Fighting Red Tape To Win The Media Relations Speed Game

Dec 10, 2019

4 min

Peter Evans

It’s a situation that happens every day in the media relations world.


A reporter calls and they need someone for an interview fast.


This is how the scenario should play out:


Step 1 - The media calls a communications officer with a simple request for information and an interview on a recently announced program.


Step 2 – The communication officer identifies a suitable spokesperson.


Step 3 – The reporter and spokesperson talk, arrange an interview -- and there is some excellent earned media and exposure for your institution.


It sounds simple enough.


But, not so fast.


In reality, things often fall apart on step 3 and the process turns into something that borderlines on a Monty Python skit.


Based on my experience and others I’ve consulted with – it often plays out something like this:


The communications officer contacts the suitable spokesperson’s Manager to ensure it is okay they can speak to the expertise and subject matter they specialize in. Then, they have to loop in that manager with a Director and CEO to inform them of the media request and the plan. And then if the Director agrees, the CEO gets on board. Or perhaps the Director agrees only after checking with the CEO and agreeing to the spokesperson.


Once that’s nailed down somehow…the CEO wonders if speaking points are required and will only proceed once the Manager and Director have signed off on them.


After the speaking points are finally approved, speaking points and the media request are sent to the identified spokesperson.


Then the communications officer (remember him or her?) responds to the media that they have found an expert and will arrange a time for interview. The communications officer has the Manager, Director, CEO and spokesperson each sign off on paper-generated Media Request Form for filing and safe records keeping.


And, then…..finally……if the media hasn’t already gone elsewhere, the reporter and the spokesperson finally speak – about 18 steps later. It’s actually more steps than it takes to assemble my daughter’s bike or the average IKEA nightstand. It’s cumbersome, ineffective and costs the organization a lot of time in person power for something that doesn’t need to be this difficult.


And the reality is … this spokesperson is a paid professional with a Master’s degree who was hired for the subject matter they specialize in. The media request was related to a media release issued by the organization. With a simple approval process and a pro-active approach to media, this could have been easier for everybody with an immediate turnaround and a positive outcome.


Think this is a joke? It’s not. In fact, there’s a Communications Officer’s support group that meets every Thursday to share similar situations (I’m being cheeky).


Media will appreciate that sensitive issues take time to respond to. In fact, a lot of media relish the thought the there are people scrambling to answer the tough questions.


What drives media crazy is having to wait hours for what should be a simple, safe and low-risk reply. They likely already know the answer, they just need the expertise to lend it credibility and verification.


(Photo courtesy: CBS Television Studios)

So does your Communications Process need an institutional intervention?

When you make it hard for media to get easy answers, they might start looking elsewhere. Odds are they will. Consider this:


Do you have a grading system for media requests?


  • Low-risk asks can be seen coming and responses pre-approved or left in the hands of your very competent staff.
  • High risk asks mean approval and oversight. People will get that. As well, it will lend a tone of seriousness to the situation.


Do you know the reporter or media outlet?


  • A strong relationship needs faith on both sides.
  • Known reporters and news outlets survive on reputation. Expect them to be professional and trust that they’ll get it right.


Trust your Communications Team – Don’t Micro Manage


  • Media relations isn’t a science – it’s an art where experience matters most.
  • Communications Officers likely know the media and most come from a media background.
  • They’ll know the angles, they scan the media and can likely predict the questions.
  • Empower them to save you time and rely on their instincts.
  • Too many Communications Officers ask “Why did you hire me?” when they aren’t trusted on the simplest of things.


Most institutions have a rigorous vetting process – so why the worry?


  • Didn’t you hire these people – rely on your staff and let them be accountable.
  • Fewer steps saves time, reduces confusion and meets the need of a low-risk ask.
  • Less micromanaging = more trust. Morale is a big deal in any workplace.


So when the media calls, here’s my advice. Take a deep breath. Assess the risk. And arrange the interview as soon as possible and with as little maintenance and anxiety as possible.


The media get the information they want, your institution gets the earned media and free exposure it wants and your Communications Team maintains a reputation as a group that can deliver content on deadline and ‘gets’ the information game.


Remember – in today’s media – it’s all about speed.


The easier you make it for media, the more the phone will ring.



