A Television Story, a Self-Selected Poll and a Draft Press Note
At a state university with 12,000 students, a private television channel runs a six-minute story under the headline 'Ghost Faculty: 87% of Students Say Teachers Never Reply'. The figure comes from an online poll the channel ran on its own website for 36 hours; 310 students responded, and respondents were invited through the channel's social media page. The story also interviews four students who describe waiting weeks for replies from two departments. The university's own grievance portal shows that in those two departments the median first response time is nine working days, against a university norm of three. The Vice-Chancellor drafts a press note calling the channel 'habitually anti-education', questioning its funding, and warning that its crew will be barred from campus. The Registrar asks you, as public relations officer, to review the draft before it goes out at 6 p.m.
1. Identify the weaknesses in the channel's 87% claim and in the Vice-Chancellor's draft, using principles of evidence and argument.
Read the worked answer
The 87% figure. The poll has no sampling frame: respondents are self-selected visitors to the channel's website, recruited through the channel's own social media. 310 out of 12,000 is 2.6% of the student body. Even with a genuine random sample of 310, the 95% margin of error would be about ±5.6 percentage points; with self-selection the error is unbounded, because people who answer an online poll about unresponsive teachers are disproportionately those with a complaint. The defensible statement is 'of 310 self-selected respondents, 87% said…', which is not a claim about the university.
The Vice-Chancellor's draft fails on the same ground it attacks.
- Ad hominem and appeal to motive. Attacking the channel's funding answers an argument the channel did not make.
- Empty denial in the face of a verifiable fact. The nine-day median on the grievance portal is real, and the draft does not address it. A denial disproved within a day turns a polling problem into a credibility problem.
- Prior restraint. Threatening to bar the crew from campus is a public authority using access as a sanction. It will be reported as such, may attract press-council criticism, and guarantees a follow-up story.
The useful correction is factual and narrow; the useful concession is specific too.
2. Set out a communication plan for the next 48 hours with specific channels, audiences and messages, and state what the university should concede.
Read the worked answer
Same evening - a one-page factual note on the university website and official handles, sent to the channel's newsroom before any follow-up broadcast: 'The university has not conducted the poll cited. The claim that 87% of our 12,000 students say teachers never reply rests on 310 self-selected respondents. On our own grievance portal, the median first response time in the two departments named is nine working days against a norm of three. We accept that gap.'
Next working day - a remedial commitment with a date. A three-working-day first-response standard with automatic acknowledgement, a named escalation contact in each department, and publication of monthly median response times per department. Announce an audit of student email. This converts a defensive posture into a measurable promise.
Day two - direct channels. Offer an on-record interview with the two department heads and the Dean of Student Welfare; send a written statement to the student council and departmental groups so that students hear it first-hand; send a short letter to the editor of a local daily correcting the 87% figure without attacking the channel.
Do not threaten the channel, question its funding, or rank it against other outlets. Keep a dated record of every release and every query, because the correction will be needed again when the story is recycled.
3. The channel asks for an on-camera interview with the Vice-Chancellor. Advise on whether to accept, the conditions that are proper, and how message discipline should be maintained.
Read the worked answer
Accept, with preparation. Refusing an on-camera interview after a story about unresponsive faculty will be read as evasion, and the channel has a legitimate right to ask.
Proper conditions. A named spokesperson - the Vice-Chancellor for the policy commitment, the department heads if questions turn technical; adequate notice of the subject matter; and a request that the full answer be used rather than a clip, with a recording kept for the university's records. Do not ask to approve the questions or the edit; no newsroom should accept that, and the request would itself become the story.
Message discipline: three points, each under 20 seconds.
- The 87% figure is not a survey of our students; it is 310 self-selected responses.
- Our own data shows a nine-day median in two departments, which is not good enough; here is the three-working-day standard and the date it starts.
- Monthly response times will be published department by department, so progress can be checked.
Bridge back to these when asked about the channel's motives: 'I can't speak to how the poll was run; what I can tell you is what our own numbers show and what we are doing about them.' No speculation about the reporter, no criticism of the channel, no 'no comment'. If a fact is not known, say it will be confirmed in writing the same day, and then confirm it.