Blog

The 'Crisis' at the BBC

Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0000

Is it just me, or does the coverage of the BBC’s ‘Newsnight debacle’ seem like the ranting of well oiled soaks at the local pub? I’m fairly sure there is a vast gulf between a news show that’s clearly gone into crisis and ‘a complete breakdown of public trust in the Corporation’. Not least because 99.99% + of the news output on all BBC networks has been and remains at a standard that matches and frequently eclipses the best of other radio and TV across the world. It requires a colossal loss of perspective and good sense to say that the serious and consequential editorial failures on ‘Newsnight’ amount to the ‘worst crisis in the history of the BBC’. I don’t think so. Unless of course you let people go around reporting it as such. Saying it might just make it so.

What would be a proportional response? Well it’s fairly simple. Step one: fire the editor of ‘Newsnight’ and anyone more senior who sanctioned the pulling of one programme that probably should have been broadcast and the broadcasting of another that shouldn’t. It’s their job to get it right and if they blow it and cause embarrassment to the corporation they should go. Step 2: Change the editorial team and get back into business.

I suspect that ‘Newsnight’ editors went into a tail-spin after the decision not to broadcast its expose of Jimmy Saville’s ‘dark side’ was first revealed and then slammed. Desperate to salvage their reputation they cut corners horribly, they indulged their wishful thinking, believed too much, checked too little and crashed and burned.

It also seems that Director General George Entwistle had risen to the level of his incompetence. It was probably not a good idea anyway to promote yet another BBC management careerist into the top job. It’s hard to be tough on your buddies. Mr Entwistle has resigned after a humiliating day of grilling (not least by the BBC’s own John Humphrys). It appears he does not demonstrate the engagement, resolve and strategic skills the job demands.

I think though there is another reason why it is right that he should go. As a world-class public service broadcaster the BBC is an astonishing achievement. To lose it would be a cultural catastrophe. The public has not yet had the debate about public broadcasting, what it should be or whether it should be at all. In the meantime, powerful detractors have been busy undermining it. Enraged by Kate Adie’s lack of jingoism in a report on the bombing of Tripoli back in April 1986, Margaret Thatcher summoned Home Secretary Hurd. “Douglas”, she demanded “shut down the BBC”. She couldn’t do that, of course, but she did contrive to make the corporation into a ratings driven broadcaster – like everyone else. If you are playing this game the next move is to say – “but look, it’s just like everyone else. What makes it special except the lack of adverts?” Well the BBC is special. There is nothing like it in the world. It should be bold, strong, creative, fresh, independent, trail blazing and confident as a world-class broadcaster. Post John Birt (who was of course a Thatcher lackey) Directors General of the BBC have been worn and cowed by political harassment and not least by serious threats to the license fee. It’s the endless hand wringing, insecurity and cringing that constitutes the real slow motion crisis for the BBC. For all our sakes it needs leaders who will roar like lions and not go about like shamed schoolboys waiting outside the headmaster’s door.

Lost from the start

Tue, 03 Jul 2012 14:51:00 +0100

From the moment the interview started it was clear we were watching a grizzly specatacle. It was a mauling, a hapless slave thrown to lions.

http://youtu.be/bddWaHuxTzc?t=6m17s (The clip will start from just over 6 minutes into the segment)

This is Jeremy Paxman's interview with Chloe Smith, the government's finance minister.

Now there are all kinds of reasons why governments don't want to tell us things. I would argue that sometimes (at least tremporarily) that's perfectly reasonable. Good reasons include genuine national security issues; proper legal restrictions, private and not 'in the public interest' information (always tricky) and the details of plans in the making (with a date to be revealed).

Interviewers like Jeremy Paxman (BBC Newsnight) and John Humphreys (BBC Radio 4's 'Today") are the ultimate room 101 for many of my clients, whether they've actually faced them or not.

In my view journalists like these do a massive public service. They hold power and influence to account and frequently act as a kind of unofficial opposition. Admittedly they occasionally become caricatures of themselves, but that all adds to the entertainment.

As a coach and trainer I can't help be fascinated by the question "what could Chloe Smith have done?" Was she lost from the start?

Well, I would never encourage or teach a person how to lie in an interview any more than an athletic coach would train a runner to become a mugger. Good technique can be put to immoral purpose. People who opt for lying should be aware that the moment the fiction is made an army of journalists set out to expose it.

