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

They are:

• Novelty: things that don’t happen everyday
• Familiarity: things that DO happen every day, such as the weather, the City Council and the stock market
• Big money and winners: the ups and downs of public and private institutions are always grist for news stories; everyone loves a winner
• Risk-takers: people who put their money, reputation, health or safety at risk
• Cat-fights: want coverage? Pick a fight
• Your wallet: everyone likes to learn more about how to make money, save it or spend it
• Sex, celebrities and scandal: because they have universal appeal

The story that prompted this post is this: cute blond female twins who want to work in journalism. This story appeared in the New York Times. Seriously.

Bucket analysis of this story:

• Cute blond twins = sex
• Want to work in the media = the media’s favorite big institution, itself.
• Killing themselves to get a job = risk-takers, esp. if you are a cute blond twin
• And don’t forget novelty! They’re cute young blond girl twins! How unusual!

Here’s another story making the rounds: Rush Limbaugh’s desire to become a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams of the NFL. It has generated, for sure, the most publicity ever for someone who wants to buy a non-controlling interest in an NFL team. Limbaugh knows exactly what he’s doing — here’s an interview to that effect.

Bucket analysis:

• Limbaugh = celebrity
• NFL = familiarity and big money
• Wants to buy small piece of NFL team = catfight!

See how easy it is!

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.

“It is a supportive tool that we are offering,” said Natasia Wright, of the Prostitution Alternatives Counselling and Education Society (PACE). “What we are doing is putting together a brochure for our members on their rights to do with the media in general in preparation for the Olympics,” she added in a telephone interview.

The brochure will contain information and guidelines about how to handle requests for photographs and interviews. It will also be accompanied by a discussion session, according to PACE, which is located in Vancouver’s poor Downtown Eastside area. It will inform sex workers about where they can be photographed, how to handle media aggressiveness, and that they can refuse to do an interview and can ask for questions in advance if they do, according to Wright.

File this in the following category: one more reason that your boss’ excuses for not being media trained are lame. Tell him/her: Vancouver prostitutes are being media-trained. What’s your excuse?

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.

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.

The bad PR pitches highlighted in yesterday’s post about the new Dear PR Flack site are half of the equation. What about the other: bad reporting and writing skills?

Just as in any profession, there are some good journalists and a lot of mediocre ones. And just as in any profession, the good ones tend to rise to the top, while those with lesser skills make a living farther down the career ladder. It’s not a perfect system, but you can usually guess that a Wall Street Journal reporter is more talented and experienced journalist than a typical trade or small-town newspaper reporter.

What this means for PR people is that you a) have to know who you are pitching or targeting and b) adjust your approach accordingly. And when you are dealing with individual journalists, you have to be on the lookout for hints into their level of professionalism.

Some of the things you can do to arm yourself include:

• Get your messages together: it’s easier to communicate what you want to say to the journalist and their audience than if you rely on the journalist to make sense of what you are saying
• Get your act together: don’t rely on the journalist to drive the agenda. Figure out as much as possible in advance of the interview: when it will take place, where, who will speak, what examples and other info you will give
• Know the terms of the interview: is it “off the record,” “on background,” “not for attribution,” or “on the record?” Make sure you figure this out before you or your spokesperson speaks
• Follow-up: don’t just pray for a good result. Send the journalist a summary of the interview, highlighting your key points and cleaning up any key quotes. Who knows? They may just cut-and-paste from your email.

My Dear PR Flack post also inspired a set of ideas from The Book Publicity Blog, which notes that very often, journalists ask to interview authors — and that’s it. Read their thoughts on what other information journalists might provide to publicists to insure that the interview goes well.

If Barack Obama is indeed elected President, he will turn out to be one of the most articulate Presidents ever. I’ve been listening to Obama read his two books (Dreams From My Father and Audacity of Hope) on CD and he is a joy to listen to. As a writer and public speaker, I am in awe of his skills in both departments. And if I’m smart, I will never try to emulate them, at least not his speaking style.

Obama appears to be blessed with an equanimity that is not shared by most people. He seems secure in his personality and willing to see things through the other person’s eyes. And he’s more than willing to share credit.

Since he’s so articulate, he can get away with things other speakers can’t, and shouldn’t try. The first is his use of the phrase, “John’s right about this…” in the debate Friday night. As a speaker with the objective of building one’s own case, it’s not helpful to repeatedly praise the other party — let them and their supporters take care of that. A better way to phrase it would be “We agree on some points, but Sen. McCain and I differ on key aspects…”

Of more concern is his continued repeating of negative sentiments about himself, as when he used the word “naive” about half way through the debate. After he said that, McCain repeated it several times, feasting on a word that played right into his strategy of portraying Obama as inexperienced.

The only cure for “repeating a negative” is practicing not to. Obama, with his strong oratorical skills, can get away with it. The rest of us shouldn’t try.

Say what you will about the current financial mess on Wall Street, you have to credit Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson for making himself fully available to the media despite the crushing responsibilities and obligations he must have. He was on four Sunday talk shows yesterday and did countless other media appearances and press conferences over the past week.

By making himself available and credible, Paulson is currently controlling the story about the crisis (hello, paging Ben Bernanke…) and therefore will have the most impact on the final form of any bailout or other remedy.

Paulson’s moves echo the advice of uber-crisis wizard Sam Singer, who says the number one thing spokespeople must do in a crisis is “be available.”

“Even when you don’t have a lot to say, be there to say it,” Singer advises.

Singer spoke last week at a PRSA Silicon Valley spokesperson training event at Microsoft’s Silicon Valley campus. It was the third of our four professional development sessions on media training this year, and I’m serving as one of the trainers for the series (the fourth is on November 7, “Inside the Newsroom: A day in the life of reporters, editors, producers, anchors.”).

Singer’s other tips:

• You always want to be the first one out of the chute with your version of events
• The best thing you can do is raise key questions that change the way people are looking at the crisis
• Be a reliable source, even in non-crisis times and when you don’t have a story — it’s how you build credibility
• To win a battle during a crisis, you’ve got to be willing to push back — don’t be passive