Death by press conference

When a combined team of government executives held an inter-agency press conference to familiarize the media and the public on RA-10913 or the Anti Distracted Driving Act, they recklessly assumed that it would be a walk in the park. Most of them did not expect that a simple press conference could turn into a PR Crisis and career ending embarrassment. So what exactly did they do wrong?

Before attempting to conduct a press conference, every government employee or official should be required to read the spiel below before even thinking of holding a press conference without any prior training, exposure or the help of real professionals.

“The many press conferences you have witnessed or watched were performed with seeming ease because they were organized and conducted by trained professionals from media and public relations. The panelists therein received coaching and interview training. Please do not attempt to copy them or launch a press conference without proper training as this could lead to extreme embarrassment, resignations or career ending disasters in communication. Just because some people make it look so easy does not mean it is easy.”

*      *      *

Every time I handle the Communications Module at the Development Academy of the Philippines, I point out to students of Public Management that the worst mistakes they commit is to presume that they know better, they know what best to do, assume that they have all the answers and to lose sight of who their customers are and what “They” want.

In the case of RA-10913 launch, the inter-agency panelists were preoccupied with launching RA-10913 on the date while pushing back the fact that the pre-requisite public information campaign had not fully been complied with. The fact that many people from different walks of life or status were ignorant, ill-informed or confused about the law, is the first indication that little or no public consultation was done even among experts or motoring journalists. By prioritizing launch date over the public information campaign, the panelists missed out on an opportunity to know in advance how the public would react to the Anti-Distracted Driving Act. If the info campaign had been prioritized, the panelists would have known what questions needed answering and would have had all the answers and clarifications at their fingertips.

Had the panelists studied their customers, they would have realized that habits are not changed after one press conference and it is even harder to ask people to give up things that are valuable or convenient for them.

In terms of talking points, the major sin the panelists committed was to throw in what amounts to “additives & extenders.”

The point of the press conference was to officially announce that RA-10913 was in  effect. The worst thing the panelists did was to venture into the realm of “rosaries, line of sight, air-con vents and what constitutes parts of the dash board.” To make matters worse they even cited pre-existing rules and circulars that also prohibit accessories inside a vehicle. If there were pre-existing laws equal to the provisions of RA-10913, why didn’t they enforce them in the past and now want to do everything through the new law over night?

At a press conference, you limit and simplify things. Too many talking points and debates belong in Congress and the Courts not at a press conference.

*      *      *

When conducting a press conference, you limit the number of speakers. Just because the law calls for inter-agency participation does not mean everyone should talk. A press conference fails when there are too many talking heads because someone will always grab the spotlight and make the rest look like accessories if not mute idiots. With some advance coaching, the panelists would have been told to pre-empt or anticipate all the questions by going over them and having an answer before their presentation. I always tell my students that in a press conference you are playing the last 2 minutes of a game because that’s all you will ever get on radio or TV. So take all the shots, present all the information and you will know you did a good job when there are very few questions after you have spoken. In fact, one of the best way to avoid a grilling by the media is to give them information overload.

Once the Q&A portion is over and assuming you did your job well, there should be no more “seconds” or separate sessions outside the conference area. It was the ambush or secondary Q&A sessions regarding the Anti-Distracted Driving Act that produced a lot of problems for the DOTr and members of the panel. Instead of being the one dishing out the information overload, it was the panelist who ended up being “over-exposed.”  Clearly, people in government have much to learn. Perhaps they should consider enrolling or requesting for training at the DAP in Tagaytay because press conferences can be hazardous for your career.

*      *      *

The threat to impeach Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales simply because she is against Janet Lim Napoles becoming a state witness is equivalent to giving guilty Congressmen a “Stay Out of Jail” card and the chance to become Replacement Assassins tasked to take down Carpio-Morales. I suppose that members of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption suspect Ombudsman Carpio-Morales of being a blocking force against the full investigation of the DAP-PDAF scam because PNoy appointed her to her position.

Nonetheless politics and suspicion should not blind the VACC or any of us for that matter to the fact that many of the suspects, accused or beneficiary from the DAP-PDAF fund scam are in Congress and have the numbers to impeach Ombudsman Carpio-Morales. As they say don’t let the foxes into the chicken coop.

I don’t know if the Supreme Court can step in on this one, but everyone involved should simply ask the Supreme Court on their interpretation of the law and whether or not Janet Lim Napoles qualifies to be a State Witness or not. Let Carpio-Morales defend her position in court and not in the cesspool of politics where it’s all about publicity but not necessarily the letter and spirit of law.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]