The Fallacy of the Ambush Interview
21st June 2006 by Eric Bergman, ABC, APR
In some circles, it is common for media trainers to use ambush interviews at the start of their training. One or more participants are singled out and asked (but more often forced or coerced) into participating in an interview at the start of the training — without any preparation or guidance. Theoretically, this demonstrates the value of being prepared, although it seems to underscore a message that there may be a reporter lurking around any corner or under any rock.
Realistically, ambush interviews are extremely rare in a non-training environment. Most organizations, when they have serious issues brewing, are aware that such issues could erupt at any time. How many of us have attended meetings in which someone in the management group says, “I really hope reporters don’t get a hold of this”? If such a comment is ever made at a meeting, the organization should never be ambushed. It needs no other warning because it has, quite frankly, warned itself.
Admittedly, there are rare occasions in which an organization is truly ambushed. I have had two clients who experienced such situations recently. In one, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) securities investigation team swooped down on a major bank to investigate the financial activities of one of the bank’s publicly-traded clients. In another, a not-for-profit organization had a staff member arrested (at home, not at the office) in a high-profile criminal investigation. In both of these cases, and in virtually every other, the spokesperson and/or the organization can buy enough time to get their facts in order and prepare a response.
If you speak to people who have been ambushed in media training and ask them about the experience, you’ll find that this tactic does not build confidence. More often than not, it has exactly the reverse effect. It has a negative impact on the person ambushed, and a similar impact on others in the training session.
I suspect that the ambush interview is often used to set the facilitator in a position of power for the day. The message appears to be: “Pay attention … or else!” I agree with Dr. Dorothy Billington, who has studied adult learners extensively and writes that facilitators should create an environment in which they treat “adult students as peers—accepted and respected as intelligent experienced adults whose opinions are listened to, honored, appreciated.” In Dr. Billington’s worldview, there needs to be a relatively equal relationship between facilitator and learner because “adults learn best in an environment in which they feel safe and supported.” Certainly, the person conducting the media training is the expert. But the more equal the footing between facilitator and learner, the better the experience from the learner’s perspective. And isn’t that the only perspective that truly counts?
I do not use ambush interviews. In fact, I have twice turned down lucrative engagements in which clients insisted that I use the technique.
But then, mine is only one opinion. What has your experience been? Is it a tactic you’ve used or seen used? Did it work? If so, why? If not, why not?
As always, we welcome your opinions.
June 21st, 2006 at 10:44 am
Our organization has used the ambush technique in media training since before I arrived nearly six years ago. When I went through the training in my first few months, I remember thinking that it was a good way to demonstrate the value of preparation but offered no other real benefit.
Since then, I’ve heard feedback from many trainees that echo what you said - the technique only serves to undermine their confidence in an already nerve-wracking situation. Because of that I no longer use the technique in any of the training I help conduct and instead choose to use that time for another round of prepared, practice interviews (which is really the situation they will find themselves in 99.9 percent of the time).
June 21st, 2006 at 11:50 am
Scott,
How important do you think practice is in media training?
//eric
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:34 am
Hi Eric,
I’ve worked with a number of media trainers over the years, almost all of whom use this technique. And I’ve question several about what they see as the value. The most common answer is that it’s a way to overcome a common attitude among executives that they don’t really need media training. It’s not about teaching them to be prepared, it’s about breaking through the arrogance that can get in the way of learning. I understand this issue. But I believe I’ve come up with a much better way of dealing with it, by providing an obective and credible measurement of the spokesperson’s abilities prior to media training. To do that, the spokesperson must be properly prepped, the same way they would be in a real interview. And the interview should be as real-life as possible, not a mock interview. With a complete assessment of the spokesperson’s strengths and weaknesses — discussed privately, not given as a way to humiliate them in front of a group — it’s then possible to approach training in a productive, adult way. I’ve been testing this extensively, and it works. More about my methods on http://www.spokescomm.com for anyone who is interested.
I also have a favor to ask. I’m expanding my research with an online survey, and I’d really appreciate getting input from the Commons community. The link is on the SpokesComm site under the Survey tab.
Cheers,
Barb
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Eric -
In my experience the practice interviews and corresponding feedback are what trainees value most and are the best use of our time in training. In our sessions we of course talk about interview techniques, but we spend the bulk of the sessions discussing issues and developing messages for those. We then take the trainees through at least two or three practice interviews that allow them to put our discussions into practice.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:19 pm
[...] 4. The fallacy of the ambush interview was posted by Eric Bergman to discuss media training tactics. He says they almost never happen and trainers are trying to ambush clients to gain authority. What do our Strive trainers think of this one? [...]
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:19 pm
In my experience, “ambush” interviews are few and far between.
Politicians usually know that they should expect questions from reporters waiting outside conferences, parliament sittings, etc.
It’s the British media that are the experts on waiting outside people’s doors.
I don’t use mock ambushes in media training, but I do like to keep the people being trained a bit nervous and unsure. To do this, I like to run training sessions not on the client’s premises, where the trainees are kig, queen, princes and princesses, but in real TV studios, where they don’t undrstand what’s going on, and voices can come from hidden speakers.
Cable TV companies are a good source of rental accommodation.
BAK
June 24th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Brian,
If you keep people nervous and unsure, how does that relate to principles of adult education, which clearly state that people learn best in a relatively safe environment?
The assumption here, of course, is that better learning is conducive to greater and longer lasting behavioral change.
