Playboy SF Mayor Gavin Newsom has made a dandy contribution to the archive with his interview on CBS 5 here in the Bay Area. Newsom dropped out of the California governors race a few weeks ago, and the conventional wisdom is that he has been pouting and avoiding the press, who he foolishly blames for his early demise. (Note to Gavin: look in the mirror for the true culprit).

He came out of hiding to start giving interviews now that San Fran is facing a half-billion-dollar budget deficit. But does he make nice and try to get his messages and position across? Would we be talking about it if he did?

Opening line from reporter: Let me start by asking, where have you been?

Newsom: $522.2 million.

That was his answer. The amount of next year’s deficit. He then went on to ridicule, lambast and generally shit on the media and anyone who thinks he has been a bizarro character since he dropped out of the gubernatorial race. Finally, when the reporter wants to talk about the deficit, Newsom has already lost his cool and walks out on the interview!

The cherry on top: as he is leaving, he says, “Off the record, I’m amazing disappointed, amazingly. I just am. Professionally, you know.”

He says this on camera! Off the record, are you kidding me?

Thanks for the classic what-not-to-do interview clip, Gav.

Here’s a link to the clip, so you can watch it for yourself: Gavin Newsom’s Terrible Interview

The latest Bartz bomb came yesterday in response, again, to one of those “how can Yahoo survive” questions. The Yahoo CEO turned the question around and challenged the media to focus on Yahoo’s younger, fairer sibling down the street, Google (they were both started at Stanford and funded by the same VCs):

“I just want to transplant all you guys out of this sort of cynicism you’re in. I mean, why are you cynical about us? Be cynical about frickin’ Google. Leave us alone. If you don’t like us, just leave us alone, we’ll just deal with our users, because you know what? We do great things for them and we’re excited about what we are. See you got it, you got me pissed off.”

Bartz has to be doing these things on purpose. She was a tech CEO for years and never had the rep of swearing like a sailor. Maybe it’s the stress of the job, but I doubt it. I think this is a calculated attempt to relieve some of the pressure on Yahoo and provide a distraction from the serious business challenges Yahoo faces.

Repeat after me: agree on the terms of the interview before you start talking, not after. If you’re unsure of the terms, ask the reporter what their understanding is. And don’t say anything until you’re satisfied. That’s because you have leverage before you start talking — you have something the other person wants. Afterward, the power is reversed.

One of the fuzziest interview terms is “on background.” This term got started in Washington, and still has the most currency there. It means that someone is speaking not for attribution, and that the information can be used for background only, not reported directly. Presidents and their staffs love this technique, because it allows them more freedom to explain complex decisions without having to worry about making a “gotcha” goof.

Traditionally, the DC media has gone along with this, and I’m sure they will continue to in the future. After all, how many people can resist an invitation to sit down with a general or a cabinet secretary in a historic office building and be told important secrets?

Nevertheless, the DC media corps occasionally rouses itself to complain about this technique, basically for the purpose of trying to change the power dynamic, if only for a brief time. Last month, the press briefly fulminated about it and the story was reported on Politico.com:

After a “senior administration official” briefed reporters on a conference call about Chrysler last week, the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven circulated an e-mail among her colleagues suggesting some kind of joint action to protest the use of not-for-attribution sessions.

“We’ve been concerned about the needless use of ‘on-background’ briefings when it comes to sharing straightforward information,” AP spokesman Paul Colford told POLITICO, adding that the AP had “relayed” its views “to other news organizations in Washington” and is “eager to work with them in addressing the issue.”

But when the White House held two more background briefings this week — one on the president’s budget, the other on Pakistan and Afghanistan — AP’s reporters and all the other usual suspects were there.

At the hipper-than-thou D Conference sponsored by the Wall Street Journal, Bartz stage-whispered the f-bomb at media high priestess Kara Swisher, not a direct shot but definitely a signal that she was to be taken seriously.

Then, at the same conference, she interrupted an interview with CNBC’s Jim Goldman, who was midway through a statement/question that Yahoo seemed to be “contenting itself” with offering services that Google didn’t. First Bartz cut him off with a terse “excuse me” and then took over the question by asserting that Yahoo played second fiddle to no one and that Yahoo is “very different, and just as special as they are.”

Why do I like these exchanges? In the case of the Swisher interview, she sends the signal that she is strong and in control, a critical message for anyone with an interest in Yahoo (i.e., investors, employees, users, competitors). With Goldman, she was even stronger: cutting him off wasn’t that big a deal, but it did show her confidence as a spokesperson. But then, she went on to assert the strength of Yahoo in the strongest terms, and even if your first reaction is “yeah, right,” the overall impression is one of some who is not going to back down until her words are indeed 100% true.

The Goldman interview is prime example of the confidence CEOs ought to exude when they are speaking as representatives of their companies.

The easiest way to watch these videos is at Valleywag right here.

GM’s CEO inadvertently used the phrase “bankruptcy…could work,” at a media breakfast with the Wall Street Journal in attendance, and they didn’t miss the opportunity to write the following:

General Motors Corp.’s chief executive, once a staunch opponent of bankruptcy as a way of reorganizing the ailing auto maker, has softened his view, suggesting the company could possibly emerge from a Chapter 11 filing.

