December 2000

by Edward J. Barks

After I delivered a speech recently, an aspiring journalist in the audience approached me. She wanted to thank me for one particular item I pointed out during my remarks – the need to view reporters with a positive attitude. She noted that, in her newsroom training, a disturbing number of subjects expressed a distinct loathing for reporters.

I’ve witnessed the same phenomenon in many a media training workshop. Some leaders operate under the mistaken assumption that reporters detest them, as well as everyone else they interview. That’s not necessarily so (unless your past transactions have led to heightened tensions). If a reporter writes something negative about your organization, it’s not personal. This is a business deal in which you are engaged.

The truth is, the media thrives on conflict, not a like or dislike for your endeavors. Why? Conflict sells newspaper and magazine subscriptions, boosts radio and television ratings, and leads to more web site hits. But that does not mean you, as a news source, need to buy into the notion of conflict. Part of your job is to radiate a positive attitude toward the press.

People who are successful in dealing with the media understand that “opportunity” is a word they must keep uppermost in mind when entering into this “business deal” with a reporter that we call an interview. You owe it to your organization to seize the opportunity to broadcast your message in a favorable light every time you exchange ideas with a reporter. This tactic will help you stay away from needless conflict.

We need look no further than the front page of our daily newspapers or the lead stories in our local newscasts for proof that conflict drives the media. In the wake of last month’s presidential voting, Republicans accused their political opposites of trying to steal an election. In turn, Democrats alleged that the GOP attempted to disenfranchise thousands of Floridians. Rational discourses about the value of the Electoral College or judicial precedents affecting matters of the ballot box are, at best, shunted into the background. The media conversation instead surrounds who won the latest round of court action. Winners vs. losers – conflict.

Why is conflict the order of the day? Simple. It sells. Readers and viewers love it. Let’s face it, how many of us would sit glued to the TV news night after night if the content consisted of scholarly debates about the arcane aspects of Florida’s election laws.

There is an abundance of proof that the nail-biting presidential contest provided a shot in the arm to the nation’s press corps. It spurred leading newspapers to increase their press runs. For instance, USA Today ran an extra 400,000 post-election copies, while the Washington Post printed an additional 100,000 papers.
At the same time, the electronic media saw its ratings skyrocket. Televised arguments before the Florida Supreme Court yielded a bonanza for cable news outlets. CNN measured 2.38 million viewers; Fox News Channel 1.17 million; and MSNBC 1.12 million, according to Nielsen Media Research. Those 4.6 million viewers dwarf the 749,000 watchers measured during the third quarter of this year. Network TV morning shows also shared in the wealth, with NBC's “Today Show” clocking the highest ratings in morning television history, a daily average of 8.41 million viewers during the week of November 6 to 12. In addition, many of the cable political gabfests nearly doubled their audiences in the Election Day aftermath.

The knowledge that conflict is a main driver for reporters gives you a fuller understanding of where the reporter is coming from and what she needs from you as a source. It also leads to the realization that you need to enter into the business deal with your positive attitude shining.
Remember, reporters love conflict. They don’t hate you.