The two most common myths are:

- Only an expert can adequately answer a reporter's questions about things that fall within that area of expertise; and,

- The media always want to speak to an expert, not a public relations "mouthpiece."

These assumptions are mythic because they distort reality: It may take an expert to identify the laws of gravity, but once Newton figured them out, any reasonably intelligent lay person can learn to describe and explain them adequately to other lay people.

The challenge of communicating through the media is to translate highly complex technical concepts and terminology into everyday language that is comprehensible to the average person.

You will ensure more accurate news coverage by taking it upon yourself to meet this challenge and then to give the fruits of that labour to the media - as opposed to relying on the media to translate technical jargon into lay language. The skills required for this task are the skills of a spokesperson, not those of the technical expert.

The next logical question is: Why can't the experts speak in lay terms? The answer is, they probably can. But so can the media relations person in your public relations department - and it is this fact that puts the lie to the first mythic assumption that only an expert can adequately answer a reporter's questions about things that fall within that area of expertise. In point of fact, almost anyone can learn how to do it.

Now to the second mythic assumption - that the media always want to speak to an expert, not a public relations "mouthpiece."

In reality, reporters will speak with any credible representative of the organization who will give confident, straightforward, informed, accurate and quotable answers to their questions.

Indeed, if you are confident, straightforward, informed, accurate and quotable, then reporters will regard you as credible and, hence, will want to interview you - the number of diplomas hanging on your wall notwithstanding.

Of course, the converse is also true: If you are unsure and illusive because you do not regard yourself as an expert, then the media will not want to interview you. Moreover, such behaviour will reinforce the second mythic assumption by becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy: The PR person acts in a way that repels the media, so the media are repelled.

Assumptions are the premises upon which we make decisions. And if the mythic assumptions about choosing spokespersons are accepted as valid, they will lead organizations to designate, automatically and without deeper critical analysis, a varying array of experts as the prime media contacts whenever the story pertains to their area of expertise.

Consequently, the media relations experts in the organization will be relegated to secondary roles, often pre-empted by organizational policy from exercising their own judgement about who should give a media interview in any given situation.

Such policies may, for example, stipulate that "the media relations contact may only answer 'routine' media questions and must direct all other questions to the appropriate expert"; or that "the media relations contact may only supply reporters with factual information, with any questions related to policy or opinion to be directed to the appropriate expert"; or "the media relations contact may discuss the company's activities, but must refer all questions about financial matters to the Chief Financial Officer"; and so on . . . and so on.

A public relations practitioner bound by such policies is virtually useless, as all too many media calls will degenerate into a doomed exercise of trying to side-step reporters' questions. (Q. What is the company's position on the new federal budget? A. For our view on how it will affect the economy, you'll have to speak with our Chief Financial Officer. If your questions pertain to future employment, I'll have to refer you to the Vice-President Human Resources.)

After such a run-around, it's no wonder that the PR person loses credibility and earns the derisive enmity of the media.

Indeed, whenever executives (even public relations executives) contend that reporters don't want to interview a "flack" and insist, instead, on speaking with someone in "authority," it invariably turns out that the organization has already undermined its own PR department by enforcing restrictive media policies.

Still, what's so wrong with having only experts answer a reporter's questions pertaining to their area of expertise?

The three most important reasons are:

One: With rare exceptions, the Chief Financial Officer, the Vice-President, Operations; the Chief Geologist; the Vice-President, Research and Development, etc., etc. etc., are not going to be as skilled in giving interviews as a professional spokesperson, for the same reason that the professional spokesperson will not be as skilled in geology as the geologist.

And the greater the reliance on a less-skilled spokesperson, the greater the likelihood of being misquoted, of having remarks taken out of context and of losing composure with aggressive reporters.

Two: Even if the experts do demonstrate superior interview skills, they have other responsibilites that will inevitably put a media enquiry at a lower-level priority. You can't give a reporter your full attention when you're trying to rescue trapped miners or prepare a brief for tomorrow's court appearance.

Relying too heavily on the experts to give media interviews will mean that your story may not be told in time or with the attention needed to ensure that it gets fair coverage. And these situations will arise most often during threatening crises when unfavourable media coverage may severely damage or even destroy an organization.

And three: When circumstances, usually crises, do force reliance on the fall-back position of having a PR person present your organization's case to the media, that case will lack credibility with reporters who regard this spokesperson as a lightweight who doesn't even enjoy the confidence of his or her employer.