Mind what you say
“When you are angry, they tell you, count to five, before you reply. Why should I count to five? It’s what happens before you count to five which makes life interesting.” David Hare
Famous TV anchor, Sana Bucha’s telephonic interview with Mariam Nawaz Sharif, in the backdrop of PANAMA Leaks, is perhaps the most viewed and reviewed clip on news channels that one could ever come across. But as an old student of PR, media relations and crisis communication, more than the content of the interview, I am interested in what led to that telephonic conversation. Apparently, in that particular episode of Sana Bucha’s program, an opposition party leader accused Sharif family of illegally owning properties outside Pakistan. Retaliating to accusations, Mariam herself called Sana Bucha and expressed desire to give her point of view (piece of mind). I am sure that even then, it was a dream call for Sana Bucha, although now, it has become a joyful reality due to its virality.
One can easily say that the call was made out of sheer anger and anxiety, with not much preparation. In the first 30 seconds of going on air, Mariam spoke in English in an Urdu program of an Urdu news channel which obviously showed that she did not recognise her audience, who were listening to accusations against her family in Urdu. Later on, what she said has been recorded in history, to be visited by students of political science – although I would like faculty of Public Relations, Media Relations and Crisis Communication to make it part of their curriculum too.
Very similar to this, is the other important onscreen episode which took place in PANAMA leaks scandal: Hussain Nawaz’s interview on a TV channel show which was obviously a pre-emptive move to counter the startling revelations which were to surface in the coming weeks. Anyone with media and PR exposure can easily say that it was a result of counselling from a PR consultant who took this particular tactic right from a crisis communications manual. This was someone who, perhaps not realising the sensitivity of the issue, could not foresee that the issue was likely to be taken up by Supreme Court of Pakistan. Since the anchor of that show himself has got some PR experience under his belt, it is not difficult to guess that it was he who advised the Sharifs to give this interview. At least it also enabled him to break a huge development in his program.
When we look at both of the above-mentioned TV appearances, it is not difficult to understand that while Mariam was angry in her action, Hussain was hardly prepared for what he was going to say and just followed the provided advice in a very naïve manner. One can also feel the paucity of legal intelligence or input in Hussain Nawaz’s interview which was only meant to apply the “saying it first” tactic which is called pre-buttal strategy in PR, usually aimed at handling an upcoming crisis situation. Hussain’s advisors badly missed the most crucial point of taking legal input for his interview. I doubt any legal counsel would have advised Hussain to go on-air and accept the ownership of London flats. Up till now, proceedings in Supreme Court have brought up so many contradictions from those interviews – something which could have been avoided by better planning.
Now, look back and ask yourself: was there any need for both the TV appearances? The answer must be a big no. The issue should have been handled by a calm and easy-going political spokesperson with full support from a legal counsel on all the queries. Even if the spokesperson had said something which would have backfired, there was room to take corrective measures. By appearing in person that luxury and facility was also lost.
Now we need to examine what these two unnecessary interviews – which came out of anger, anxiety and panic – did from a communication point of view in the Panama Leaks episode. Try to recall how many times you have seen these in clips during TV talk shows. I am sure you will not be able to count. They became easily available content to make viral visuals, videos and documentaries against the Sharifs. Haven’t these two interviews become part of innumerable jokes and ridicule campaigns in the backdrop of the Supreme Court hearings? Now imagine the Panama episode without these two interviews and you will feel that life would have been much more peaceful for Sharifs – and their lawyers.
Ask a Public Relations professional about his best friend in the organisation he works in, and his reply will be: the “Legal Head.” There is always a very deliberate effort on part of PR professionals to be chummy with the legal department’s people in the organisation – primarily due to the frequency of interaction they have with these people to draft communication on different issues for the media. Not only does this help them get comfortable about what to say and what to hold back, but it also provides them shock absorbers in case something backfires, thus fulfilling their desire to “play it safe.”