So left with honesty - what can you do? Rule no. 1 - You need to thrash out the message with your colleagues. Never go to the press on such an important issue without an agreed message. Unforunately for Chloe Smith, some insiders say, she was simply pushed to the front and told to defend the decision.

At this moment I think I would be inclined to ask myself - so what weapons do I have? What IS my message? In my view, instead of a message the minister opted for 'pompous speak'. I don't know if this was unintentional or a personality trait, but it's the kind of talk that implies that we the public will be told things when and if our elders and betters see fit. In this context it was like climbing into the pit and poking the tiger with a stick.

I think this situation cried out for some simple honesty.

Paxman: "When did you find out?"

Smith "This morning - but I've known it was one of our options all along".

That simple exchange moves the interview away from the interviewee and on to the policy makers. How does that help? Well, the interview would go to government competence like it was always going to - but at least then you are freed to defend others with gusto and not left looking like a child who's dog has apparently 'eaten her homework'.

Choosing a title for your talk

Sat, 02 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0100

Naming a thing is a powerful act. God went around naming things as he made them at the start of the Bible. “And you, little creature, you shall be called Dung Beetle”. “Fantastic, thanks God. What a great name. I can’t wait to get started on life. So what’s dung?”

“Hmm – I’ll have to get back to you on that”.

Then, apparently, God handed over the naming job to us.

Take care what you name your children. It’s bound to affect them. “Oh, Little Beelzebub is being a bit of devil today”.

My parents called me Malcolm Bryan – in England that means I’ve been middle aged my whole life.

Some names will interfere with your career prospects. They just don’t suit the job. That’s why we don’t have any Popes called Barry or Jeb.

A title for a talk is bait on the end of the fishing line. It creates expectations. (Come to think of it Pope Hilarius (461-468) probably raised expectations too far).

So the title and sub-title of your talk is supposed to lure an audience. With the help of the wonderful TED talks web site (http://www.ted.com), here are some illustrations of titles.

You can use the natural appeal of your subject: Richard Feynman was a famous scientist, a charismatic and popular character. So ‘My friend Richard Feynman’ does the trick.

Some titles tantalise: ‘Building a park in the sky’, ‘Building a dinosaur from a chicken’ – I didn’t wake up wanting to do either of those things, but you’ve intrigued me.

Offer a solution: ‘a future beyond traffic gridlock’, ‘7 Rules for making more happiness’, ‘How we’ll stop polio for good’. I’m in.

Issue a rallying cry: ‘Break the silence of suicide survivors’, ‘Taking imagination seriously’, ‘It's time to question bio-engineering’. Ok.

Then there is the hugely inviting ‘The compressive strengths of cementitious materials’. Actually that’s not a TED talk. I don’t mean to make fun of it (well a little). It does do what it says on the tin. If you are professionally (or just for fun) interested in concrete, this talk may be for you. And that’s the point. It’s all about audience. Quite seriously, you might sell out the auditorium at the annual Sand and Aggregates Conference with this stuff.

If however you are going to try and reach beyond your fellow enthusiasts and take your subject to a wider audience, you will need a better lure.

Some tips:

Remember that you are not only hinting at your material, but also saying something about how you think about your subject. In turn that reveals a little of your creativity, sense of humour or passion etc. ‘If I should have a daughter’ – beats ‘girls and the teaching of literature’ hands down.

Don’t be too obscure – your title needs to connect to your subject – or else it stops being a lure. Of course a sub title can help. ‘On being just crazy enough’ is an interesting title, but you may think it’s about risk taking or pushing the boundaries or being eccentric. Add a sub-title and everything is clearer: comedian Joshua Walters, who's bipolar, walks the line between mental illness and mental "skillness."

Don’t over promise – ‘The breathtaking truth about ear wax’ – unless it’s a joke.

When I tried to categorise the TED titles I quickly found these examples:

Why does ‘X’ happen?
How can we fix ‘Y’?
A new approach to ‘Z’
What I/we did.
Eyewitness or my experience
What we’ve found out
What you thought you knew is wrong
Let’s do this….
Titles that are a play on words

No doubt you can find many more.

The Talkoot - a model for freelancers?

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0100

I tried to start a linked-in group with the title "Barn Raisers" - but unfortunately that name's been taken by a small group for a slightly different purpose. So I searched around and found a finnish word 'Talkoot' - which sounds like a long conversation among scottish people - but actually means 'a gathering of friends and neighbours to accomplish a task'. The image I have is from the from the film 'Witness' (never having seen a real life barn raising) where members of the Amish communiity - get together to build a barn for a newly married couple. (The same happens in 'Seven Brides for Seven Brothers'). The barn is built very quickly (in one day) and professionally - as people contribute either their brawn or their special skill or both. Of course when you are helped in this way, you have an obligation to help those who have helped you.