Connect with:
Peter Evans

Peter Evans

Co-Founder & CEO

Recognized speaker on expertise marketing, technology and innovation

Media TrendsThought LeadershipMarketingTechnologyInnovation

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from ExpertFile

2 min

Stepping Away from the Crown: Royals Giving Up Titles and Duties

Just last week, Prince Andrew announced that he would relinquish his title of Duke of York and other honours, citing that the ongoing allegations against him had become a distraction to the work of the royal family. He asserted this step was taken with the King’s agreement, stating he will no longer use the titles conferred upon him—even as he continues to deny any wrongdoing. A Legacy of Abdication and Renunciation Throughout royal history, stepping back from royal life or formally abdicating has taken many forms. The dramatic abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936—who gave up the British throne to marry Wallis Simpson—remains one of the most famous examples. Other monarchs, like Queen Christina of Sweden and Emperor Charles V, also renounced power to pursue personal convictions. Today’s examples are often more nuanced: royals “stepping down” from duties while retaining birthright status. The case of Prince Andrew fits in this evolving pattern of royal redefinition. Why Royals Leave (or Are Pushed Away) Motivations are diverse: personal choice, scandal, pressure, health, or changing views of leadership. Historically, abdications often responded to political crises. Now, with the monarchy under constant media and public scrutiny, stepping back can be seen as damage control or a bid for personal freedom—particularly in cases involving controversy. The Constitutional and Symbolic Ripples When a royal gives up titles or duties, multiple questions emerge: What role remains? (In Andrew’s case, he loses the Duke title but retains his princely status.) How does the monarchy manage public perception, continuity, and precedence? What are the implications for funding, patronages, and official duties? Such departures also force the institution to grapple with legacy, relevance, and the tension between duty and humanity. Monarchy in the Age of Transparency The modern era demands more from monarchy than ever before: accountability, relevance, and adaptability. When royals step aside—voluntarily or under pressure—it reshapes how the public sees royal duty. These shifts reflect broader questions: what role should individuals born into monarchy play? Can institutions evolve while retaining symbolic continuity? Connect with our experts about the history, symbolism, and modern evolution of royal abdications and withdrawals. To see our full database of experts, visit: www.expertfile.com

2 min

Thanksgiving North and South: Why Canada and the U.S. Celebrate at Different Times

Every fall, both Canadians and Americans gather around the table to give thanks — but they do it more than a month apart. While the two holidays share themes of gratitude, harvest, and togetherness, they evolved under distinct historical, cultural, and seasonal circumstances that reflect each nation’s story. A Canadian Harvest of Thanks Canada’s Thanksgiving traces its roots back to 1578, when English explorer Martin Frobisher held a ceremony in Newfoundland to give thanks for safe passage across the Atlantic. Over time, the holiday blended European harvest traditions with local customs, emphasizing gratitude for the year’s bounty rather than a single historic event. Because Canada’s growing season ends earlier than in most of the United States, Thanksgiving naturally became an autumn harvest celebration held in early October. It was officially recognized in 1957, when Parliament declared the second Monday of October as a national holiday “to give thanks for the harvest and the blessings of the past year.” The American Tradition South of the border, Thanksgiving carries a different historical symbolism. The U.S. holiday traces back to 1621, when Pilgrims and the Wampanoag people shared a harvest feast in Plymouth, Massachusetts. While similar in spirit, the American version became tied more closely to the nation’s founding mythology — a story of cooperation, survival, and gratitude in the New World. Because harvests occur later in the U.S., the celebration naturally took place in late November. In 1863, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving a national holiday to promote unity, setting it for the final Thursday in November. Congress later standardized the date to the fourth Thursday in 1941. Seasons, Stories, and Shared Spirit At heart, both Thanksgivings mark the same human instinct: to pause, reflect, and give thanks. Canada’s October observance reflects the rhythm of northern harvests and a gratitude rooted in nature’s cycle. The American holiday, coming later in November, intertwines with its own national narrative of endurance and unity. Despite the calendar gap, the spirit is shared — families gathering to celebrate abundance, resilience, and community, in traditions that continue to evolve on both sides of the border. Connect with our experts on the history, traditions, and cultural meanings of Thanksgiving in North America. Check them out here : www.expertfile.com

2 min

The History of Government Shutdowns in America

Few events capture Washington gridlock more visibly than a government shutdown. While rare in the nation’s early history, shutdowns have become a recurring feature of modern politics—bringing uncertainty for federal workers, disruptions to public services, and ripple effects across the economy. How It Started The modern shutdown era began in the 1970s after a new law, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, established a formal budget process. Before then, funding disputes didn’t usually halt operations. But a key shift came in 1980, when the Carter administration’s Justice Department concluded that, without approved appropriations, agencies had no legal authority to spend money. That ruling set the stage for shutdowns as we know them today. Since then, the U.S. has endured more than 20 funding gaps, ranging from brief lapses over a weekend to the record-long 35-day shutdown of 2018–2019. Each one has highlighted the partisan battles over federal spending, immigration, healthcare, or other policy priorities. Why They Happen Shutdowns occur when Congress fails to pass, and the president fails to sign, appropriations bills or temporary funding measures known as continuing resolutions. In practice, they reflect deeper political standoffs: one branch of government using the threat of a shutdown to force concessions on controversial issues. They can be triggered by disputes over budget size, specific programs, or broader ideological fights. In many cases, the standoff ends when mounting political and economic costs make compromise unavoidable. What Gets Impacted The effects of a shutdown are immediate and wide-ranging: Federal Workforce: Hundreds of thousands of employees are furloughed without pay, while others deemed “essential” must work without immediate compensation. Public Services: National parks close, permits stall, museums shutter, and routine government operations—from food inspections to scientific research—are delayed. Economic Ripple Effects: Contractors lose revenue, local economies near federal facilities take a hit, and financial markets often react nervously. Extended shutdowns can even slow GDP growth. Citizens’ Daily Lives: From delayed tax refunds to halted small business loans, ordinary Americans feel the squeeze when government services pause. Why This Matters Government shutdowns are more than political theater—they expose the fragility of the budget process and the real consequences of partisan impasse. They highlight the dependence of millions of Americans on public services and raise questions about the cost of dysfunction in the world’s largest economy. Understanding why they happen and what’s impacted helps citizens gauge not just the politics of Washington, but also how governance—or the lack of it—touches everyday life. Connect with our experts about the history, causes, and consequences of government shutdowns in America. Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com

View all posts