doubt partially responsible for the reluctance of many communications professionals even today to take on the role of media spokesperson. For those old enough to remember footage of Wallace cornering a company executive outside corporate headquarters with a camera and an accusatory question, it is no small wonder that many people are fearful of talking with a journalist.

Click Here to View Some of Mike Wallace's Most Notorious Interviews

Yet, talking to reporters does not have to be a source of anxiety.  Media interviews represent a terrific opportunity for individuals and organizations to get their messages out to the public. As a conduit for our clients’ messages, reporters will always play a critical role in the public relations business.  That is why it is so important that we make sure our clients are fully prepared to take on the role as a media spokesperson.  And if talking to a reporter causes a client to break out into a cold sweat, it is our job as professional communicators to eliminate that fear.  We do that through media training.

Not surprisingly, few people actually enjoy the experience of media training. Some actively resist. Others take the passive aggressive no-time-in-their busy-schedule approach. Still others reluctantly agree, only to suffer anxiety attacks in the days leading up to the session. Yet media training is the single best way to prepare for working with the media.

Spokesperson training boils down to three simple things: preparation, planning and practice. The purpose of training, whether through a formal session with cameras rolling, or an informal Q&A over the phone, is to show potential spokespeople how to prepare by anticipating the way an interview may unfold, to plan in advance how to most effectively handle challenging questions, and to practice delivering their key points.

The most effective media training is designed to simulate a real life exchange between two individuals with sometimes very different agendas. The reporter, whose goal is to prepare a piece that supports his/her basic story premise; and the spokesperson, who has a very specific point to get across that may or may not mesh with the reporter’s objective.  Simply rehearsing key message points is always good practice, but the real value of a media training session comes from having a direct interaction with another person who will actively challenge you. In real life, it is the reporter who is the source of that challenge; in media training, it is the trainer who does the challenging, oftentimes with much greater intensity than a real reporter.

The intensity of the exchange is what helps prepare the spokesperson for even the most difficult of interview sessions. Media training sessions represent a concentrated form of preparation that puts the spokesperson into situations specifically designed to mimic real-life interviews.  Through a series of mock interviews that typically include softball questions, hardball questions, and totally out-of-left-field questions, the trainee gains a sense of what he or she may encounter, as well as how to maintain focus.  That preparation and practice, in turn, serves to provide a real psychological boost in the form of confidence that stems from learning how to successfully handle an interview situation.

The knowledge of what to expect, along with the preparation and practice that media training provides, increases a spokesperson’s sense of control during an interview.  Along with that increased control comes less anxiety and greater confidence.  The combination of preparation, control, and relaxed confidence – achieved through media training – can turn the reluctant spokesperson into a great spokesperson who thrives in even the toughest media interviews. Even if the interviewer turns out to be the next Mike Wallace.

As the Supreme Court gathers to hear the first of three days of arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as: PPACA; ACA; Obamacare; and, a variety of other pejorative names), journalists, health policy experts, elected officials, and motivated activists are eagerly gathering outside the Court. Some are interested in the policy while others are there to contribute to the spectacle surrounding one of the most highly contested issues of our time. The ruling, which is expected in mid-summer, will jolt the presidential campaigns and, without a doubt, fire up activists across the political spectrum. Finding clarity on whether the law as written is good or bad policy will take years (we all have our opinions), but the complexities of the law and the passions it inspires are apparent to any casual observer.

But why does it inspire such passions?

Because health care is different. With total health care expenditures in excess of $2.5 trillion representing nearly 18 percent of the United States’ Gross Domestic Product, health care touches every person, company and level of government. Individuals and families confront health care issues on a daily basis as they struggle with premiums and out of pocket costs, address illness, or seek to help an older loved one. Companies see health insurance costs rise for current workers and retirees as a disjointed delivery system contributes to greater “presenteeism” among workers seeking to coordinate care for themselves and sick family members.

Government at all levels continues to struggle with maintaining critical services, controlling health care costs, funding employee benefits, containing state Medicaid budgets or addressing Medicare. Increasingly health care costs are the nexus between individual financial security, corporate competitiveness and long term, government solvency. And, in many cases, access to care is the difference between life and death. That is why health care is different.

Yet, as these challenges compel action on health care reform, we cannot ignore that innovations in health care driven by medical and information technology as well as pharmaceutical and biotechnology advances offer current treatments and the potential for future advances that once seemed unthinkable. While expensive, for people struggling with a chronic disease, a rare illness, or a degenerative health condition, technology and medical advancements offer hope for a better life. Some see health reform as a threat to progress and hope while others see it a guarantor of them.

