Perhaps the hardest part of a media meet for some is addressing an inquiry they don’t have a clue about the response to. Indeed, writers and journalists frequently rely on you not knowing the appropriate response and have no issue letting you “theorize” on the issue. The difficulty for most of us is that no one needs to be viewed as NOT having the appropriate responses.
Yet, conjecturing can be undeniably more harming than conceding that you don’t have the appropriate response. Theory is hazardous and can matka depict you as clueless, obstinate, or only completely uninformed.
Consider it thusly: we will in general be more energetic about the things we have assessment on – things not really upheld with truth – instead of the things we know as truth. It’s simpler to persuade somebody when there is strong truth to back it up, yet without strong reality, we become more enthusiastic in contending our point. While enthusiasm in your message is something worth being thankful for, enthusiastic hypothesis is something totally extraordinary.
On the off chance that you consider briefly what the journalist is after – an interesting point of view, an energetic viewpoint, or data that no other columnist can get – then, at that point you can start to perceive any reason why your theory can give them precisely what they need.
Theory can, and regularly will, be expressed as truth or ascribed to you as the topic master on the subject, or as the representative for your association. Regardless of whether it’s anything but an assessment that you didn’t think would matter, you’ve recently given the columnist the special viewpoint on the issue – an energetic viewpoint – that he was searching for and a point of view that you didn’t expect to pass on to your crowd/customers.
So how would you get around it? The initial step is perceive when you’re being nudged for theory. Your sign there is generally when you can answer “I don’t have the foggiest idea” to the inquiry. Keep in mind, it’s OK to not have a clue about the appropriate response, or possibly it’s smarter to say “I don’t have the foggiest idea” as opposed to theorize.
It’s a straightforward matter of straightforwardness. Like your crowd/customers, you also are just human. You’re not expected to know every one of the appropriate responses. Large numbers of the extraordinary pioneers I have at any point met or perused, realized that realizing that you don’t know is definitely more significant than deduction you know everything! Your crowd will pardon you for conceding that you don’t have the foggiest idea about the response to each address.
Essentially recognize to the columnist that it would be hypothesis to respond to the inquiry and that it’s something you will not do. Then, at that point, extension to one of your key messages.