The curse of imprecise language: why speaking plainly matters

26 Nov 2012
Tags: , , , ,
Share

A soundbite obsessed political class and the sharing culture of social media have increased public suspicions that news is simply a manufactured PR process.

Those who think the mainstream media is becoming increasingly devoid of spontaneity or genuine engagement only have to point to Ed Miliband’s ‘These Strikes Are Wrong’ interview as evidence that our news culture has mutated into a platform where people deliver one way PR

Ed Miliband drew scorn for repeating the same message in a BBC interview

messages and ignore difficult questions.

Throw in a few high profile media scandals and satirical TV shows such as The Thick of It and 2012 and everyone could be forgiven for thinking that there is no genuine authenticity to be found in our news media.

As media trainers, we are often challenged by people who think we spend our days teaching people how to be slick (at best), or worse to lie and dodge difficult questions. For me, this recently came to a head when I sat next to a moral philosopher at a wedding who asked me how I felt teaching people to lie, obfuscate and avoid engaging on the substance of an issue.

Most media trainers I know would laugh at the idea that this is what we spend our days doing. If anything, we spend our time trying to get clients to be more concrete and colloquial about their work and why it matters.  When we start working with new clients they usually hit us with a barrage of technical language (jargon), abstractions and assertions, most of which we have to spend the session unpicking and making meaningful and trustworthy for a non-expert audience (i.e. most of the rest of the world).

Moans about the corrosive effect of imprecise language are nothing new.  In his seminal essay, Politics and the English Language, George Orwell complained that:

George Orwell was a staunch critic of imprecise language

‘Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.’

Arguably, Orwell was writing at at a time when more was at stake politically than it is now. But his words have lost none of their appeal for those of us who care about the function and importance of clear communication in modern society.

As I write, Gus O’Donnell, formerly Britain’s most senior civil servant, has just commented that Mark Carney, the newly appointed Bank of England Governor, will make an excellent chief because he is an unusual economist who ‘can speak in plain English’. Carney’s job will be hard enough without having to explain the Bank’s message to the wider public. He – and we – will be fortunate if he  manages to do both in a way that are clear, credible and comprehensible to all.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Bahrain: an example of clear communication during a crisis

21 Apr 2012
Tags: , , , , ,
Share

The controversy over the Bahrain Grand Prix is a textbook lesson in how picking and training the right media spokespeople can have a huge influence over the way difficult issues are covered by the press and filtered into the public domain.

The F1's decision to go ahead with the Grand Prix in Bahrain is still contraversial

John Humphrys’ BBC Today Programme interview (this morning) with Fahad al-Binali, the Bahraini Information Authority Affairs spokesman provides some useful lessons for organisations that find themselves the subject of hostile media challenges.

What this interview tells us:

1. The Bahraini Government realises saying nothing is not an option.  This may sound like a no brainer but the act of putting spokespeople up to be grilled live on tough Western news programmes such as Newsnight and Today is a signal that the Bahraini government wants to be seen as being open and transparent.  Before you even get to working out what to say, the first decision that organisations need to take when in a tight spot is deciding who will talk, particularly as the Bahrain Grand Prix has been generating a huge amount of chat on Twitter.  In other words, in an age where saying nothing is not an option, going live with tough media inquisitors sends the signal that you understand why it’s important to be part of a process of engagement.

2. Strong messaging should form the basis of all interviews.
Despite how it may have sounded, this was not a reactive interview. Mr Fahad and his advisors had clearly spent some time working out what messages would leave a lasting impact on the audience and portray themselves as reasonable, moderate and open.  Two key messages were Bahrain is undergoing a process of human rights reform, and that there is a big difference between ‘violent assault’ and legitimate freedom of expression. But messages on their own aren’t enough. Mr Fahad had built his case using good ‘sizzle’ such as ‘sweeping institutional reforms’ ‘we have opened ourselves up to scrutiny’ and ‘positive action’ to make sure he got quoted in a favourable way. And lo and behold, the ‘positive action’ quote is the bit that got picked up by the BBC. Similarly, using numbers such as ‘100 cases of mistreatment’ and ’50 police’ added authority to Mr Fahad’s statements because they suggest he – or someone in his office – had bothered to find out details. Numbers are hugely important in media – they make things concrete: otherwise you are merely making wild assertions.

Fahad al-Binali, the Bahraini Information Authority Affairs spokesman

Fahad al-Binali, the Bahraini Information Authority Affairs spokesman

3. Showing that you are across the wider discussion makes you appear to be listening.  During his interview Mr Fahad made several references to how the Grand Prix controversy was being discussed on other media outlets. He referred to an Al Jazeera interview with David Frost and the leader of the Bahraini Opposition on 10 March and also to other reports on the BBC in which the journalist had mentioned that protestors were throwing molotov cocktails at police. Some people may view this as slick and controlling – a way to pre-empt criticism which, of course it is. But this is a legitimate tactic in media interviews and Mr Fahad was also discussing the criticisms not just batting them away. This is an important exercise, particularly in a  situation where his government (like many others in the Arab world) has been accused of not listening.

