There are plenty of questions that just should not be answered directly. And I’m not talking about the “Where did you spend last night?” domestic variety.
These are questions in media interviews or panels where there is no direct answer which will not prove disastrous. The good media trainer will encourage you to “bridge” as smoothly as possible to more friendly terrain, but sometimes this just will not do; it would be too blunt, too damaging, too obvious that you are refusing to answer.
If a minister is asked, in the context of rumours of petrol shortages, whether the public should panic about ensuring regular supplies, neither Yes nor No will do. In many parts of the world, the sound of a minister saying “there is no need to panic” will send cynical motorists rushing to fill up their cars before the pumps run dry. And if there wasn’t a shortage before, there certainly will be now.
“Do you have full confidence in Mr X?” can be just as bad. The sound of some prime minister, chief executive or team coach saying that they have full confidence in Mr X immediately raises doubts – you don’t have to be an arch-cynic to think there must be some reason why he might not have full confidence or he wouldn’t be saying he did. And Mr X’s position is promptly undermined.
Sometimes a Yes answer will offend half your listeners, and a No answer the other half. As in “Do you support the Israeli government’s security policy?”. You simply may not be able to afford to answer either way.
The solution, and it is far from being either simple or straightforward, is to ignore the actual wording of the question, but to address the issue in your own words. “There is no reason for motorists to behave in any way but normally.” “The government/executive/team is functioning efficiently and effectively towards our goals of….” “We support both Israel’s right to defend itself and the Palestinians’ right to their own state within secure borders.” And then straight on to what you want to say.
Whether you will get away with it is another matter and will depend on the interviewer and the style and tone of the programme or media organisation.
It is normally best to avoid openly challenging the question in tricky cases as this draws attention to it. It is also likely to rile the journalist who may be tempted to defend it and become more stubborn in demanding an answer. But if necessary you may have to.
The best option is “I would put it this way…”. If that doesn’t work, try “We don’t see the question like that, we see it as…”. Tougher is “Let me phrase the question in a different way…” or “It’s not a matter of X versus Y, it’s a question of …”. The nuclear option is along the lines of “I cannot accept your formulation. The reality is …” which is more combative and unlikely to end there.
Straight demands to answer “Yes” or “No” are simpler. Just respond to the questioner: “Have you stopped beating your wife/cheating on your husband, yes or no?”
That should shut them up.
Oliver Wates, MediaTrain consultant