My interest is this: In a time when so many businesses are struggling financially can a group of us be creative enough and smart enough to develop a barn raising/talkoot model for freelancers and small businesses?

Is it feasable?

What would the rules have to be?

Can it be international?

I can think of all sorts of problems - inequalities arising, the danger of freeloading, how do you stop people being over burdened by it? etc. One thing that does seem clear is that it shouldn't involve the exchange of money only skill, services, brawn and brains. Of course people getting together to help each other out is presumambly as old as our cave dwelling forebears. So I'm thinking of a specific and approprioate response for OUR time.

Imagine an unknown artist wants to hold an exhibition and get people to take some notice. Could a group of freelancers get together to provide a venue, print some flyers, send out a mailing, do some e-marketing, etc etc? I honestly don't know - but if a model could be developed - wouldn't you want to be part of something like that? It's a kind of everyday 'Mission Impossible' - where amazing advances can be achieved for everyone involved. Maybe.

Well, I've started a group on Linked in, as I said. It's called Talkoot. It's my first proper linked in group, so I don't really know how that works. Linked in messages are very short. Maybe it will need something else. You can reply here of course.

Look forward to hearing your views.

Malcolm

Claire Rayner

Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:00:00 +0100

For a while I was asked to produce some programmes in what had once been called the ‘Down Your Way’ slot for BBC Radio 4.

The brief was always to find a ‘personality’ to give their personal take on a particular place. I can’t remember now why I thought of Claire Rayner. I knew only that she was famous for having been an ‘agony aunt’ (not a phrase she liked).

We met at her home in Harrow on the Hill to discuss possibilities. At her invitation, the schedule crashed well over time. The afternoon meeting moved from the lounge to the kitchen and became an early supper. And we became friends.

We decided to visit three places she had in some way once called home: Cromer, a ‘home from home’, the site of regular early family holidays; Howarth, to where she was evacuated as a child in the second World War; and Harrow On the Hill, where she lived now with Des, and where they had raised their family. I called this, our first collaboration, ‘Homing In with Claire Rayner’. The audience loved it. And I loved working with her.

I learned that Claire was a kind of rapid-fire ideas machine. She knew that the best way to have great ideas is to have a lot of ideas. Not all of her ideas were good, but there were so many good ones to pick from.

Because she talked about so many things and had an opinion on everything (usually passionate, sometimes quirky and probably irreverent), some people thought she just ‘shot from the hip’. Actually, for the most part, Claire was a very thorough researcher. She ransacked the material in the way a she bear goes about finding food on behalf of its young.

Claire could talk for Britain, but she was overwhelmingly a doer. Once an idea was formed she would just get on with it. Her energy was hard to believe. She wrote almost a hundred books (including a series of novels). She helped huge numbers of people through her columns and her campaigning. She won awards for her journalism. She was president of the British Humanist Association. She contributed to who knows how many radio and TV programmes. The list goes on.

I believe that Claire’s relentless drive to ease the pain of ordinary people came from the need to ease her own pain. Abandonment in early life left her with deep wounds and insecurities. In later life she faced a succession of illnesses. Of the many things I will always admire about her, this is the most inspiring: that for Claire, suffering was turned into fuel and pain was forced into service for good. She used everything, as best she could, to try and make the world a better place. And she did.

Malcolm

When it's not right on the night

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 16:12:00 +0100

Spare a thought for the poor misspoken producer of ‘Australia’s Next Top Model’. As I write, he or she hides somewhere in a damp cave. Crouched in the dark and gently rocking to and fro, they contemplate that special moment when, as the audience peaked and readied itself for the series climax, they uttered the wrong name through the presenter’s headphones.

As a result, presenter Sarah Murdoch announced Kelsey Martinovich as winner instead of Amanda Ware. It took a minute and a half for the mistake to come to light, enough time for Kelsey to take her bows amidst rapturous applause and to make her acceptance speech. You can see how Sarah handled it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqiD0KTZrKE

The sheer embarrassment of the gaffe overwhelmed her and for the longest time her speech seemed jammed on the anguish setting. I for one have huge sympathy, as should anyone who organises, chairs or presents public events.

