{"id":2382,"date":"2024-01-05T21:52:20","date_gmt":"2024-01-05T21:52:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/info.maccabee.com\/blog\/?p=2382"},"modified":"2024-12-18T16:28:57","modified_gmt":"2024-12-18T16:28:57","slug":"5-media-training-lessons-from-the-disastrous-testimony-of-mit-harvard-and-upenn-presidents","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/info.maccabee.com\/blog\/5-media-training-lessons-from-the-disastrous-testimony-of-mit-harvard-and-upenn-presidents\/","title":{"rendered":"5 Media Training Lessons From the Disastrous Testimony of MIT, Harvard And UPenn Presidents"},"content":{"rendered":"

When the presidents of MIT, Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania agreed to testify before Congress last December about the antisemitism engulfing their campuses, they couldn\u2019t have predicted the Circle of Hell firestorm that their testimony would generate.<\/p>\n

But in hindsight, the trio\u2019s catastrophic testimony under withering assault by Republican Representative Elise Stefanik can provide corporate communications professionals with a lesson in how to (and how not<\/em> to) prepare for high-stakes presentations and interviews. Whether your leader is giving testimony before Congress, an interview on CNN, or a speech before a thousand employees \u2013 she or he can avoid the mistakes of then-presidents Claudine Gay, Sally Kornbluth and Elizabeth Magill.<\/p>\n

The widely mocked testimony of these presidents saw them deflecting rather than responding. They clung to prepared, legalistic answers to Representative Stefanik\u2019s questions of whether \u201ccalling for the genocide of Jews\u201d violated their schools\u2019 codes of conduct. The semantic grenade whose pin they pulled was their claim that evaluating calls for mass slaughter was a \u201ccontext-dependent decision.\u201d<\/p>\n

If you or your company\u2019s leaders are facing a bet-the-farm, high stakes presentation as these presidents did, here are five lessons to draw from their self-immolation before Congress:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Don\u2019t Be Betrayed By Body Language <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    What undermined UPenn\u2019s Magill from the start were her discordant facial expressions. In particular, Magill was undone by the smirk that betrayed her own anxiety. But that grin communicated to the public that she took the topic of genocide lightly.<\/p>\n

    Of course, it\u2019s not just your face that can undermine your interview or presentation \u2013 what about your hands? Consider the 1951 Congressional testimony of gangster Frank Costello. The infamous mobster was undone during the Kefauver Crime Hearings when \u00a0TV cameras homed in on his twisting fingers \u2013 digits which betrayed his discomfort at being forced to answer questions about his nefarious deeds.<\/p>\n

    Virtually every mock media interview our PR agency performs with clients during rehearsals is shot on video, so the speaker we\u2019re preparing can view how their facial expressions support \u2013 or conflict with \u2013 their message.\u00a0 You can practice ways to show calm, thoughtful interest with your body language.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Don\u2019t Become a Parrot <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      What doomed the testimony of the three presidents was their repetition of the overly-rehearsed phrase \u201cit depends upon the context,\u201d without showing compassion.<\/p>\n

      Rather than listening to Representative Stefanik\u2019s questions, expressing human empathy and then responding to her, the presidents fell back on their stock answers as a shield. Their testimony came across as inauthentic \u2013 ultimately, costing Magill and Gay their jobs and sparking calls for Kornbluth to resign. A proper rehearsal for this testimony would focus not on memorizing a scripted phrase, but rather on responding to questions \u00a0as genuinely as possible.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Recognize You Need both Legal Advice and Media Training<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        According to the New York Times<\/em>, at least two of the three college presidents were coached prior to their disastrous Congressional testimony by WilmerHale, the Washington, D.C.-based law firm.<\/p>\n

        Our PR agency has worked with dozens of attorneys over the years, and we deeply respect their expertise. We believe there\u2019s a place for both attorneys and PR counsel in preparing for testimony.<\/p>\n

        However, the approach of WilmerHale appeared to focus on providing stock answers that its clients could repeat to avoid legal liability. The coaching seemed to focus on hair-splitting about conduct vs. speech, rather than authenticity, let alone empathy. Professor Steven Solomon with the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, noted that all three presidents appeared to be giving \u201canswers in the court and not a public forum.\u201d<\/p>\n

        At Maccabee, we recommend a collaboration<\/em> between your PR agency and your law firm. Lawyers rightly are concerned about reducing liability and risk, while PR counselors can also be aware of other issues, such as:<\/p>\n