Is Thomas Markle the ultimate “leaker”?

The media furore over the Good Morning Britain interview on Monday with Thomas Markle has taken many turns. For me, having had to deal with unsanctioned/ inappropriate interviews more times than I can count, I’m more interested in what this tells us about why people choose to speak with the media. And how it can backfire. 

In corporate PR, there’s a natural ongoing concern about individuals within the business who may provide the media with confidential or inappropriate details about a firm and its inner workings. Usually done confidentially (“leaking”), it’s nonetheless not uncommon for the press team to scroll through the day’s press cuttings and discover this has been done on the record – not dissimilarly to the situation with Mr Markle. 

Broadly speaking, the assumption about these individuals, especially those who do it secretly, is that they have an axe to grind – against the firm or its leadership. However, I’ve long been of the opinion that this is not in fact true. 

Before I explain, let me clarify what I mean when I refer to a leaker, or unsanctioned spokesperson. I’m not talking about a whistle-blower, who usually believes it is his/her responsibility to shine a light on specific activities, often nefarious, with legal implications, within an organisation. 

I’m referring to the more prosaic day-to-day leaking – people who tell reporters someone was fired, who offer access to detailed financial records, who pre-empt major announcements or basically provide all kinds of relatively minor details to the world. 

In my experience, while anger can play a role, these individuals usually speak to reporters for one or both of two reasons: 1, they want to help (the company, their boss/team or even the journalist) and 2, they want to feel important and/or make their voice heard, even if they receive no public recognition for that. They take the somewhat arrogant approach that they are the only ones who are able to provide relevant, useful or important information. 

The problem for these people is that they often go into it without being able to see the full picture and without a real understanding not only of how media works, but of how their words and actions will be perceived. Mr Markle’s somewhat plaintive statement that he wanted to show he was “normal” and he hoped that he hadn’t offended the royal family, shows his desire to set the record straight and to be credited as a “nice guy” just trying to be a good father. 

Of course, like so many people who are unprepared for media engagement, he got himself into trouble. From his somewhat odd suggestion that his only stipulation to agreeing to the wedding is that Harry doesn’t hit Meghan, to being drawn into vague, out-of-context comments on Harry’s possible political views, there’s no doubt that rather than drawing a line under the whole “I missed the wedding because I embarrassed my daughter with fake paparazzi shots” thing, he’s inflamed the situation significantly. 

I worked with a banker once who was an authorised spokesperson. He worked for a highly specific, niche area of the bank and his spokesperson role was, of course, dedicated to just that activity. His problem was that he didn’t understand how his comments could impact the entire organisation. So when he was quoted in a major newspaper claiming that an entirely different type of business was old-fashioned and irrelevant, he simply didn’t consider the fact that the bank he worked for had a large and active presence in this other market. Needless to say, senior management took it badly and his role at the bank was in serious jeopardy. 

Unfortunately, for corporate teams, there’s not a lot you can do about relatively junior staff speaking with journalists off the record for reasons of their own. A clear media policy, as well as some explanation of why it exists, can help. Media training, even for those who are not regularly talking to the press, can embed this understanding in the firm and can trickle down to others. Ongoing strong internal communications, providing employees with confidence that the senior leadership team are on top of things is important too, as individuals are less likely to believe they are the only ones who can get the truth out. 

No matter what however, I never like to see these situations play out because too often, it’s the person who thinks he/she is helping who gets burnt the most. Including in the case of Mr Markle.