It may seem simplistic to say health care is different, but the list of issues that are of vital concern to individuals, families, corporations of all sizes, as well as local, state, and federal governments are very limited. Whether you watch this week’s spectacle at the Supreme Court as a patient, an employer, or just a professional communicator looking to steal a few ideas on how to get a message to break through, remember it is truly one of the great issues of our time. Very few others can match it for size, cost, complexity and the acutely personal effects it has on our daily lives.

That scold rings loudly in my ears.  It came almost daily from Sister John the Baptist, my first grade teacher at St. Matthew’s School in Baltimore as she herded her charges into rows of two for the march to the cafeteria.  All these years later, I can see her stern glare and ominous habit as she patrolled the line for miscreants who had the temerity to whisper “I need to pee” or something similar.

That memory came rushing back to me as I heard the news of the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendation that all mobile phone use in cars be banned.  NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman may be the second coming of Sister John, barking to all within earshot “No Talking!”  She followed this with a comment in an interview that she knew the ban would be unpopular, but that this was not about a popularity contest.  Well that’s certainly clear.  A nag like this likely had a tough time in high school and is getting her revenge on the popular kids now.

Frankly, Ms. Hershman trivialized the issue and exposed her foolishness with her comment.  We are far beyond questions of popularity in the discussion of cell phone use in cars.  We are talking about a vital technology that has advanced to the point where people depend upon the ability to reach out to family, advise them of whereabouts when encountering delays, engage in commerce and do the thousand other things that comprise daily life in a modern society.  Besides, does anyone reject the reality that manufacturers and service providers are keenly focused on safety and developing all manner of hands free devices and applications that reduce the potential for driver distraction.

Ms. Hershman used the “D” word repeatedly in her argument in favor of the ban.  What she failed to discuss was whether her ban would eliminate driver distractions that by her calculus should be considered every bit as dangerous as mobile devices.  Here’s one example.

On my daily commute from Baltimore to Washington, I drive a stretch of highway that has (I counted) 17 signs within the space of one mile.  Among these are an overhead electronic message board which requires that drivers take their eyes off the road, look up and read three lines of type that often include abbreviations that require you to pause and think about what is meant.  A little further in this corridor is a radar activated speed sign that flashes your speed as you approach.  This requires that you take your eyes off the traffic in front of you, glance at the flashing numbers, look down at your dashboard, discern which of the large dials is the speedometer and not the tachometer, check your speed against the sign and then return your eyes to the road ahead.  All that takes a few seconds, perhaps, but certainly enough time to create the potential for an accident.  The remainder of the signs advise of construction related detours, exit names and numbers, mileage to upcoming destinations and more.

Will all those distractions be eliminated as well?

While we are at it, what about the radio?  Must that be ripped out along with your iPod?  What about your kids’ back seat video system that is controlled from the front seat?  Chuck that in the garbage too and then be distracted by the wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from the child seats in back.  But truly, we have not even begun.

Rip out the heater and the AC.  Adjusting the temperature, pressing the right buttons, setting the fan speed dials and directing the vents is inherently dangerous and definitely distracting.  Would Ms. Hershman advise that “This is not about a popularity contest.  If you sweat and stink that is far better than risking an accident.”

But wait, there’s more.  What about those seat adjustments?  Dare not get uncomfortable and reach down to adjust your position or give yourself a little more legroom.  If you do, you are not paying attention, Mister. (Another favorite scold of Sister John’s.)  Take out the blinker switches, the wiper arms and the headlight buttons too.  If it gets dark and you need to take your eyes off the road to turn on the headlamps, then you should ask yourself whether you should be out after dark at all.

If you think this rant borders on the ridiculous, then check out the recommendation of Baltimore County State Delegate Dana Stein.  He took up the Hershman challenge immediately recommending  that it be a crime – a CRIME – if someone is eating, drinking or smoking in the car.  Since those activities would in the eyes of the law constitute distractions, drivers would be guilty of the crime of Distracted Driving.  He has a bill he plans to introduce to accomplish just that!

No one argues in favor of texting while driving and that is not the point here.  Far from it.  That would be like suggesting that it is OK to read a newspaper while driving, something I actually have observed during my daily commute.  But if we are at the stage in our society of criminalizing anything and everything, we have gone way beyond the point of reason.

