ACCENTUATE THE POSITIVE: HOW NOT TO TALK TO THE PRESS
CHARLES R. ANGIONE
Some of you pre-baby boom-ers may recall that old Johnny Mercer tune, “Accentuate the Positive.” When dealing with the fourth estate–the press–it pays to do just that. Let`s say you responded to a nighttime fire that was “going good” on arrival. Because of a major fire across town, your initial response to this one was a bit skimpy. But though this second well-involved fire gutted the building of origin, your firefighters managed to surround and drown the original structure as well as extinguish the incipient fires in the exposed buildings.
Let`s also say that the incident commander (IC) believed he had a reason to order the on-call squad members from their homes to perform an origin-and-cause investigation. The fire was found to be accidental. The IC also called for off-duty firefighters to staff the special foam unit, which stood by ready but was never used. During overhaul, a freestanding chimney was found leaning precariously. Firefighters removed the hazardous condition this posed by toppling it.
Now it is time to tell the media about it. You should not tell them, “Our slow response, unfortunately, allowed the fire to destroy the building and spread to the exposure buildings. Fires were eventually extinguished in these buildings, but heavy water damage resulted. We also knocked over the chimney. At first, we thought we might have had an arson fire, so we called out our off-duty arson investigators from home, but we were wrong. It turned out to be accidental. We also called out extra people to staff our special foam unit, but we didn`t use it.”
What you have just told the press–and the citizens who pay your salary–is that (1) Your response was slow and insufficient (indicating unpreparedness or even neglect of duty), (2) You were unable to confine the main fire (indicating incompetence), (3) You caused water damage and “knocked over a chimney” (indicating irresponsibility), and (4) You unnecessarily called out members of the arson squad and the special foam unit from home on overtime (indicating poor fiscal management).
You should relate these facts in more positive terms that are less likely to be misunderstood. You might instead say something like the following: “Our department was called to handle two fires simultaneously. Though we were shorthanded for the second fire, our efforts were nonetheless successful in avoiding a potential conflagration. This fire was fully involved on arrival and had already begun to spread to surrounding buildings. With our special foam unit on hand as a precaution, our forces managed to control the main fire and also to aggressively extinguish several fires in the adjoining structures. These seriously exposed buildings were thus saved from further fire damage.
“Our extensive overhaul of the main fire building included the necessary demolition of a dangerously unstable chimney that was weakened by the fire. This was done to leave the remaining structure in a safe condition. Our investigation unit confirmed that the cause of the fire was accidental.”
Note there was no mention of water damage. Offering estimates of such fire control damage that we cause should be a no-no. We did not start the fire. We are here to put it out–with water. Talking about water damage inevitably shifts the focus from what we were able to do to how short of absolute perfection we came. It also tends to confirm the unfair image of firefighters as guys with axes who like to break things and who often cause more damage than the fire.
Presenting information that shows truthfully your department in its proper light should not be confused with “spin.” It is honest reporting of all pertinent facts in such a way as to avoid misunderstanding or unfair misinterpretation. The responsibility for this process should extend to the highest levels of the department. The troops, meanwhile, should not overly editorialize when speaking to the press. They should be trained to give only factual answers and common sense (noncontroversial) opinions when questioned and to refer further inquiries to the person in charge or his designated public information officer (PIO).
As an IC for more than 13 years, I have given many press interviews, some on the fireground during or following a major fire and some from my office. Some of these have been televised or videotaped; others have been audiorecorded. I have gradually learned how to (and how not to) speak to the press, but I learned it the hard way, through trial and error, and only after making mistakes. This is not the best way to learn. A combination of formal training and practical experience under the guidance of an experienced PIO is much better.
I recall once trying to explain our actions to a reporter who knew virtually nothing abut firefighting. We had attempted an aggressive interior attack on a well-involved Queen Anne building. Two rescues were made, delaying our extinguishing efforts somewhat and allowing the fire to gain some headway. Following their primary search, the troops were ordered to back out, and we flowed the heavy artillery for a while to knock down some of the fire before they were allowed to go back in and finish off the red devil. The reporter, a persistent young woman, did not seem satisfied with my explanation of our tactics.
“I still don`t understand why you had to order your men outside after people were rescued,” she said.
“Well, the fire had grown too heavy at that stage,” I replied. “It was now too dangerous to allow them to try to handle it close up.”
