Should you copy Rishi Sunak's interview style?
He gets stick for his robotic answers, but copying the "politician's answer" media interview technique doesn't mean you have to sound like a politician.
There’s a technique we teach communicators to use when they are confronted by difficult media questions. It’s called the “A-B-C”
Acknowledge;
Bridge;
Communicate (Key Message)
The idea is to acknowledge the difficult question when it arises, but refuse to answer it on the terms it is offered. Instead the trick is to reframe the question and bridge back to your own key message. You answer the question, on your own terms, with your own message.
But in media training sessions when I explain the A-B-C to people a common criticism is that they think it’s “dishonest”, “evasive”, or (god forbid) sounds like:
“A politician’s answer”
And it’s true the A-B-C is a technique politicians use. Unfortunately politicians are among the least trusted media spokespeople around, they suffer from what I’d call: a poor ethos. I think it’s this, rather than the A-B-C technique, that turns people off.
And yet, I’d argue the technique works for them. As listeners we are forced to hear their message, leaving us in the position of reacting, ruminating on it (or switching off).
I agree, this isn’t great for our political culture. It represents a kind of stalemate between a media that doesn’t always report politics or policy well and politicians who aren’t always keen to be 100% truthful.
But most of the people I media coach aren’t politicians, they are campaigners, organisers, thought leaders and builders. They don’t suffer from the poor ethos that politicians do, they are nurses who want fair pay, millionaires who want to pay their taxes and oil rig workers who want to see a just transition to net zero.
These are people with the best possible ethos and I think they should have the best tools at their disposal to deal with difficult media questions.
So when my students push back I say:
If the A-B-C technique works for poorly regarded politicians, then just imagine how it can work for you, the best of us.
Scenario: an interview about “small boat channel crossings.”
Imagine you’re an activist with personal experience of claiming refugee status in the UK. You’ve been invited to do an interview to discuss new immigration statistics. Your background is an important part of your “ethos”, it’s a major reason you’ve been invited on to the programme.
You know it’s possible you will be asked some hostile or difficult questions, but you’ve resolved to do this interview anyway (basically, in my mind, you’re a hero).
Don’t over-prepare for hostile questions
Now, before doing an interview, it’s important to think of the questions you might get asked. But one mistake people sometimes make is to over-prepare. With the best will in the world, you can’t predict every question you will get asked. And it’s not beyond presenters themselves to be less than truthful about what they plan to ask you about.
A better plan is to:
Know what you want to say and treat every question you’re asked as an opportunity to say what you want to say (hostile, or not).
You don’t need a rote-learned script, you don’t need to remember reams of statistics. You just need to know what you want to say, that’s what a “key message” amounts to.
In the event that a tricky question does come up your objective remains the same, to use it to say what you want to say. This is when the A-B-C can help.
In the interview
TV Presenter: “There’s a crisis with small boats crossing the English Channel isn’t there? The number of people who are trying to get to the UK in dinghies has gone through the roof… that’s not good is it?”
1 - You: “Yes there’s been lots of discussion in recent months about people forced to use unsafe routes to reach Britain.” [ACKNOWLEDGE the question and slightly reframe it]
2 - “But let me put this into perspective….” [BRIDGE] this is just one bridge, there are many others that could be used in this context, for example:
“But it’s important that your listeners hear a different point of view on this…”
to:
“I’m sure the people at home would understand things differently, if we looked at this issue from another perspective. Let me explain what I mean….”
3 - [COMMUNICATE / KEY MESSAGE]: “……. “
Your key message could be anything: it could be statistics that help reframe the question. But be careful, people aren’t fact processing machines.
That said, statistics might be a key part of your ethos for example if you are an academic, statistician or economist. But I’d still urge caution because:
Facts alone aren’t enough to persuade people.
My rule of thumb is this: people’s emotional intelligence is almost always more highly developed than their rational knowledge of policy or statistics.
Sometimes a different approach might be to lean-in to your ethos and court the audience’s empathy, before landing facts.
Going back to the scenario laid out above. You are an activist with lived experience of what it means to claim refugee status, it is the reason you’ve been invited on to the programme. There are no rules that say you cannot argue from the perspective of your lived experience (your ethos). It means you have a unique perspective and people want to hear that.
An ethos / pathos argument might read something like this (note, this story could be told about someone else too, it doesn’t have to be about you):
“I came to the UK and sought asylum when I was 12-years-old. I travelled alone and I was scared. Yet I was welcomed and cared for when I got here. I know, from my own experience, that there will be children the same age - and younger - who at this very moment face terrifying journeys like mine, many of them will be crossing in those boats.
“It doesn’t matter where you’re from, your religion or skin colour. We all want the same things for our children: a better future and for them to be safe. This must be the starting point for any discussion about asylum, we have to start with people not the stories you might have heard about people like me.”
A listener would need a heart of stone not to feel emotionally engaged by this. The vast majority of people would immediately identify with the shared values at the root of this statement. But it’s important not stop there, in fact this is probably a golden moment to double down with a killer stat or fact.
Once people are emotionally engaged with you, they are ready to hear your truth and your facts.
Back to Rishi
A Prime Minister needs more than the A-B-C technique if they are to convince the public to vote for them.
But Sunak’s problem isn’t his overuse of the A-B-C or his use of “politician’s answers”. His problem is the gap in his ethos. When he speaks I sense no hinterland beyond a hedge fund trading floor or Silicon Valley board room. I don’t feel anything about his life, his interests, or worries outside of his obvious wealth and privilege. His life is an enigma to me. He lacks a credible and emotionally engaging narrative that would link his ethos to his political hopes and dreams for the country more broadly.
In conclusion, it’s not the A-B-C or the “politician’s answer” that’s problematic when we do media work. The inability of our politicians to speak human in interviews is a feature of the wider stalemate that exists in our politics between media and politicians. The tricks politicians use to overcome that stalemate are irritating and give techniques like the A-B-C a bad name. But it’s the political culture and the poor ethos of politicians that’s the real problem.
Using the “politician’s answer” doesn’t mean you need to sound like a politician too.