Even if you are always professional to the core – there’s always the chance someone else’s botched omelette will leave egg on your face.

This has had me thinking – is there anything you can do when things go seriously wrong and you have the stage? What does it mean to be professional under such circumstances?

By definition you can’t really plan for the unforeseen problem. I could annoy you by telling you to ‘expect the unexpected’, but it’s hardly the most useful advice (as with the latest terrorist alerts). But let’s say some kind of an event crisis happens on your watch. The key-note speaker fails to turn up. A major organizational blunder becomes all too clear. The electricity goes off. How can you BE under those circumstances?

How to stay professional when things go wrong:

Set the tone: Maybe you can’t do anything about the problem – but you can set the tone. You can lead the reaction to some degree. Your response is hugely magnified to the audience – make a calm, definite and confident one. Incidentally, if you act confidently, you will feel more confident. The critic Bernard Levin was once punched live on air in front of 10million viewers on the show 'That Was the Week That Was'. The assailant was the husband of an actress that Levin had reviewed unfavourably. Amazingly Levin got up off the floor, sat back on his stool and said to his shocked and confused audience "That wasn't a part of our Saturday evening show. Can we concentrate on non-violence you and I?" Loud applause and on went the show.

Just DO the next thing: Of the many things you might want to do (run away, drop through the floor, call the organizer an idiot) think in terms of doing the next thing that actually NEEDS to be done.

Be gracious: This is not (usually) a time to issue rebukes or apportion blame, and you may regret hasty and angry public words.

Apologise: If you think you are responsible – say sorry, simply, clearly and just the once. Anything more is to magnify the problem and to start to presume on the audience. If it’s someone else’s fault, don’t single them out for blame. It comes over as childish. Just apologise on behalf of the organisers - simply, clearly and just the once!

Give clear information: If necessary, say simply what you do and don’t know. “I don’t know exactly when Professor Jones will be here but I know he’s on the way. And I will let you know what’s happening the moment I hear”.

Show empathy and appreciation: e.g. If the audience is disturbed or angered by something – show that you understand what it means to them. “I know you are being kept waiting, which is very annoying. You are being extremely patient. Thank you”. People are exasperated when their train is cancelled. But they really get mad when the train company doesn’t appear to care.

Don’t try to cajole the audience to feel sorry for you. You might say something to show that you care. That’s helpful. But don’t overdo it. “I really wish I didn’t have to tell you this, but this event is cancelled”.

Don’t go on: It’s no good poking at a wound. What’s done is done. It’s unfortunate. Say what needs to be said and move on.

Most events suffer from minor hitches that pass in a blink. Major embarassments are very rare. Audiences are usually very understanding. So enjoy hosting, presenting, chairing and organising. Just remember if things ever go out of control, people will be thankful you remained in control of yourself.

Malcolm

Bedtime stories can help you fly

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:23:00 +0100

Bedtime stories can help you fly.

To tell the truth my kids don’t really appreciate me reading out loud to them. This is largely because my youngest is 26! But when they were small this was a big part of our nightly routine. For me it could be a chore or a delight and that largely depended on the chosen book. Personally I hated the Postman Pat and his wretched cat books – and would rather have gnawed on my own foot. They seemed to go on forever and bored me rigid. Sorry PP. You were a much better TV show. But then there was the highly philosophical ‘King Rollo’ – who climbed trees ‘just because he wanted to’ – now you’re talking. Or rather reading. Which brings me back to my point that reading out loud can directly improve your public communication skills.

Some people can make a reading of the telephone directory sound fascinating. So how do you learn a skill like that?

Adults rarely read out loud. But it can be a highly rewarding exercise.

Part of story telling is composing. But it’s also about ‘story reading’. That’s what you are doing even when you are freely talking from notes. You are composing a thought, then simultaneously ‘reading out’ those thoughts.

It follows that reading out loud can seriously improve your public communication skills. So find a story, adult or for children. Choose one that has a variety of elements – e.g. different characters and different atmospheres – scary, matter of fact, sad, happy etc.

Tip 1: You may want to photocopy some pages so you can mark up the story.

Tip 2: Don’t do too much. It will weary you and you won’t learn so well.

Tip 3: You don’t really have to read to anyone else! The more self-conscious you are the more reason to do this on your own. Just have fun with experimenting and finding out what you can do.

7 - experiments with reading out loud.

