Did you really say that?

Where shall we begin?

Well, Bob Seely’s interview on Newsnight, where he refused to believe something he had said on the programme a week earlier, seems a good starting point.

The Isle of Wight MP appeared on the BBC programme on Monday after politicians voted to endorse a privileges committee report which said Boris Johnson had lied.

And the interview will be remembered for this eye-catching exchange with host Victoria Derbyshire, which you can watch here at 11:05.

Derbyshire: “A week last Friday on Newsnight, you described the privileges committee as a Kangaroo Court

Seely (interrupting): “I don’t think I did.”

Derbyshire: “You absolutely did because I watched the interview again today.”

Seely: “I don’t think I was on Newsnight last week at all.”

Derbyshire: “A week last Friday, you were – the day Boris Johnson resigned. Today in the Commons, you obviously voted for this report. So, should viewers believe what they…”

Seely (interrupting): “Ok, I think I said I had some sympathy for the argument. I’m very happy to apologise if I did say that.”

Derbyshire: “You called it a ‘kangaroo court’.”

Seely: “Someone made the allegation, and I said I have some sympathy with it.”

Derbyshire: “You used the words ‘kangaroo court’.”

Seely: “In which case, I don’t remember doing it. But if I did, I fess up. I listened to the debate today. I thought Penny (Mordaunt) spoke with great eloquence and I thought, ‘Actually, I need to be supporting this’.

Derbyshire: “So you regret calling them that?”

Seely: “Clearly. I have to say my memory is not that bad. If you say I said it, that’s fine.”

Derbyshire: “Honestly, it is on the iPlayer.”

Great to see @vicderbyshire holding Bob Seely MP to account here on @BBCNewsnight
VD: “You described the privileges committee as a kangaroo court.”
BS: “I don’t think I did.”
VD: “You did absolutely did because I watched the interview again today.” pic.twitter.com/X9ZowNul0h

— Kit Yates (@Kit_Yates_Maths) June 19, 2023

Almost immediately, the clip of the politician using the phrase ‘kangaroo court’ on the programme was shared on social media.

The first rule of interviews is to remember if you’ve been interviewed before #Newsnight pic.twitter.com/E03ULGvRHw

— Nina Sawetz (@NinaSawetz) June 19, 2023

Here you go, Bob Seely,this is you last week referring to 'this kangaroo court'.
Is it coming back now..?#newsnight pic.twitter.com/PhxmX87wmF

— Claire Davenport (@ClavDavs) June 19, 2023

What media training lessons can you learn from this?

Well, remembering that you appeared on the same programme a week earlier and said something controversial would be an ideal place to start your interview preparation.

But it is also a reminder of the importance of spokespeople not getting involved in arguments with journalists.

Why?

Well, because the argument becomes the focus of the interview. Mr Seely may have made some good points in the rest of the interview, but people watching will only remember the argument.

And arguments and denials are unlikely to help you win the support of the audience.

It should also remind spokespeople about the importance of not repeating the journalist’s language in their answers – something we stress during our media training courses. One of the reasons Mr Seely may struggle to recall the comment is because it was a phrase introduced by journalist Faisal Islam that he repeated in his answer.

The footage also highlights the importance of spokespeople being able to think on their feet. Mr Seely could not remember saying ‘kangaroo court’.

But when Ms Derbyshire says he did and that she just rewatched the interview, that’s the point to admit defeat, apologise and try to move the conversation on.

She’s just told him she has the receipts, so continuing the argument from that point feels like an act of interview self-harm.

Another spokesperson probably regretting their words is David Henderson, the chief executive of industry lobby group Water UK.

He appeared to blame wild swimmers and canoeists for shining a light on the sewage scandal during a hearing in the House of Lords.

He said: “We apologised because we had failed as an industry to keep up with the public’s changing expectations on how sewage works should operate vis-à-vis their impacts on the environment.

“We did not really keep up with how people now expect the environment to be able to be used. There has been an explosion in open-water swimming, cold-water swimming, use of canoes and paddlers in reservoirs and other waterways.”

That comment did not go down well with Lord Cromwell, who said: “Can I just go back, David, to your initial statement? It almost seemed to imply that you had apologised, but it was the public’s fault that they wanted to swim in rivers and stuff, and that is the problem. Surely, the problem is not that at all.”

And Viscount Chandos was also less than impressed, saying: “What comes over is that the industry is pretty reactive: ‘Goodness me, consumers want to be able to go swimming in rivers’; ‘The regulator is pushing us in this direction’.

And the comments were not well received outside the House of Lords.

Fury as water chief blames wild swimmers and canoeists for highlighting scandal of sewage being pumped into rivers Daily Mail

Water boss blames ‘explosion’ of wild swimming and canoeing for calling attention to sewage in UK rivers National World

Singer and campaigner Feargal Sharkey said: “The water industry continues its fatal act of self-denial, blaming the general public and wild swimmers for their own incompetence. This will not and will never work.”

What can you learn from this one?

Well, it is hard to believe the messaging was properly tested.

Mr Henderson’s controversial comments came at the start, so you would imagine it was something he wanted to get across.

Yet it paints a picture of the water industry being reactive, out of touch and surprised that the public may not be keen on swimming and canoeing in sewage.

It also suggests it believes the public is to blame for highlighting this issue. And the blame game rarely plays out well for organisations under the spotlight.

It is also a reminder that Parliamentary hearings, no matter how obscure, are also public and media events.

What is said during them can have a huge impact on reputation.

Another spokesperson you may have seen quoted in the media this week is Fraser Longden.

The chief operating officer at Wickes has made the headlines after saying shoppers with trans-critical views were “bigots” and were not welcome in the company’s stores.

The comments were made during a panel discussion at the PinkNews’s Trans+ Summit.

And they have been described as the DIY store’s “Bud Light moment” – a comparison to the storm that surrounded the beer after working with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney on a series of social media posts.

I’ve also seen it described as the company’s “Ratner moment”.  

The remarks have certainly created a storm, and the story has many ingredients of a crisis media management incident, with the DIY store’s share price taking a dent, negative headlines and #boycottwickes trending on Twitter.

Dear @Wickes .

I have recently been discussing a sizeable new kitchen order worth £26,000 with your Kentish Town store.

It now appears that you consider me to be a bigot so needless to say discussions are now ended and I am taking my business elsewhere.

Well done.

— Mark Wilkes (@Mark_Wilkes27) June 16, 2023

The company has said little publicly about the comments, perhaps hoping that the storm will quickly blow over and those vowing to boycott will still shop with them when they need a tin of paint or some sandpaper.

But an internal document, shared on social media, says the comments were “taken out of context” and advises colleagues what to say if they are asked about them.

Much like the Bud Light saga, there is much debate about whether companies should get involved in issues like this.

And when you see the backlash, you can understand why brands would be tempted to remain quiet.

But research from Deloitte has shown more than two-thirds of consumers want brands to take public stands on social and political issues. So, it is likely to be something we see more of, whether it is about the welfare of the planet or those who live on it.

But perhaps emotive and divisive language like “bigots” and “not welcome” is not the right way to do it.

Media First are media and communications training specialists with over 35 years of experience. We have a team of trainers, each with decades of experience working as journalists, presenters, communications coaches and media trainers. 

Click here to find out more about our media training and crisis communication training.

Subscribe here to be among the first to receive our blogs.