What's pathetic is that this became a story about her inability to answer the question, rather than whether the conference was legitimate.

Who knows? Maybe the "struggling" school thought it could improve things by attending.

I will say this as a former reporter: he smelled blood in the water and took advantage of the situation.

As to whether she got what she deserved-- my question is, was she negligent in 1. failing to be transparent 2. failing to be prepared for a TV interview ?

I guess it depends on the size and sophistication of the school district...

the reporter said he set up the interview so it would be interesting to know what kind of training went on prior to the appointment. as someone who works in an educational setting, it can be difficult to get administration to list to us (the p.r. folks) over the legal guys when it comes to answering the tough questions from reporters. legal doesn't understand the importance of transparency and honesty in maintaining image. thanks for the video- gave me a good laugh this morning!

Thanks Emily. He is indeed the "You Paid for it Guy" and he set up an appointment. They saw him coming and still screwed up. They got what they deserved.

Looks like the district should send at least one person to media training. There are some good media training firms right in St. Louis, too.

There's no need to hide anything from the media. As a former reporter turned PIO, they will find out. Just be truthful and transparent. If you are doing the right thing from the get go -- like if the district legitimately was sending folks to the conference for learning and not for a free vacation -- there's no reason to be dodgy about it. Sounds like this district's problems go way beyond media relations.

"A group of teachers are"?

Physician, heal thyself.

I agree with Mike. Think of the children.

As someone from St. Louis, you have to love Elliot! This is a pretty typical response when he goes out on his "You Paid for It" adventures. She probably thought she would be talking about the merit of sending teachers to this conference, but when you see Elliot coming, you know it's not going to be a good interview. I assume she thinks she's doing damage control by not really answering the questions.

In response to someone else's comment, he clearly states at the beginning of the piece that he set up an appointment to speak with her.

Instead of needing to have a stronger media relations department, maybe the failing school shouldn't be sending 16 employees when other local schools are sending no one.

Maybe they should, to quote the Simpsons, "Think of the children!"

This was great investigative work by the reporter and a not so great response from the shcool principal. The facts got out anyway, so it would have been best if she was truthful.

Agreed. This is terrible media relations. If coaching someone using this video, however, it may be necessary to point some things out that may give this some context. Based on what I've seen in the past, there are likely two dynamics at work here - neither of them good. First, interviewees often behave this way when they've become accustomed to favorable treatment, often unfairly favorable, over many years. Then when something like this happens, they can't believe the media "turned" on them. The other factor could be that the lawyers told everyone not to deviate from "the script," and this person could have been willing to look really bad for fear of getting into legal trouble. Another thing here that relates back to the Palin-Turkey story is how did this reporter get such access in an office setting? Clearly this is an ambush and not even a receptionist was used to keep the reporter in the camera-man in the lobby to allow time to prep. That's another indicator that this relationship was likely very cozy in the past - the reporter had a "hall pass."