Grab the meaning. Make yourself reasonably familiar with the story. Actually reading it aloud without trying to ‘get it right’ is a good warm up. Do this until you pretty well know what’s coming up next. Many read-out speeches and interviewees who memorise a script don’t make any sense because they are preoccupied with the words rather than the meaning. Work at making the meaning crystal clear.
Know where to emphasise. Go through and mark up the words or the phrases that need emphasis. Double check. Does it work better with the emphasis elsewhere? Note how changing the emphasis sometimes changes the whole meaning.
Get rhythm. Look out for pacing and for rhythms. “He looked in the yard, he ran to the car, he called out her name. Where could she be? Why would she go? What should he do?” The fast pacing and the rhythm of these sentences are as much a part of the story as the simple meaning of the words. The rhythm and pace convey some of the panic and confusion. You can bring them out in your voice.
Be ‘moody’. Notice the atmosphere or mood of each section. With vertical lines in the left margin, mark the start and finish of a ‘mood’ in a passage. Now, you can go on and practice making your voice sad, or soft, or strident, or whatever, to go with the feel of the section. Pay special attention to what you do with your voice when you move from one mood to another.
Listen back. Record a couple of minutes of yourself reading. How does your voice sound? Is it flat, predictable, the same all the way through? Or does it have variety? Note how and where it needs work and try again.
Be physical. Put the book or paper down and try reading whilst using hand gestures and even facial gestures. Eg if you are reading “I want you to leave me alone and never come here again” try pointing at the door (meaning ‘get out’) and make a determined ‘I mean it’ kind of face. You will find gestures really help animate your voice.
Become an impressionist. When different characters are involved, you can practice other speaking styles and voices, even accents. Don’t get too hung up on getting it right. If accents and voices are not your thing (and they aren’t for most people because they lack confidence) just enjoy playing around with it. You will surprise yourself at what you can do.

With a bit of practice you will definitely up your public communication skills game. Warning – don’t get too good. You could also spend the rest of your life reading out ‘just one more story’ at bedtime.

Malcolm

Masterclasses for Famelab Competition

Fri, 21 May 2010 17:20:39 +0100

One of the great pleasures of my life is running master classes for the various Famelab competitions around the world (www.famelab.org). Not only do I get to pose around the place as a ‘master’ and travel to many exciting places, but I also get to meet some remarkable and talented young people.

The competition, first devised by the Cheltenham Science Festival (http://cheltenhamfestivals.com/science/) in the UK is based on an early reality/talent show called ‘Fame Academy’ (superseded by ‘X factor’ and ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ etc). Instead of inviting young scientists to sing (which might have had mixed results) participants try and wow a panel of judges and an audience of the general public with a three-minute talk about science. So you could get anything: a chat about the redness of a monkey’s bottom to deciphering a bar code.

On the way to their big razzmatazz final, contestants get training in popular communication (that’s my job). We cover things like how to be interviewed, TV and radio presenting and public speaking.

Now popular from Hong Kong to Portugal, courtesy of the British Council, Famelab can have amazingly large audiences. Apparently a media survey showed that one year the famelab competition in Turkey had an audience reach of 20 million people.
In some countries the competitionis sponsored by national TV stations. It’s a perfect match – the broadcasters get a series out of it and famelab getsbuilt I publicity. We are still looking for that kind of partnership in the UK.

The strict three-minute form, strictly regulated by a specially trained three-minute squeaky toy squeaker, has given birth to an art form. It’s hard to say anything about anything in three minutes, but to explain ‘string theory’ to a non scientific audience (it helps if you play lead guitar or maybe a violin) and to make them love it in 180 seconds – now that takes skill.

I’m quite convinced that learning the disciplines of this short form competition would make any public speaker sharper, more effective and, well, briefer.
The contestants have fine judgements to make about the subject thy choose, the angle, the pace and the impression they make.

Among my top tips to contestants:

Prepare by focussing on real people you know (and preferably like) that are the kind of people you are expecting to see in the audience. We automatically make our language more accessible and appropriate when we think of real people.
Prepare your talk, i.e. create your talk, by talking it to an imaginary audience. That way you will develop performance as well as your content from the start. It will help you remember and
We are used to the idea of having a grabby start, but also make your ending do something powerful. Let it be shaped by the question ‘what do I want my audience to do next?’

Famelab 2010 video

Wed, 05 May 2010 17:04:04 +0100

Here's a video of my involvement with Famelab in Serbia. At 00:59 into the video, I give a brief interview.