What does a pandemic expert have to learn from a lawyer? I don’t know.
I spend a lot of time preparing witnesses before I start a trial or arbitration hearing. So much turns on their testimony that I want it to be presented in the best possible way – truthful, accurate and authentic. Litigation lawyers know very well how to prepare a witness to achieve these goals, while also reducing the anxiety that goes along with testifying in court.
I had a client answer the first several questions during preparation with, “I guess I’d say …” or “I think the answer is …” or “I assume it’s …”. I stopped and asked gently, “do you actually know the answers or are you just guessing?”. He admitted he didn’t know the answers but didn’t want to seem dumb or unhelpful so he was making his best guess.
After a good laugh, we agreed that best guesses are for people who want to lose their money at the casino, not the courtroom. Litigation lawyers know that “I don’t know” is not only a perfectly acceptable honest answer but actually much preferred to a best guess.
During the COVID-19 era, we’ve heard and read countless epidemiologists, statisticians, physicians and other experts opine about the circumstances that surround the management of this global pandemic. To say that their work is difficult would be an understatement. They are tracking, interpreting, and communicating about complicated data in real-time. They are making life-and-death decisions in real-time. They are building the plane as they fly it. I don’t envy the stress they are under. Ultimately, though, they are in a position of trust and must honour that role to help society and their respective professions.
Many are articulate, concise and empathetic to their audience. Many others are not. Too often, some have been unable to avoid the temptation to look into the future by prognosticating when perhaps they ought not to. It’s only natural to try to answer a question you’re asked when you’re doing a media interview. Just like the witness in court, they want to be helpful. They don’t want to seem like they are dodging questions. They don’t want to seem like they don’t know what they are talking about.
What they perhaps don’t understand, though, is these three things:
1) If they say something should be fine, people hear that it will be fine. Media may clip just a short piece of a longer, more detailed interview but there is no room for nuance in a 30-second sound bite. Instant perception is everything. Confirmation bias and heuristics tell us that we hear what we want to hear to confirm our pre-existing views and to reduce our anxiety. So, failing to be bang-on accurate and crystal clear can actually lead to misinformation and misinterpretation.
2) To be a morally responsible person, one must be accountable for one’s own actions. It’s easy to lose sight of this when making a comment in the media because there is no real accountability if a comment turns out to be wrong. That runs counter to the ethos of their respective professions.
3) They have a choice between sending a message they are comfortable with or being a part of someone else’s narrative. Do they have their own message that they are comfortable with and will ground them if the interview wades into unfamiliar territory, or are they along for the ride of whomever is asking them questions?
So, if a physician goes on national television and answers a question by saying kids don’t really get COVID-19, or that the pandemic should be over in the coming months, many people will interpret these statements as “kids can’t get COVID” and “the pandemic is over”. In reality, the appropriate response to those and many other media questions may be “I don’t know”. It could be phrased more elegantly but the refusal to make a best guess should stand nonetheless.
Experts should ask themselves before answering if they would be comfortable being held accountable for the consequences of their statements. If people made decisions based on the comments they heard from experts in the media, is the expert morally responsible? Would they be willing to defend their answer in front of the peers or regulatory body?
The expert should also consider the trust that people place in them, particularly in the midst of a pandemic. Experts should know that trust in them stems from their deep knowledge, consistent discipline in staying within their areas of expertise, and the accountability that is often a hallmark of self-regulation. Best guesses are problematic, especially if a variety of professionals do it, because it could leave viewers confused and dismissive if the guesses are contradictory.
They should work hard to practice what they want to say and the message they want to convey using a simple exercise of not using the words should, could, might, may or maybe. It’s much tougher than it sounds but really helpful.
A best guess may make for a smoother media interview, but it could have a long-term impact of eroding trust in important professions and their advice. It might be that simply saying “I don’t know” is the best and most truthful answer. They’re not in the court of law, but rather the court of public opinion - and it can often judge someone much more harshly.
Media training and preparation isn’t just about practicing in front of a mirror or having a good anecdote. It’s about going through the discovery process to figure out what you really want to say, why you want to say it, and the best way to say it. It’s about truly understanding and empathizing with an audience, and how they might feel about you and your message, and practicing in a meaningful way.
If you are an expert, professional or just do a lot of media, connect with me today about doing some meaningful media training that will help you feel comfortable and deliver complex information in easy-to-understand messages.