“Why?” she asked again.
Finally, in frustration, I said impatiently, “Because they couldn`t deal with the fire at that point.”
My aide and I were returning from this fire the next morning when we stopped for breakfast at a luncheonette. After we ordered, he got a newspaper. “Well, we made the morning edition, Chief,” he said, offering me the local section with an ironic grin. There, set in large type over the story and the dramatic fire photos, was a quote attributed to me: “My men couldn`t deal with the fire!” I took some heat from my people for that one.
Another time, I attempted to describe to a novice reporter a certain chemical we had found floating in a lake. I had given him the name of the hazardous compound we had diked and removed and gave a somewhat technical description of it as “a viscous foaming liquid, whitish in color.”
“Well, I mean, what did it actually look like?” he asked. Believing I was speaking off the record (though I had failed to mention that), I tried to explain it in language I though the reporter might better understand.
“It was, you know, a kind of white foamy, gooey stuff,” I finally said. Well, of course, the newspaper reported: “Deputy Chief Angione described the hazardous chemical as `white foamy, gooey stuff.`”
Eventually, however, I did get better at presenting information to reporters. The key was preparation. I took time to write down such salient facts as the address, owner, time, cause, and injuries, if any (reporters always seem to look for injuries or deaths). I then made notes emphasizing the positive aspects of the incident (e.g., a quick response, a rescue, or a good stop of a potential conflagration, for example). I included notes to properly explain any less-than-perfect results. My method generally worked well, though it could be a time-consuming process.
If giving information over the telephone, you could simply read your notes. For a face-to-face rehearsal interview, you could go over the notes beforehand. The reporter is usually typing if you are speaking over the telephone; give him time to get it all down. If you talk too quickly, the reporter may miss something important. Speak slowly as he scribbles or types, and repeat yourself when relating those pieces of information you would like to see emphasized in the story.
Use short, declarative, and to-the-point sentences, not long complex ones. This is especially important if the interview is being taped. In that case, avoid a long preamble, but emphasize important points in the first sentence or two. Tape editors tend to edit out those portions following the first or second natural pause.
Don`t assume that all reporters are professional and know how to get the most out of a story. Frequently, not only do they know very little about firefighting, they sometimes know little about news writing. After I became competent at reporting an incident to the press, I would sometimes point out important aspects of a story for an inexperienced reporter. Sometimes, I`d even get away with giving the reporter the story in paragraph form with a lead sentence, emphasizing what I thought were the most important facts. Not only was I choosing the focus of the story but, in reading from my prepared “script,” I would in effect be writing the story for a sometimes grateful reporter.
Good public relations have great benefits for the fire department; poor public relations do irreparable harm. Thus, it helps if the IC or his designated PIO is an effective communicator. Of course, only one person should be providing information at an incident (with well-briefed assistants, if necessary).
Don`t limit the PIO to the fireground. An officer should be appointed to regularly coordinate public relations efforts. In choosing one, look for a well-spoken, circumspect individual trained in the proper way to deal with the press and who presents a positive image for the department. The PIO can inform customers about fire safety messages, new programs, and growing problems and give positive information about the department. He should not be an obvious public relations backslapper. Reporters are usually intelligent enough to spot phonies and recognize when someone is playing head games with them.
The PIO must develop solid contacts with various people in the media and be available with truthful, and candid, information when news (good or bad) concerning the department breaks. If you build a trusting relationship with members of the media, they will come to you for the real lowdown and the department`s side of the story. If you play fair with them, they might be able to give your department a break on occasion, giving it the benefit of the doubt.
Conversely, if you aren`t accessible to answer questions (the “no comment” mentality) or if you blatantly and consistently “spin” the truth, they will simply seek the information elsewhere. The person they go to (e.g., police chief or precinct watch commander) might not have the correct information and may not have your department`s best interests as a top priority. Telling our story is our responsibility. It deserves to be done right.
CHARLES R. ANGIONE, a 25-year line veteran of the fire service, served as operations deputy chief of the City of Plainfield (NJ) Fire Division. He is a state-certified Fire Instructor II and Fire Official, has a diploma in fire science, and has attended the National Fire Academy. Angione is a also a freelance writer, a columnist, and a frequent contributor to fire service publications.