This interpretation of Wagoner’s comments so disappointed GM that the company posted a rebuttal on its blog called “Never Let the Facts Get in the Way of a Good Story.” Tom Wilkinson, GM’s Director of News Relations, takes the Journal to task for taking Wagoner’s comments out of context and making more of his reference to bankruptcy than Wilkinson says Wagoner intended.

In the blog post, Wilkinson posts the entire exchange [as transcribed from a recording of the session], and here’s what Wagoner said”

A lot of people who write about bankruptcy, I don’t think have ever been in bankruptcy. And what I have learned after studying it in detail is that it brings significant risk on… what I have learned is that it could work. And it might not work.

After vehemently complaining that the Journal was out to write a pre-conceived story and that Wagoner didn’t mean what he was quoted saying, Wilkinson ended his post with this query:

Did The Wall Street Journal ignore what Wagoner really said so it could write the headline and story it wanted? I’ll leave it to you to decide.

OK Tom, I’ll take the bait and answer your question: No. I will grant you that the Journal may have unfairly taken Wagoner’s comments out of context and written a story that GM didn’t want written and one that may prove to be inaccurate, but I’ll also say that Wagoner should never have said what he said and essentially got what he deserved for uttering the words “bankruptcy… could work.”

No one forced him to say what he said. Every media training always includes the admonition, “don’t repeat a negative.” Meaning, if the question is, “Could bankruptcy work for GM?” you DON’T say, “bankruptcy could work.” You say something like, “that’s your word, not mine. We are focused on getting GM back on solid footing, etc.”

Even if the question wasn’t as simple as the above example, it’s the job of the spokesperson to avoid using negative words. Journalists are listening for the most controversial thing you are going to say, and they are going to lead with that. Your job as a spokesman is to make those words the LEAST controversial you can.

If you’re Rick Wagoner and you’re sitting at a media breakfast, it’s no time to get informal and utter the word “bankruptcy” if you absolutely don’t want that word to ever come out of the mouth of GM’s CEO.

Another thing: I’m guessing Wagoner has had to answer some form of this question 1,000 times, and on the 1,000th time, he finally let the words “bankruptcy could work,” slip from his mouth, even though he added “it might not” afterward. I’m sure he’s tired and under incredible stress, but again, it’s not the media’s job to look the other way. It’s the spokesperson’s job to keep repeating their talking points 1,000 times if necessary, not 999 times.

Faux indignation is a good one to have, though hopefully it’s not something you have to use a lot. For instance:

Question: Isn’t it true that your company’s shoddy toys kill millions of children in China every year?”

Answer: “I’m not going to even dignify that with an answer.”

Effect: giving an answer, but not answering the question or addressing the charges.

Today’s little lesson comes courtesy of Ari Fleisher, the onetime Bush Administration mouthpiece. Below is the Youtube of Fleisher on MSNBC’s Hardball, but here’s the passage in question:

Matthews: We suffered the worst domestic calamity [9/11] on your watch, if we get into who’s watch was good, you guys blew it.”

Fleisher: “How dare you. If we get attacked again, are you going to say we got attacked on Barack Obama’s watch?”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKEjHa0_ZMI]

Anyone who listens to the radio knows that the time is split between “content” and commercials. Even public radio now has its share of commercials.

When you are listening to content on the radio, you instinctively feel like you are getting what you want. But you only endure the commercials, waiting for the content to resume.

Sitting in a media interview recently, I was struck by this analogy as it relates to the reporter’s experience. For them, usable information is like radio content. It’s what they are listening for, and why they are conducting the interview.

When spokespeople lapse into promotional mode, talking only about their product or service, that’s the equivalent of radio commercials. The journalist will endure the promo long enough to get back to the content they are seeking. Too many commercials/promos, and the journalist will turn the dial, i.e, end the interview.

Just as in radio, it’s the commercials that support the content. Corporate spokespeople wouldn’t be doing the interview if there wasn’t something in it for them — getting mentioned in the media, in the hope of driving sales or raising awareness.

But too many commercials, or too much promotional talk, is a turn-off. So spokespeople and their handlers have to remember to tamp down the promo talk and make sure they are offering compelling media content — otherwise the journalist will spin the metaphorical dial and work with a less promotional source who offers them more usable content.

The question was this: how can unknown authors, and their publicists, get on prime NPR shows like “All Things Considered”? Answer: create a relationship with NPR Senior Producer Ellen Silva, who produces the “You Must Read This” segment and blog. The segment asks authors to name their favorite books and explain why they chose them. So you aren’t getting a flat-out plug for your book, but you are a) getting visibility, b) getting the name of your book out there and c) creating a relationship with Silva and NPR that could be nurtured over time.

Here’s Silva’s email to get you started.

The write-up doesn’t do it justice. You really should click on the link and listen to it. These NPR interviews are one of the few places we can hear spokespeople being interviewed with minimal editing, and it is often very instructive.

Among the things I like about this interview:

• Krafcik is relaxed and conversational, but he never loses his professional demeanor
• He is facile with facts and figures and has many to share
• He’s self-deprecating and honest: in response to a question about whether the company might “take a bath” with this program, he says, “well, we’re only 3% of the U.S. auto market,” implying that they are too small to have this program sink them
• He doesn’t engage in double-talk or corpo speak. He’s clear and direct. Of course, his audience is consumers, so he has to be, but that hasn’t stopped some spokespeople I’ve heard from being unintelligible.