He looks up and then shuts his eyes. “Ok… Libya...” Pauses, licks lips and shuffles in his seat. “President Obama...” Pauses. “Supported... the uprising... correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi.” Pauses. More shuffle. Nervous Smile.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

“Just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing before I say ‘Yes I agree’ or ‘No I didn’t agree’. Umm... I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason... No, that’s a different one.” Some more shuffle and now looking distinctly uncomfortable. “I gotta go back and see… umm..”

Gestures with hand. “Got all this stuff twirling around in my head... umm… Specifically, what did you ask, did I agree or not disagree with Obama?”

That was Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain caught on tape responding to a question, ‘Do you agree with President Obama on Libya or not?’ posed by a journalist in the US recently. Just when you think he finally has control over the interview when he asks the journalist to clarify the question, he maunders through yet another long-winded response tying himself up in knots explaining how he would have handled the situation differently and it ‘might have caused us to end up in the same place’.

The video went viral on the internet and was widely tweeted with the hashtag #Cainwreck. American media has used every possible term to describe Cain’s reply, including ‘confused response’, ‘brain freeze’, ‘sustained stumble’ and ‘meandering response’. Cain’s camp has tried defending their leader with the not-very-original excuses of lack of sleep and doctored tapes. 

Cain himself has called it ‘flyspecking’ his pauses. Meanwhile his ratings continue to dip.

No amount of preparation for a media interview is enough to hide ignorance, especially when one tries to cover it up with feigned intelligence (read bullshit). Cain would have hurt his own credibility less by being truthful and simply stating it was not a subject he was prepared or ready to comment on at that point in time. Contrary to what some may believe, the mark of a great communicator is to not only present the truth in the best possible manner, but also to respectfully admit mistakes and shortcomings, sometimes even before they stand exposed.

During a media interview or interaction, an effective communicator also makes sure that he: 1.    Is equipped with all the facts and is fully prepared to tackle sensitive questions.2.    Is not forced to divulge more information that he needs to.3.    Leads the agenda and articulates — more than once — the key messages that he wants to communicate to his constituents. 4.    Corrects misinformation as soon as he hears it and places the facts on record.5.     Does not get agitated, intimidated or flustered by any provocation or accusation.6.    Conveys his messages in more ways than one — through his words, tone and body language. 7.    Does not comment on speculation or rumours.8.    Keeps the message concise.9.    Does not evade questions.10.    Comes across as human and not a number-spewing, fact-stating robot.

Note: If you would like to see a great example of how it is done, check out a recent interview of Omar Abdullah by Times Now’s Arnab Goswami (www.timesnow.tv/Omar-Abdullah-on-the-Newshour—1/videoshow/4385904.cms).

Surekha Pillai is a communications consultant based in Delhi. She is @surekhapillai on Twitter.