NOTE: I encourage people to comment on this blog. It’s about dialog. However, this is not an opportunity to espouse political views on health care (or any other topic). Comment on the discourse. Comment on the media. Deliver your insights on misinformation campaigns or marketing ploys. But please leave political diatribes at the door. Thank you.
I make it a point not to discuss politics in this blog. For one thing, it’s a measure of self-preservation — I don’t want to miss out on opportunities to do good work because a client dislikes my politics. For another, I want to stay on-message. The AVC blog relates to communications, media, marketing, PR, language.
But these days, I can’t help but be reminded of the various points where politics and communication collide. Staying on-message has never been so important. And in a time when newspapers are folding and reporters are seeking new careers, never before has good journalism really mattered.
I’m wrapped up in the health care debate. How can you not be to some extent? It’s everywhere. There’s White House messaging, congressional messaging from both sides of the aisle, various news reports, third-party analyses of the arguments. And yet, with all this information, very few of us can grasp what will be in any measure of a bill. We are trying to understand the issue and reach an informed conclusion, but it’s increasingly hard to find civil debate — anywhere. For me, there are just too many messages. And it seems that instead of talking about the issue and really delving into it, pundits and politicians and media figures are talking AT us — telling us the world might end if we do it … or if we don’t. But truly informed, fact-based debates are lacking. (Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough …?)
I recently posted a commentary about health care on my personal Facebook page. I added no commentary of my own. A handful of friends “liked” it or commented. Three friends in particular kept the conversation going. The thread now stands at a hearty 35 comments. Aside from being my most successful FB post (when measured by the activity that follows), the discussion that ensued was controlled. Passionate, but controlled. Participants’ political views ranged from libertarian to near-socialist. But questions were being asked and answered. Ideas were being heard and considered. Experiences were shared. We are nowhere near being able to solve the health care issue in this contrary, but I think there’s something to be said for the nature of the conversation. It has — to some extent — given me faith that such a conversation is possible. If you have the right people in the room.
We all have a stake in what happens — and from where I sit, the first obligation our news media and our leaders have is an obligation to civil, informed discourse. Don’t market to us. Don’t play PR tricks. Don’t fling incendiary catchprases at each other. Don’t mislead us. Persuade us with facts. Yes, actual facts. This is not a light beer you’re selling. It’s a critical change in policy. I crave civil and clear communication about this issue … and other issues, too. And I’m left to wonder if I’ll ever get it.
Today, I’d love to have a conversation with you about the way you view copy. Even without such a conversation, I ask you to consider a question you may or may not have considered before.
As copywriters, we’re taught that words matter. Then, we tell our clients, our bosses and our friends that words matter. Sure, we each have a style, and some of us break more rules than others. But on the aggregate, we’re sticklers for the ways words are used.
However, with more mediums to transmit your content and inherently more content to create, we’ve started to relax our rules a bit. We’re generally OK that you misspell or abbreviate for the sake of Twitter’s 140 characters. And we even — GASP! — do it ourselves from time to time. (Though we claim to have winced when we did it.) And Facebook is an informal medium, so who’s gonna get too judgmental there? Heck, blogs are intended to be casual conversations — who has time to craft and re-craft a blog, right? So, I’ll say for the record that yes, you might catch an error here.
But at what point do we really care? A daily one-page calendar from a resort on its events and activities? A company’s Web site? A short press announcement? What about a brochure? As a reader and writer, I don’t classify myself as a technical stickler, but I do pay attention. And I do notice when an organization’s content is full of typographical or grammatical errors.
Here’s the question I cited earlier: Do you? And at what point does sloppy copy affect your trust in or opinion of that organization?
Whether it’s the success of trashy daytime talk shows where “real” (I have to have my doubts) people expose their every thought or the expanse of news programming where we are privy to the words of so many talking heads, there’s something in the American psyche these days that demands we speak. Talking — a lot — is the only form of true communication, we seem to think. Politicos, marketers, journalists, joe citizens — we all want to get our messages out there. Hence, the rise of blogs and social media.
But this week, I am reminded that sometimes, it can be beneficial to just shut up. Check out this Mark Morford column about Judy Blume’s fundraising letter for Planned Parenthood:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/05/13/notes051309.DTL&nl=fix
Set aside your views of abortion for the moment. The thing to note here is that Planned Parenthood was able to generate free media, good PR — AND raise money for its cause. Why? Because the opposition just had to open its mouth and say something. Of course, they could’ve been more productive in their method, but regardless, many of us might not have ever heard this story if they had just zipped it just this once.
Another example just this week? Roger Clemens. For me, his ESPN interview only served as a reminder that he’s guilty. I can’t help but wonder if he would’ve been better off keeping his mouth shut and just letting the story die? Now, the story — and the polls that show that 90 percent think he’s lying — get more play. If Clemens’ story is one you just can’t get enough of, you might enjoy this column by the San Diego Union-Tribune’s Tim Sullivan:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/13/1s13sullivan223348-clemens-crippled-denials-still-/
And if you’re like most of us and feel the need to communicate with words, leave a comment.
When swine flu was first reported, I thought it would be a one-day story. Then, I started thinking it was something I should be absolutely terrified over. (Thank you, mainstream media.)
But if you spent time listening to the CDC and its messages, they were quite measured. It was the likes of CNN — with its hours of coverage — that invoked fear. (If only we were this educated about influenza during its annual outbreaks.)
The following op-ed piece by Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., illuminates just how well various organizations handled this situation:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30567871/
Caplan suggests that although there were “elements of hype,” the overall reaction to the swine flu outbreak was appropriate. It’s an interesting take on these recent events and points to the importance of developing strong messaging and driving home those messages. Give it a read!