June 26th, 2006 at 2:35 am
[...] On the IABC Media Relations Commons, Eric Bergman discusses "The fallacy of the ambush interview." He raises some good points, and I think it's high time for the discussion. But I'd go even further, and say that even the non-ambush mock interviews that are a staple of most media training are of questionable value. It seems to be used for one of two purposes: to add a glamour-factor to the training, or as Eric puts it, to intimidate. [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
I’ve now read the stream of discussion, beginning with Eric Bergman’s thoughtful essay, on the value, or lack of, ambush interviews in media training, and the point that hits me is this: there are AMBUSH interviews, and there are ambush interviews, and are we all talking about the same?
The common thread that appears to run through all the commentary is the value of helping biz folks prepare for and become comfortable with “tough, engaging” media interviews. Part of that, I think all would agree, is accepting the fact that the unexpected is to be expected, always. How best to do that? I imagine there are an infinite number of approaches, yet what may be most relevant is addressing the squiggly line between those “AMBUSH” interviews designed to scare, intimidate, and overwhelm (rather than uncork important information) and those “ambush” interviews seeking to surprise and evoke a top-of-the-head, unfiltered, close-to-honest response. Both might be labeled “ambush” interviews, even though there’s much space between the two approaches. And I suspect the perfect training strategy might incorporate elements of each, integrated appropriately, in order to give the trainee/executive the full experience of what the “real” media interview could be like.
In an MBA course in critical thinking/persuasion/problem-solving I’ve taught for several years, one of the key projects is a “confrontational” business talk show where students are given organizational roles to play opposite an aggressive host (a real life local anchor with business experience) who’s pressing them to answer largely unanswerable questions in defense of their company (I set it up that way, so they’re forced to think and squirm and express themselves all at the same time). It’s videotaped, and then over lunch we replay all interviews and discuss as we go; consistently, students have rated this project, which I don’t grade, as the most valuable experience of the course. I think this forum, which might be said to be a form of the “ambush” interview (or not), captures bits of both the extreme and the moderate versions of ambush interviews — by putting students on the spot and pressing them, yet giving them a fair chance to respond and, most importantly, learn from it when it doesn’t really count. One such practice session, I’ve found, goes a long, long way.
Hope perhaps this adds a touch of clarity to the discussion.
September 7th, 2006 at 12:39 am
David, your interview scenario sounds great. I agree that in that kind of context, it’s quite different from the kind of ambush many media trainers use at the very beginning of a one-time session, without any preparation. For any spokesperson likely to do broadcast interviews, practice in front of a camera with a variety of interview styles — including confrontational ones — is critical. As you say, “they need to be able to think and squirm and express themselves at the same time,” and the first time they have to do that shouldn’t be live national television.
September 8th, 2006 at 10:34 am
I’ve used the ambush interview in media training, and it does, in fact, rivet attention, something that is much needed at the beginning of many training sessions since participants are often focused on other business or are reluctant — even hostile — about media training.
I can see the logic in the criticisms that have been offered. However, experience tells me that what happens AFTER the ambush interview is the critical factor in its effectiveness. The natural tension that develops in the training room during ambush interviews must be dispelled immediately. My tact has always been self-effacing humor, which has worked well. But the most important factor is how the playback and critique are handled.
My technique has been to delay critiques until certain basic concepts about news interviews have been covered. The delay allows time for any residual animosity to dissipate, of course, but more importantly, it gives participants the necessary framework for critiquing themselves and other participants, allowing them to see how their natural tendencies toward defensiveness, argumentation, debate, etc. work against them in the interview environment.
Over the years, I’ve developed and applied two concepts that work well with adult learners. First, is creation of the opportunity to fail in a safe environment. Second, is the concept that success in the training session is measured only in terms of the learner’s willingness to use new and different question-answering techniques, not whether they become sterling performers in one training session. Applying these concepts properly transforms the ambush interview experience from a mere exercise in confrontation into an opportunity for self-revelation.
Instead of attempting to pound news interview techniques into a trainee’s head with endless lecture and “tips and tricks” on PowerPoint slides, this approach encourages the learner to gain new skills by altering behavior based on new and improved thought patterns about the task. When that happens, any residual “pain” over the ambush interview is viewed as a trifle compared to the new capabilities he or she has gained.
September 8th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Terry, your point’s well taken — an ambush interview for ambush’s sake serves little, if any, purpose, but an aggressive, confrontational interview that captures trainees’ attention while putting them on the spot and gets them thinking and discussing and practicing like they “truly mean it” holds enormous learning, and long-term, value. I imagine we all, at some time, rely on the extremes of an approach or process to help make a point with students, even knowing that the extreme scenario is very low-probability in real life. Nevertheless, that’s often what students remember, and take away from the classroom experience, and then use as a benchmark when it does count. What you do after the initial shock of a surprise interview situation in creating a learning context is far more important compared to a little head-whacking up front; as you seem to indicate, it does get their attention — which we know is an essential first step to not only persuasing, but learning as well. Your approach seems a productive one; the distinctions you make, and understanding why, puts you far ahead of many of the educators I’ve worked with over the years.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:08 pm
Fascinating discussion.
And I find myself agreeing with most of what’s been said: For the vast majority of interviews, ambush interview training would be unnecessary. However, when it is necessary, it is crucial.
To me, in the abstract, without knowing the specific goals or characteristics of those being trained, the question borders on the unanswerable.
Some training audiences might thoroughly enjoy the challenge and approach of a “60 Minutes” style ambush; for them, it might both focus their attention and generate great enthusiasm.
For others, no doubt, the intimidation factor would be overwhelming, and, as this thread has pointed out, all “teachable moments” may disappear.
But if you have a key spokesperson in a suspect industry that is the focus of negative public sentiment and undesired attention, it would be foolhardy — maybe even negligent — not to have that person trained to handle ambush techniques.
So to me, it depends.