4. You can embrace your critics while maintaining your line.  Mr Fahad was unfailingly polite, came across as thoughtful rather than too polished and stood his ground while seeming open to discussing criticism. He used phrases such as ‘We do respect Amnesty International and human rights advocacy’, and attempted to pre-empt criticism with statements such as ‘Even the most liberal Western democracy would draw the line’ (at violent assault on policemen and molotov cocktails). At the same time he came across as tough by rejecting certain criticisms through the use of bold statements such as ‘an unfair assessment’ and ‘unjust allegation’.

These are just some of my observations. Mr Fahad was clearly helped in this scenario because John Humphrys was not at the top of his game – his questions were too general and he didn’t deliver any killer blows. But overall, Mr Fahad showed us that being a good spokesperson is as much about listening, hard work and discipline as it is about natural skill.

2 Comments

The case for narrative: why scientists need to tell a better story

19 Jan 2012
Tags: , , , , ,
Share

A recent article in The Guardian newspaper outlined 9 ways in which scientists demonstrate  they don’t understand journalism. Judging from the number of re-tweets it received – 581 at my last count  – it struck a chord with many readers.

Scientists and journalists are often at loggerheads because their respective professions emphasise completely different skill sets. Scientists stress the importance of facts by amassing large amounts of evidence with which to support (or not) theories via painstaking experiment and replication. This is an anathema to the journalist who prefers the big picture, generalisations, snappy quotes, one or two facts, anecdotes and emotion.

As media trainers we  know that scientists care if their work is misunderstood by journalists (and the wider public) because we often come across talented people who claim all their problems would be solved if the public only understood ‘the facts’.   But the longevity of scare stories such as MMR and GM, combined with a massive drop in the number of European students choosing to study science, suggest that there is clearly something wrong with this approach in its current form.

We work with many different types of scientist  and the constant challenge is that ‘scientific fact’ is almost always communicated in a form that fails to connect with non-specialist audiences. Findings are often presented in chronological data sets which are often divorced from context or wider social impact.  Furthermore, results are often not clear cut, making them unpalatable to a hype-obsessed media and a scientifically illiterate public in possession of some contradictory views about what it means to accept ‘risk’ in their daily lives.

A group of African Americans with high blood pressure were able to control their condition better after hearing stories from fellow sufferers

Let’s be clear – of course facts are important for communication because they provide objective evidence and back up to any argument.  But there is a growing body of literature (think Chip and Dan Heath, Daniel Pink or Peter Guber) which suggests that storytelling is a powerful tool not only for making core messages memorable but also for persuading people to do things that scientific data alone can’t.  And by storytelling, I really do mean a narrative sequence of events with a clear beginning, middle and end.

A recent study monitored a group of African-Americans with high blood pressure who, as part of their treatment, listened to or watched stories of others with similar problems. After hearing how the characters in the stories were able to control their blood pressure through simple methods like being careful about their diet and taking exercise, they were able to control their illness as effectively as another group taking extra drugs for the condition.

Obviously this is just one case where a story may have been instrumental in changing the way patients responded to ‘treatment’ and changed their behaviour. But there are countless other ways – such as communicating the progress of trials or dispelling scares – where storytelling could be the scientist’s most powerful tool for persuading others of the realities behind an issue.

The world of science is full of incredible tales. But all too often they are buried because they are deemed ‘unscientific’.  Our prescription for better communication of science is first recognise that communicating with a general audience requires very different skills to writing an academic paper. Second, nurture and recognise the good communicators in your team or discipline (we find they are often persuaded to communicate less effectively by group pressure), and third, if its really important and you have the funds, hire people like us who can help you find and craft the stories that will make your data convincing.

Science is a human enterprise – and scientists could benefit hugely by remembering this when they need to communicate with the rest of us.

Laura Shields has been working with Robert Matthews, a science journalist, to develop media training workshops that help scientists of any persuasion to communicate powerfully and accurately, while also challenging opposition spin.

4 Comments

The Lessons of Frankenmoth

15 Dec 2011
Tags: , , , ,
Share

At the Media Coach we are increasingly thinking about the challenges of communicating science.

A piece in today’s Daily Mail perfectly illustrates the dilemma some of our clients face. Evidence based science versus emotion and quasi theology.

The headline sums it up:

The report is an apparently ‘balanced’ piece on the pros and cons of the open release of a genetically modified diamondback moth.

The Diamondback Moth

The moth has been developed by the company Oxitec, which has inserted a gene into the male that ensures, when it mates with a female in the wild, that their offspring die almost immediately, causing a sharply decreased population.

Oxitec claim the moth would boost crop yields for anyone growing cabbages, broccoli or cauliflower. The piece quotes a farmer arguing that the GM moth is preferable to a pesticide. If he has to spray a crop he kills all the insects, not just the moths.

The opposition voice comes from GeneWatch. It is not clear whether Dr Helen Wallace of GeneWatch actually used the word ‘Frankenmoth’ although the casual reader would assume she had:

‘Dr Helen Wallace, the director of GeneWatch UK, who has sat on government advisory bodies, said the release of GM ‘Frankenmoths’ is potentially disastrous.’

