Posts

B²: Debate Attacks

/1,622 Comments/in , , /by

People attack when they’re scared.

Enter Donald Trump and his admission during last Thursday night’s GOP debate that the focus on Cruz’s citizenship was a direct result of Cruz “doing a little bit better” in the polls.

While many praised Cruz for defending himself, at least 7 minutes were devoted to a back-and-forth between Trump and Cruz. 7 minutes! It’s understandable that Cruz wanted to set the record straight as he should, but can it be considered a win if talk of his citizenship dominated the headlines the next morning? DMG says no.

Do you know how to craft a message that slaps down ridiculous accusations but then pivots to highlight a way forward?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here’s this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “Well, aren’t you just (blank)/aren’t you just trying to do (blank)?”

B²: “That’s not the case. My record speaks for itself. What voters are interested in is <insert talking point>.”

A red herring is meant to distract, so don’t let it. Quickly correct the false premise (“that’s not the case” or “not at all”) and block and bridge to who you are or what policy position you support. It’s understandable that you want to set the record straight…and you should. But be mindful of the headline that will write itself if you spend too much time on defense. Don’t give the audience a reason to conclude, “thou dost protest too much!”

B²: CNBC vs. the GOP

/85 Comments/in , , /by

If there was any doubt the mainstream media leans left, last week’s GOP debate proved it. Barbs thrown by the moderators, including a question to Rubio about whether he hates his day job and the comparison of Trump to a comic book character, left both GOP supporters and some left-leaning news outlets criticizing CNBC.

In response, candidates called out the moderators on the spot (enter Ted Cruz), or called out the mainstream media as a whole (hello Marco Rubio), as it was clear the questions strayed from substantive policy discussion to personal attack.

But what the GOP candidates succeeded in doing on Wednesday night may just be a one-hit wonder. Why? It was them vs. the moderators, and everyone watching knew it – the questions were unfair, a few called it like it was, and the audience rejoiced. But, what if you’re attacked personally and it isn’t so obvious? What if you don’t have a two-hour window to still explain your talking points?

In that case (which is where most of us find ourselves), it’s best to quickly acknowledge the question as incorrect and then B² (block and bridge) away from the bias to articulate your message so that you control the narrative. But how do you do that?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is an example of an unfair question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “People have said that your organization is just a political front. Isn’t that true?”

B²: “Not at all. The only time I hear that narrative is when a lack of information exists about who we are and who we fight for. The <insert organization or campaign name> is about… <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, know that it’s a better use of your answer time to stay on message. The audience knows if/when a host is attacking a guest and you don’t want to sound like you’re whining…that’s never attractive. Instead, quickly acknowledge that you disagree with the question but then B² (block and bridge) to your answer.

If handled correctly, not only will the audience see through the bias but you’ll gain extra points by keeping your cool and championing your message anyway.

B²: Sore Loser (SCOTUS Edition)

/901 Comments/in , /by

No one likes a sore loser. Chances are, you probably fall into the “loser” camp for at least one of last week’s SCOTUS decisions.

While the decisions are often controversial – otherwise the case wouldn’t have been considered at the highest court – it rarely helps to spend the little time you have in your interview explaining the intricacies of why you think they were wrong.

Who said it best? Vote for which presidential candidate best spent his or her on-air time reacting to the SCOTUS ruling on marriage here.

Here’s a tip – leave the constitutional debate to the constitutional scholars. Complaining about a decision you can’t change will get you nowhere… fast.

So, do you know how to respond to questions about a SCOTUS decision without sounding like a sore loser?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “What are your thoughts on the SCOTUS decision in King v. Burwell?”

B²: “The Court has spoken about the language in ObamaCare, but what it wasn’t there to address was the effectiveness of ObamaCare. With increasing costs and concerns across this country, we know we must <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, don’t get stuck in the past. Instead, look to the future of health care. While aspects of ObamaCare may be here to stay, focus on what can be done to improve quality of health care for all Americans. You can substitute language for other major SCOTUS rulings; the point is to be respectful, to acknowledge the Court’s limits, and then move to your role in influencing and/or shaping policy.

Solutions always trump problems!