A bad answer to a reporter’s question sounds like, “I’ll break you in half.”

Crissy Lintner

Ah, the State of the Union address. The speech. The counter-speech. The media frenzy. The State of the Union is a political playground for reporters, as it fuels the fire for numerous debates, analyses, predictions and fact checks. It offers opportunities for great interviews to back up those debates, analyses, predictions and fact checks. And it creates opportunities for people to screw up in a very public way. 

If you want a great example of how emotions can cause sticky questions to become even stickier situations, look no further than last night’s interaction between Rep. Michael Grimm of New York and local NY1 reporter Michael Scotto at the State of the Union. When Scotto asked Grimm a question regarding a federal investigation into his campaign finances, Grimm offered a less-than-desirable response in the form of a threat. Check out the article and video here, and then I’ll give you the “PR 101” insight.

Ouch! I’ll sum it up.

Mistake 1: Emotional Response

Anger is never the best response if you find yourself at odds with a reporter’s line of questioning. Scotto even mentions a couple of options that would have been better than a threat. Here are my suggestions: 

“Let’s focus on the reason we’re here tonight.” 

“That’s not really a fair question for tonight’s event.” 

“I appreciate your interest, but let’s stick to tonight’s purpose.” 

Anything is better than “I will break you in half. Like a boy.” As it is, Grimm made a threat to cause bodily harm to a reporter on camera at one of the biggest political events of the year. This does not bode well for his reputation as a credible, level-headed political leader. 

In all interview situations – live or otherwise – it’s important to maintain composure and respond appropriately. Remember, you can control the interaction – even in a situation where you’re being asked questions that you are unable or unwilling to answer at that time. Always offer to discuss them at a later date if that is a possibility. This will give you time to prepare for that interview rather than being rushed in an ambush.   

Mistake 2: The Unapologetic Explanation 

Grimm’s first public response regarding the situation was to explain why he reacted that way. That was a bad move. Instead of accepting that he overreacted to the reporter’s question, he actually showed no remorse. He even sounded a bit cavalier about his reaction. The appropriate response from Grimm would have been to apologize to the reporter and to accept responsibility for his actions. The end. Explaining really made him seem even more like the villain here. He did eventually apologize, but the damage was done. 

Mistake 3: Opening the Flood Gates

How many of us want to know more about this federal investigation of Grimm’s campaign finances? Me, me, me! And so do many more people in New York, across the U.S. and particularly in the media. As Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary whose tweet was cited in the article, said, "Rep. Grimm has now made it impossible for reporters NOT to ask him about his campaign finance problems. Not a smart move.”

Had Grimm handled the situation calmly, the question and his answer likely would have been a blip on the radar and simply part of the barrage of questions Grimm likely is already receiving from the media on the subject. Making a threat to the reporter made me think that he must have something to hide. It actually made me hope that more information will come out soon. I guarantee reporters who weren’t previously interested in this investigation are now digging into the details and trying to “get the scoop.”

In conclusion, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that if Grimm were my client, I would have felt Scotto’s question out of place given that it was the night of the State of the Union. Was he taking advantage of the opportunity to catch Grimm by surprise in hope of a flub? Probably. And to some degree, his strategy worked. But, Scotto is a seasoned reporter who interviews politicians regularly – I’m sure he didn’t expect such anger from his interviewee. Whether it was a “cheap shot” or not, Grimm’s reaction teaches us all a lesson on the importance of keeping your cool in all interview scenarios. 

No Punctuation Marks Were Harmed In Writing This Blog

Thomas Whitehead

During the holidays, I used some of my spare time to catch up on reading anything I could get my hands on – articles, periodicals, books, etc. Of everything I read, an article in the New Republic was probably the most interesting, telling and, possibly the most, alarming story I have read that could greatly impact interpersonal communication for years to come. 

The New Republic published an article discussing how, perhaps, the simplest punctuation mark, the period, has been transformed into a subtext that can indicate anger or disappointment when used in electronic conversations, especially texting. Yes, you read that correctly. A punctuation mark used to finish a declarative sentence (which in itself is merely a “declaration” of a statement) has now entered a place in culture where it, if used, can imply anger or frustration. 

The article indicated that the extra effort (and Twitter real estate) needed in adding a period to a sentence in written electronic communication was intended to imply aggression about the discussion, whereas a punctuation-free sentence (and I hear English teachers asking if this is even possible as I type this) is a casual, care-free zone.

Even further, the stats provided were telling. According to the article, a study by American University found that less than 50 percent of college students use periods at the end of both text messages and online chat conversations. 

Personally, I find this quite disappointing.  Without using punctuation to indicate the end of a thought or statement in written communication, especially when it segues into another statement, I feel that my absorption and understanding of the message becomes difficult to comprehend. It creates a distraction to the flow of how I read what is given to me. I could go on and on about how this is a further destruction of the English language, but instead, I am going to go a different direction. 

The reality is, if this is entering our culture, we have to at least be mindful of it, as well as the messages that periods or no periods can imply when we communicate. 

As communicators, especially those of us who still insist on using periods, we have to be aware, especially with younger audiences, that the period could mean to them that there is anger behind the statement, even if that is not our intent. 

We may not be able to always have people communicate in the ways we want them to, traditional or not.  However, if we are aware of different interpretations that exist in our society, we can strengthen our communication skills for the generations to come See what I mean