We suspect Frankenmoth is straight out of the Daily Mail sub-editors lexicon. As in the preceding quote which is unattributed:

‘The idea that man is ‘playing God’ in this way is also controversial.’

Again, this is a textbook anti-GM trope that gets wheeled out by lazy journalists whenever they want to push their readers’ buttons fast.

The attributed GeneWatch quotes go on to raise general alarm about the ecosystem, the interdependence of species and – just in case that did not build enough fear – Dr Wallace raises the spectre of the transmission of new diseases to humans.

But what is this all based on?

Growers of cabbage and other brassicas might benefit from an absence of moths

GeneWatch almost certainly has a good scientific argument behind their concerns but nothing approaching science is mentioned to bolster their case. It is unclear whether they have been selectively edited by the Mail or that they have learnt that when dealing with the media, science is irrelevant. It is emotion and spin that have impact. Whichever is correct, GeneWatch has a huge PR advantage because they know which scare articles will slot easily into people’s existing schema.

What goes for ‘Frankenmoth’ goes for countless other policy debates. But scientists can never be persuaded to use the tools of the spin doctor because that runs counter to everything they have ever learnt as scientists.

Fortunately, help is at hand. But scientists must understand that participating in a meaningful discussion which is accessible to a non-expert audience does not have to come at the expense of science. Programmes like Channel 4′s The Food Hospital which use gimmicks such as ‘The Bloatometer’ to measure the impact of diabetes on people’s waistlines are not to be aspired to. The public are not idiots – they are just not scientifically literate.

Metaphors and analogies are just two of the tools scientists can use to engage people quickly and clearly at an emotional level. They can then back this up with strong, well organised evidence that means something to the audience and helps people understand the scientific arguments. And they mustn’t be patronising about or dismissive of people’s fears.

Mastering these skills is not easy. But neither is it insurmountable.

It is essential that our scientists skill-up and learn to communicate on the same level as lobby groups. Otherwise, they will find themselves – and their profession – increasingly marginalised by a media, which promotes being entertaining over being right. This may be frustrating for scientists at a personal level but, left unchecked, it could be far more damaging for society in the long term.

Laura Shields has been working with Robert Matthews, a science journalist, to develop media training workshops that help scientists of any persuasion to communicate powerfully and accurately, while also challenging opposition spin.

6 Comments

Tales from the Brussels press scrum: what it’s like to be ‘managed’ at EU Summits

25 Oct 2011
Tags: , , ,
Share

A colleague once described doing journalism in Brussels as like ‘going to one never ending conference’. He has my sympathy. Countless doorsteps, controlled photo opportunities of inconsequential handshakes and roundtables – the sheer volume of choreography and limited flow of ‘real news’ is sometimes breathtaking.

EU Leaders’ Summits are the embodiment of this phenomenon. Even in difficult times such as these, when the future of the euro is in question, news management is nonetheless heavily weighted in favour of embattled and image conscious Prime Ministers rather than journalists.

Prime Minister David Cameron & President Nicolas Sarkozy

Prime Minister David Cameron & President Nicolas Sarkozy

The main reason is that these summits are invariably dull and require journalists to understand how to make the most of limited access to politicians. Ahead of last weekend the major sticking points on the euro crisis were between France’s President Sarkozy and Germany’s Angela Merkel. So journalists looking for a quote from one of these two know and understand their PR operations. Hence, seasoned Brussels hacks without an obvious in to Merkel’s camp still know that she always speaks in German and always makes a beeline for the German broadcasters on arrival or departure.

Anyone who wants to get their on-camera soundbite therefore needs to turn up early (sometimes as much as 3 hours), get a good spot next to ZDF or ARD , wait until Merkel appears and press ‘record’ as she delivers a short prepared statement and one or two follow up questions. Never mind that these statements are often torturous policy-heavy utterances which are near impossible to translate (even for Germans) and, even then, make James Joyce read like a Mr Men story. The fact is, journalists need these clips to inject colour into otherwise pictureless stories, especially when so much of the action is taking place off stage or in drab briefing rooms.

Managing The Media

Even more helpful for students of news management is the tactic of political aides to plant a question with a friendly journalist, who they know is ambitious and keen to make their mark. I once had the displeasure of seeing a former colleague (a UK political correspondent, as opposed to one of the Brussels press corps) ask David Cameron ‘What should Europe be doing to spend less of our (the UK’s) money?”. He was clearly injected because he only appeared in the press scrum about 2 minutes before Cameron arrived, and the PM’s press team made no secret of the fact that Cameron would get out of the car and head straight for the side of the press area he was waiting in.

PR tactics such as these help portray politicians as calm in the face of the world’s media and in control of their message even as a thousand video cameras and digital recorders are waved in their faces. From a journalistic perspective it can be a depressing experience but it’s one we accept as part of the deal. For good PR teams they are gold dust when it comes to managing the media.

1 Comment
123