Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,121
On a few occasions now, Leper has recommended that I undergo media training so that I don't make a fool of myself like I did on Joe Duffy recently.
He reminded me again yesterday of the necessity to do it, so I have now done a sandwich course, which was really helpful. I thought you might like to hear what I have been told.
Politicians have access to private surveys and private focus groups which you won't have, so this is a rough guide.
Contrary to public opinion, RTE and the media are not dominated by the left, it's just that they follow the rules above and will savage anyone who doesn't follow those rules.
And the media love human interest stories. So, for example, they are not interested in discussing a sensible housing market, they just want to interview a family being evicted by a greedy landlord.
Don't forget that if you call for change, those who will be negatively impacted will be on the media immediately, while those who will benefit will be diverse and will not talk openly about it. For example, it makes sense to reduce the costs of banking in Ireland. The broad mass of consumers will benefit from this. But if they close a branch of a bank in Ballyhaunis, there will be no shortage of critics - the trade unions, the Chamber of Commerce, Age Action and every politician.
If you call for the self-employed who pay 4% of their income in PRSI and get the same Contributory OAP as PAYE employees to contribute more, you will have the self-employed and their representatives on the radio attacking you. The fact that it would help lead to a sustainable pension system is irrelevant.
Don't try to make complex points. For example, you argument that when the state uses taxpayers' money to buy social housing , it reduces the supply of houses for first time buyers and pushes up prices. So don't criticise the state for buying social housing. Criticise the property developers and builders for charging outrageous prices for housing.
The public never links two issues if it's uncomfortable. For example, your argument that the 5,000 people living on their own in two, three and four bedroom social housing should either share these with people on the social housing list or move to one bed units will never get anywhere. You should just call for more social housing to be built. That is simpler and doesn't hurt anyone. Imagine asking someone who is paying €20 a week to live on their own in a 4 bed house that they should share with someone else! What were you thinking?
The public is too stupid to see that if big bad banks can't repossess houses, then they will have to charge much higher mortgage rates. If you want to be popular, oppose every repossession. You have tried and failed to get mortgage holders to protest about the high mortgage rates they are paying.
Don't criticise the claims culture in Ireland , criticise the insurance companies for fleecing people.
Stop trying to be so rational. No one else in the media follows that approach, so you put yourself at a disadvantage. None of the politicians have any problem at all with calling for increased public expenditure and reduced taxation. Why should you be so purist?
Read the tabloids if you want to know what to think and how to express it.
And stop obsessing with facts and data. That bores people. So what if the Bank of Ireland LifeLoans brochure was crystal clear about how much people would owe after 15 years? That is not relevant on a talk show. There are 10 people calling in to say that they did not understand the brochure. The one who did, will never call in. The only fact that matters is that since then the price of their home has not doubled as they had expected, and they will not be leaving a big inheritance to their children, so the big bad bank should wipe out the loan.
And stop thinking long-term. So what if the state has an unsustainable public debt and pensions system? That is of no interest to a radio presenter who wants to focus on what is happening today.
And stop doing balanced. The public wants clarity and simplicity. They don't want "on the one hand ... and on the other.". Give them soundbites. "All vulture funds are evil and should be banned from the country". That sounds so much better than your convoluted: "If we do not allow banks to repossess houses and we insist that the lenders must reduce their non-performing debts, then we should not complain when the banks sell those mortgages to vulture funds."
Show sympathy and if you don't have any fake it. So what if someone has not paid their mortgage in 10 years? So what if 300,000 other mortgage holders are paying the highest mortgage rates in the eurozone as a result? All the public cares is that this person is being made homeless by a bank or vulture fund. Pretend to feel sorry for them and express some platitude about housing being a right.
Above all Brendan, you have to learn to be able to hold mutually exclusive opinions simultaneously:
We should cut taxes and increase public expenditure
We should abolish the Central Bank mortgage restrictions, ban repossessions and reduce mortgage rates
We should increase the supply of private housing and reduce prices and the local authorities should buy up all privately available housing for social housing.
Anyone going on Joe Duffy should get media training as they will be devoured by media savvy Joe
But you're playing Junior B hurling. Leper is captain of the senior team. I'd say he's sponsoring the jerseys for all the teams :D
www.askaboutmoney.com
He reminded me again yesterday of the necessity to do it, so I have now done a sandwich course, which was really helpful. I thought you might like to hear what I have been told.
