Back in January, I wrote the first part of this series. I talked about the dangers of being too practiced in interview technique -- ducking and "bridging" away from issues we don't want to discuss.

Too much of this type of slick interviewing -- combined with an overly aggressive focus on sticking to one's "messages" -- guarantees that the subject of an interview will end up sounding like a typical politician. Not only is this a negative, but the interview sounds so practiced that listeners tune out and the opportunity is wasted.

Communicators have a big problem today. We've gotten too damn good at what we do.

This may sound silly, but it's absolutely true -- and a serious threat to our profession. It stems from the triumph of communications technique over the good sense to use it wisely.

Too often we see business executives and politicians interviewed on a particular topic only to duck and weave with all the skill of a bantamweight champion. Techniques we have trained into our clients -- such as the ability to "bridge" out of a tricky question or to stay relentlessly "on message" -- result in communication where very little is actually communicated.

Interview technique has become so overused that eyes glaze over, ears focus elsewhere and the very "messages" we are pounding away are lost. We know this has happened when are business clients are accused of spin and our political clients are said to sound like politicians.