Prior training best action when lights and cameras are unexpected guests in kitchen

Nation's Restaurant News, July 23, 2001 by Mitch Irsfeld

Everyone loves an expose -- everyone, that is, but the exposed. Restaurants in this country now are considered great fodder for that aggressive and intrusive form of journalism, and the more popular the restaurant or pervasive the brand, the better.

Sure ratings boosters seem to be any expose involving one of the three life-sustaining elements: the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. The media are quick to swarm, and perhaps rightly so, when outbreaks and illnesses are reported. But sometimes, when no such news is available, the press goes looking for stories. And as we've seen recently, such "special investigations" can be a big problem for unsuspecting foodservice operators.

I write on that particular topic with mixed feelings. As a member of the press, I still believe in the public's right to know. And I think that when clear public dangers are apparent, the press has a responsibility and a duty to inform quickly and completely. But I question the public service and fairness in some of the more enterprising reports we've seen lately.

Editors and broadcast executives justify journalistic investigations on food-safety practices as warnings to their viewers or readers that conditions may exist at an establishment that could render the food unsafe. They argue that they are doing the public a greater service by being proactive than merely reacting after an outbreak has occurred.

The danger, of course, is that being proactive can border on creating news. A good investigative reporter is trained to uncover things that are hidden from our perception. In restaurants it's often the case that everything behind the door to the kitchen is concealed from the guests, and the allure of what goes on behind closed doors is older than the profession of journalism.

The fourth estate's role as public watchdog, while pure in theory, can be taken to the extreme. Television crews are the most dangerous. Because of the time-based medium, any on-air report will be edited down to the most riveting and provoking footage and analysis. With hidden cameras and interrogation-style reporting that sends unsuspecting employees running for cover, the public usually gets a one-sided story. Operators, feeling blind-sided, react with confusion and typically choose not to comment until they can confer with their attorneys. On camera, of course, such noncooperative behavior makes them look as if they are hiding something.

I don't care how clean the kitchen is. If you march a television news team through it, the result will be warily answered questions, defensiveness or a quickly offered "no comment." Couple those responses with past health department violations, and you have the makings of a ratings-grabbing report.

But when you think about it, such a reaction by the restaurant's staff is pretty much what you'd expect -- and probably what you'd give, too -- if a group of people barged into your kitchen and started demanding answers to questions that you and your employees weren't prepared to answer. That's the biggest problem. Most operators simply are not prepared for that scenario. Therefore, one of the best investments you can make is in media training.

Your best bet is to know what to do when the media show up in your kitchen. You don't have time to get your attorney or your public-relations specialist involved, and typically no follow-up is taken once the report airs.

Restaurants with a relatively clean current inspection report can come off looking pretty bad when a reporter ticks off violations dating back three years and the employee with the microphone thrust in his face is tongue-tied. A reaction with indignant disgust to the invasion, while understandable, also looks bad on camera.

Recently, I watched portions of a series aired by the CBS affiliate here in New York, titled "Eat At Your Own Risk," Nations Restaurant News, July 16, 2001. I'm not sure what made me angrier, the sneaky reporting and one-sided editing or the ill-prepared restaurant operators who gave the entire local industry a black eye.

Training your staff in food safety techniques and the importance of adhering to food safety procedures is just the first line of defense. When the camera is trained on you or your staff, you probably have 10 seconds or less to convince viewers that you are confident in the safety of your restaurant and that you are on top of any problem that is identified.

Everything you say has to track on that theme. That's easily said and amazingly difficult to execute without training, especially since it may contradict the story being developed by the reporter. Your interview may last for five minutes, and if you falter during that period, you can bet that the misstep will be the five-second sound bite that is aired throughout your market.