Politicians have access to private surveys and private focus groups which you won't have, so this is a rough guide.
| Always criticise | Never criticise |
| The banks The vulture funds Property developers and builders The multinationals Employers Landlords People earning over €100k a year The rich Insurance companies Tax increases Reductions in public expenditure The HSE and administrators | borrowers People who don't pay their mortgages Employees, workers Trade unions tenants The poor The elderly Those in social housing Tax reductions Increases in public expenditure Charities and their spokespeople |
Contrary to public opinion, RTE and the media are not dominated by the left, it's just that they follow the rules above and will savage anyone who doesn't follow those rules.
And the media love human interest stories. So, for example, they are not interested in discussing a sensible housing market, they just want to interview a family being evicted by a greedy landlord.
Don't forget that if you call for change, those who will be negatively impacted will be on the media immediately, while those who will benefit will be diverse and will not talk openly about it. For example, it makes sense to reduce the costs of banking in Ireland. The broad mass of consumers will benefit from this. But if they close a branch of a bank in Ballyhaunis, there will be no shortage of critics - the trade unions, the Chamber of Commerce, Age Action and every politician.
If you call for the self-employed who pay 4% of their income in PRSI and get the same Contributory OAP as PAYE employees to contribute more, you will have the self-employed and their representatives on the radio attacking you. The fact that it would help lead to a sustainable pension system is irrelevant.
Don't try to make complex points. For example, you argument that when the state uses taxpayers' money to buy social housing , it reduces the supply of houses for first time buyers and pushes up prices. So don't criticise the state for buying social housing. Criticise the property developers and builders for charging outrageous prices for housing.
The public never links two issues if it's uncomfortable. For example, your argument that the 5,000 people living on their own in two, three and four bedroom social housing should either share these with people on the social housing list or move to one bed units will never get anywhere. You should just call for more social housing to be built. That is simpler and doesn't hurt anyone. Imagine asking someone who is paying €20 a week to live on their own in a 4 bed house that they should share with someone else! What were you thinking?
The public is too stupid to see that if big bad banks can't repossess houses, then they will have to charge much higher mortgage rates. If you want to be popular, oppose every repossession. You have tried and failed to get mortgage holders to protest about the high mortgage rates they are paying.
Don't criticise the claims culture in Ireland , criticise the insurance companies for fleecing people.
Stop trying to be so rational. No one else in the media follows that approach, so you put yourself at a disadvantage. None of the politicians have any problem at all with calling for increased public expenditure and reduced taxation. Why should you be so purist?
Read the tabloids if you want to know what to think and how to express it.
And stop obsessing with facts and data. That bores people. So what if the Bank of Ireland LifeLoans brochure was crystal clear about how much people would owe after 15 years? That is not relevant on a talk show. There are 10 people calling in to say that they did not understand the brochure. The one who did, will never call in. The only fact that matters is that since then the price of their home has not doubled as they had expected, and they will not be leaving a big inheritance to their children, so the big bad bank should wipe out the loan.
And stop thinking long-term. So what if the state has an unsustainable public debt and pensions system? That is of no interest to a radio presenter who wants to focus on what is happening today.
And stop doing balanced. The public wants clarity and simplicity. They don't want "on the one hand ... and on the other.". Give them soundbites. "All vulture funds are evil and should be banned from the country". That sounds so much better than your convoluted: "If we do not allow banks to repossess houses and we insist that the lenders must reduce their non-performing debts, then we should not complain when the banks sell those mortgages to vulture funds."
Show sympathy and if you don't have any fake it. So what if someone has not paid their mortgage in 10 years? So what if 300,000 other mortgage holders are paying the highest mortgage rates in the eurozone as a result? All the public cares is that this person is being made homeless by a bank or vulture fund. Pretend to feel sorry for them and express some platitude about housing being a right.
Above all Brendan, you have to learn to be able to hold mutually exclusive opinions simultaneously:
We should cut taxes and increase public expenditure
We should abolish the Central Bank mortgage restrictions, ban repossessions and reduce mortgage rates
We should increase the supply of private housing and reduce prices and the local authorities should buy up all privately available housing for social housing.
Last edited: