What are the steps to take before deciding to cover a topic?
First, it is essential to consider the media outlet for which I work. This is fundamental because some topics that interest me may not be addressed by my media outlet. Then, in my opinion, it is necessary to determine if the topic makes sense and if it goes beyond the strict framework of its domain. Let's take the example of a sports event: is it simply a sports event, or does it go beyond that? Could it have an impact and interest people who don't like sports? Can I talk about economics, politics, equality, sexism, or racism through it? There are also raw news events: when an incident occurs, we must report on it. An important element in deciding whether to cover a piece of information or not is also to reflect on what it reveals about the current world, the changes, and the questions that the information raises. For me, this is a key element, perhaps even the most important.
To what extent do editorial teams influence the news-making process?
It all depends on the origin of the topic. If it is the editor-in-chief who had the idea, then he will be quite directive. He will address the journalist by indicating an interesting angle, perhaps based on something he has already seen or on a relevant idea. In this case, the journalist follows the indicated path. However, if it is an original idea from the journalist, it is a whole different story. The journalist is in charge; he decides on the angle and what he wants to talk about. Generally, there is a dialogue between the editorial team, the media outlet, and the journalist to determine whether to focus on one aspect or another. It is this exchange that takes place throughout the day that allows the subject to be built gradually.
What are the specificities or constraints of each type of media that can influence the choice of topics?
In radio, it is obviously difficult to cover topics without sound. This may seem trivial, but in the print media, I can address all topics, even if I have people who wish to speak "off the record," I mention it in my article. In radio, it has often happened to me to have topics where many people spoke "off the record," while I was supposed to conduct a 2 to 3-minute investigation. If I have no sound testimonies and only my voice is heard, it becomes complicated. On television, if we don't have images, preferably good ones, the topic will be less impactful. People need to be willing to speak in front of a camera. However, in print or online media, this constraint is somewhat less essential, although it is still important to have people willing to speak and give their names. There is some flexibility in these media.
To what extent does current affairs play a predominant role in the selection of your topics?
It will depend on the media's editorial line. I worked notably at Europe 1 in radio. At one point, in the years 2014-2015, there was this logic for the radio morning show. The Director of Information of Europe 1, Fabien Namias, said that the morning radio show was like the Rungis market, where only fresh products are found. So, if the day before you had prepared 50 topics and a major event occurs at 3 o'clock in the morning, the 50 topics go in the trash. You call your journalists one by one, you wake them up at 3:00 in the morning, and you tell them: "This happened, let's cover it." The news takes precedence. For generalist radio morning shows and continuous news channels, it is the information that dictates the rhythm.
It can be quite disruptive, and it happened to me during the Football World Cup in Brazil. I was doing my reports on the French team and sending my topics to the editorial team between 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM. But at 11:00 PM, something huge happens: Brazil just lost 7-1 to Germany. In that case, a topic needs to be done, so everything I did during the day for the next day is canceled, and I start a new day. It's 11:00 PM, and I have 7 to 8 hours of work to redo 23 reports on what just happened.
How do you manage the balance between the public's interest and the need to present important but less popular news?
It's a balance that must be discussed within the media; there are no strict rules. For a long time, at Europe 1, we were concerned about how we could involve our listeners more, how we addressed subjects that concern them, how we tried to vary the topics. There was also a lot of work on the angle. Changing the angle for the same subject is a way to continue talking about it without boring or wearying the audience. And it will also depend on the questions you ask as a source. The consequences can be "solutions journalism," constructive journalism, where we wonder how to talk about an essential current topic without plunging our audience into depression. This is typically the case with climate issues. At CFPJ (Centre for Journalism Training and Development), we have many training courses on this subject. We wonder how to make these topics constructive, how to talk about them without burdening ourselves. Not in a positive way, but in a slightly more uplifting, exciting, or stimulating way.
What role can PR play in selecting topics?
In the selection? None, since we do what we want, of course. However, I think the challenge for public relations is to highlight topics that journalists may not have thought of. It is also about allowing journalists to access places they would not normally have access to. As the head of public relations for a large laboratory, I could open the doors of the laboratory to 34 journalists that I have chosen. For good press relations, you need to think like a journalist. It's about putting yourself in their shoes and asking yourself, "What would I like if I were a journalist to talk about this topic?" It could be the desire to discover behind-the-scenes, to interview certain people... It is about proposing things that go beyond a simple press release. It's about thinking not about the need to talk about a topic but rather about how we can present it to interest journalists. When we have the answer to this question, we can generally implement a good PR strategy.
Interview by Randa El Fekih
First, it is essential to consider the media outlet for which I work. This is fundamental because some topics that interest me may not be addressed by my media outlet. Then, in my opinion, it is necessary to determine if the topic makes sense and if it goes beyond the strict framework of its domain. Let's take the example of a sports event: is it simply a sports event, or does it go beyond that? Could it have an impact and interest people who don't like sports? Can I talk about economics, politics, equality, sexism, or racism through it? There are also raw news events: when an incident occurs, we must report on it. An important element in deciding whether to cover a piece of information or not is also to reflect on what it reveals about the current world, the changes, and the questions that the information raises. For me, this is a key element, perhaps even the most important.
To what extent do editorial teams influence the news-making process?
It all depends on the origin of the topic. If it is the editor-in-chief who had the idea, then he will be quite directive. He will address the journalist by indicating an interesting angle, perhaps based on something he has already seen or on a relevant idea. In this case, the journalist follows the indicated path. However, if it is an original idea from the journalist, it is a whole different story. The journalist is in charge; he decides on the angle and what he wants to talk about. Generally, there is a dialogue between the editorial team, the media outlet, and the journalist to determine whether to focus on one aspect or another. It is this exchange that takes place throughout the day that allows the subject to be built gradually.
What are the specificities or constraints of each type of media that can influence the choice of topics?
In radio, it is obviously difficult to cover topics without sound. This may seem trivial, but in the print media, I can address all topics, even if I have people who wish to speak "off the record," I mention it in my article. In radio, it has often happened to me to have topics where many people spoke "off the record," while I was supposed to conduct a 2 to 3-minute investigation. If I have no sound testimonies and only my voice is heard, it becomes complicated. On television, if we don't have images, preferably good ones, the topic will be less impactful. People need to be willing to speak in front of a camera. However, in print or online media, this constraint is somewhat less essential, although it is still important to have people willing to speak and give their names. There is some flexibility in these media.
To what extent does current affairs play a predominant role in the selection of your topics?
It will depend on the media's editorial line. I worked notably at Europe 1 in radio. At one point, in the years 2014-2015, there was this logic for the radio morning show. The Director of Information of Europe 1, Fabien Namias, said that the morning radio show was like the Rungis market, where only fresh products are found. So, if the day before you had prepared 50 topics and a major event occurs at 3 o'clock in the morning, the 50 topics go in the trash. You call your journalists one by one, you wake them up at 3:00 in the morning, and you tell them: "This happened, let's cover it." The news takes precedence. For generalist radio morning shows and continuous news channels, it is the information that dictates the rhythm.
It can be quite disruptive, and it happened to me during the Football World Cup in Brazil. I was doing my reports on the French team and sending my topics to the editorial team between 7:00 PM and 11:00 PM. But at 11:00 PM, something huge happens: Brazil just lost 7-1 to Germany. In that case, a topic needs to be done, so everything I did during the day for the next day is canceled, and I start a new day. It's 11:00 PM, and I have 7 to 8 hours of work to redo 23 reports on what just happened.
How do you manage the balance between the public's interest and the need to present important but less popular news?
It's a balance that must be discussed within the media; there are no strict rules. For a long time, at Europe 1, we were concerned about how we could involve our listeners more, how we addressed subjects that concern them, how we tried to vary the topics. There was also a lot of work on the angle. Changing the angle for the same subject is a way to continue talking about it without boring or wearying the audience. And it will also depend on the questions you ask as a source. The consequences can be "solutions journalism," constructive journalism, where we wonder how to talk about an essential current topic without plunging our audience into depression. This is typically the case with climate issues. At CFPJ (Centre for Journalism Training and Development), we have many training courses on this subject. We wonder how to make these topics constructive, how to talk about them without burdening ourselves. Not in a positive way, but in a slightly more uplifting, exciting, or stimulating way.
What role can PR play in selecting topics?
In the selection? None, since we do what we want, of course. However, I think the challenge for public relations is to highlight topics that journalists may not have thought of. It is also about allowing journalists to access places they would not normally have access to. As the head of public relations for a large laboratory, I could open the doors of the laboratory to 34 journalists that I have chosen. For good press relations, you need to think like a journalist. It's about putting yourself in their shoes and asking yourself, "What would I like if I were a journalist to talk about this topic?" It could be the desire to discover behind-the-scenes, to interview certain people... It is about proposing things that go beyond a simple press release. It's about thinking not about the need to talk about a topic but rather about how we can present it to interest journalists. When we have the answer to this question, we can generally implement a good PR strategy.
Interview by Randa El Fekih