How about a stepped up anti-texting public education campaign?  These have proven effective in the past.  According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, well-designed fully integrated public education campaigns have been demonstrated to reduce smoking among young people by as much as 40 percent.  A 2010 study in The Lancet found that mass media anti-tobacco campaigns are associated with a decline in youth starting to smoke and an increase in the number of adult smokers who quit.

And what about distracted policing?  Are we really ready to start taking our cops away from true crime prevention so they can pursue people for talking in their cars?  I can tell the cops the location of an open air drug market I drive past on a regular basis.  They seem already too distracted to tackle that one.

We can and should accept that we live in a modern society in which technology plays a vital role.  That technology includes the ability to communicate in ways that actually increase our safety, enhance our ability to “See Something and Say Something” or respond to the Amber Alerts that are so frequently posted on those overhead message boards even if we do so from our cars.  Hands-free technology is fast becoming ubiquitous and it will only get better over time.  Let’s work on better education and awareness and less government intrusion.

And Ms. Hershman can yell “No Talking” all she wants.  Sister John the Baptist did it better.

It may be no surprise to industry experts that government departments are notoriously behind the social media curve in comparison with private organizations. In fact, Congress and the media have “dinged” agencies for their lack of social media participation. At least one rationale for the criticism is likely the fact that social media platforms are inherently a way for the government to be transparent and proactive in communicating their policies, decisions and actions to the American people.

Because these decisions and actions so often have an effect on our livelihoods, it’s natural for the community to be interested in their rationale, their impact on the economy, and their implications for the future.

Fear not: The bureaucracy is listening and social media engagement is increasing.

As an example, the Department of Veterans Affairs released its new social media policy, establishing a path forward and encouraging VA offices to practice clear and transparent communication to Veterans and their communities. This is a significant advance in thinking about the value and importance of social media. It was furthered recently when Brandon Friedman, VA’s Director of New Media, along with several other members of leading government agencies, participated in a panel discussion entitled, “Can the Department of Defense Realize the Full Power of Social Media?” The panel reassessed DOD’s social media status one year after the release of a policy that opened the Pentagon’s doors to several sites, including Facebook and Twitter, that had previously been blocked.

As a Communications contractor working with VA, I found the discussion very interesting. While, as the panel agreed, the government has certainly made progress in social media participation, several unique circumstances should be addressed to maximize value, minimize risk and make even further progress.

To begin, a greater emphasis is needed on educating and training staff on social media practices to increase transparency. This would include heightening awareness and propensity for “over sharing.” One panelist said it best: “No one wants to do a bad job.” This particularly stuck in my mind, because social media can be so engaging as to cause you to lose your way, and in turn, your effectiveness. Likewise, although social media serve as a means for quickly challenging negative comments, in government agencies, information security remains a paramount priority. Participants in social media activity must always ensure that private information continues to be safeguarded when relaying information to the public.

The relative importance of social media in the hierarchy of communication within government agencies also continues to be an issue. Social media initiatives should be a proactive effort, but are often relegated to the backburner in a sea of seemingly more pressing demands. Often, agencies do not have personnel solely dedicated to social media, so metric tracking and leadership buy-in are difficult to achieve and maintain.

The panel noted the issue was not that the social media efforts thus far were “incorrect, but incomplete.” While one of the benefits of social media is access to data that can be presented to departmental leadership (Facebook fan numbers, Twitter followers, blog subscribers, etc.), it can also turn into a drawback. If multiple staffers are communicating on internal efforts, but the social media office is not aware of these individual accounts, it becomes difficult to track activity and bring accurate measures of success to the fore. It also becomes nearly impossible to ensure team members are following a consistent social media policy or responding to media requests in the correct manner.

But isn’t social media about sharing and establishing networks within and outside of your teams? As agencies grapple with this fundamental conundrum, they must strive to strike a balance between communicating and regulating.

This week, Stanton Communications, Inc., welcomes our partners from ECP Global and IPAN, to Washington, D.C. These two international public relations consortia have a full schedule of discussions,  presentations and more all focused on the importance and power of independence in the public relations industry. Over the course of the three-day meeting, our colleagues will hear from David Jensen, an international communications consultant who has worked with and for some of the largest and smallest PR firms in the world, as well as in senior positions with Boeing, GE, Raytheon and others. David will discuss PR networks, their inherent value and distinction compared to the global holding companies. A panel of top-tier journalists featuring lead reporters from AP Broadcast, NPR Digital and USA Today will talk about the changing face of journalism in the digital age and its implications for cross-border communications. Samuel Mok, an international business consultant, will patch in from Beijing to discuss doing business in China and the opportunities for network growth there. And Dr. Sherri Jeffe, a renowned political analyst, media commentator and professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, will present her views on political communications here and abroad.

Throughout the meetings, team members from Stanton Communications will be providing real-time updates on Twitter. We welcome you to follow the hashtag #SCIGlobal for live news, particularly during Friday morning’s media panel. Following the meetings, keep an eye out for news here on The Strategy Room blog. We would love to hear your feedback and opinions.

ECP Global Communications and IPAN strive to meet twice each year in the home countries of member firms. In May, the groups convened in Dubrovnik, Croatia, for a strategic meeting on ways to strengthen the alliance and advance a 10-year strategic plan dubbed ECP 2020. Stanton Communications, Inc., has been a member of ECP Global Communications for nearly 10 years and now chairs the consortium. During that time, the alliance has enabled our firm to serve premier clients around the globe with programs originating both here in the U.S. and abroad.  Partner firms in Great Britain, France, Italy, Turkey, Germany, Switzerland and Canada, have offered guidance and worked on behalf of our clients on important projects and issues. We truly benefit from the alliance and are proud to be a part of a team of professionals singularly dedicated to client service excellence. For more information about ECP or IPAN, visit www.ecpglobal.com and www.ipan.biz.

See you on Twitter.

Why should companies care about the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protests? Because the movements, while vastly different in ideology and style, manifest a concern that’s real to many Americans: a feeling that it’s become increasingly difficult to secure a middle class existence through fair play and hard work, and large institutions, including corporations, are part of the problem. Here’s the part that should keep every communications executive up at night—according to a recent Time Magazine poll, 54 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the Occupy protesters.

Of course this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Americans watched the living standards of workers in China, India and Brazil rise and corporate profits soar while their own wages and job opportunities dwindled. The upshot is that a significant number are having their Howard Beale mad-as-hell moment in cities across America and even globally from Berlin to Tokyo.

For corporate leaders, this is an important opportunity to be viewed as part of the solution, rather than the problem. General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt recently found himself—fairly or not—on the wrong side of the issue. During an Oct. 9 interview on “60 Minutes,” he touted GE’s success in harnessing economic opportunities overseas, even as GE lags in creating jobs at home. When asked by Lesley Stahl whether American companies have a civic responsibility to create [American] jobs, he shook his head saying he’s accountable only to GE investors. He added that Americans should be rooting for GE’s success. Surprised by the tin-eared response, Stahl asked “do you not see any reason why the public doesn’t hold the American corporation up here,” gesturing to a point above her head.

By comparison, one CEO who stopped to think before speaking is Starbucks’ Howard Schultz, whose rhetoric and action appears more in tune with the national mood. Speaking to The Daily Beast about Starbucks’ program to spur job growth in America, Schultz said, “I feel very strongly I have to take on a deeper responsibility to do all that I can to use the scale of my company for good. I don’t want to blame anybody. I just want to stand up and make a difference.”

What Schultz understands is that corporate responsibility can serve as a useful framework for navigating the complex landscape of stakeholder interests. By launching the Create Jobs for U.S.A. Program, the company positions itself as part of the solution. Starbucks is partnering with the Opportunity Finance Network to raise capital to fund small businesses, an important engine of job creation. The company backed its commitment with $5 million in seed money while also articulating its values and inviting customer participation. Starbucks also uses the program to remind the public of the jobs it generates here at home, noting that it is on track to hire 70,000 people for its U.S. operations by the end of 2011.

Starbucks isn’t the only company placing job creation at the center of its community initiatives. Volkswagen’s At Home in America campaign ties Volkswagen’s success to that of American workers by investing $4 billion in U.S. operations, which includes a new plant—and jobs—in Tennessee. And in a nod to the disconnect often cited between activities on Wall Street and those on Main Street, Goldman Sachs launched its Progress Is campaign, demonstrating the stimulus effect of the firm’s economic development projects in local economies.

While Immelt was certainly right in his assertion that he’s beholden to the interests of investors, his tone was out of sync with the times. Americans expect companies to play a role in tackling the toughest of society’s problems. Companies that understand this and communicate a genuine concern backed up with concrete action find themselves on the right side of the debate and public opinion.