Passerat’s French form below repeats and uses two rhymes to delightful effect.

Villanelle of Ye Young Poet’s First Villanelle to his Ladye and Ye Difficulties Thereof

To sing the charms of Rosabelle,

To pour my soul out at her feet,

I try to write this villanelle.

Now I am caught within her spell,

It seems to me most wondrous sweet

To sing the charms of Rosabelle.

I seek in vain for words to tell

My love — Alas, my muse is weak!

I try to write this villanelle.

Would I had power to compel

The English language incomplete

To sing the charms of Rosabelle.

The ardent thoughts that in me dwell

On paper I would fair repeat

I try to write this villanelle.

My effort fruitless is. O H–l!

I’ll tell her all when next we meet.

To sing the charms of Rosabelle,

I tried to write this villanelle.

Eugene O’Neill (1888-1953) wrote this for Maibelle Scott.

I wrote this article in February 2006.

January’s most read NYTimes.com article relates to a senior US civil servant’s complaint that the government is gagging him. The incident has several parallels in Australia: Clerk of the Senate Harry Evans risked the ire of government to voice strong concerns about abuse of power in the lead up to the Coalition Senate majority. In 2004, Customs took an employee (who was also a union official) to the Federal Court for his ‘disloyal’ comments in the media (he won). In 2001, the civil and military arms of Defence introduced tighter controls over media access to its staff (which were later relaxed). These corporate versus public and personal interest situations raise real questions for spokespeople and the organisations they represent:

1. How far can civil servants and other experts go when their views are at odds with current policy? How much control can policy makers exert?

2. Should spokespeople be free to express their views ‘as a matter of opinion’?

3. How can the government (or corporations, etc.) justify restricting comment? When does masterly communication become masterful?

First, large organisations issue media policies to make sure organisational priorities and processes are communicated appropriately in public. Such policies typically assign authorised spokespeople to particular topics they can talk about, and to what extent. The alternative is to let the media talk to anyone inside an organisation about whatever they want: to a marketing manager about an operational issue, to an operational person about a sales issue, to the receptionist about the CEO’s resignation. Bad idea.

Second, spokespeople must remember that the role is representational. The media are usually interviewing them for their professional knowledge, because they represent an organisation. Usually, opinion takes a back seat to the role and functions of the job and to the communication needs of the organisation. In cases where the spokesperson has an issue of conscience that conflicts with organisational directions, they should deal with it privately if possible, not in public with the media. The worst (and best) case might be resignation. Later, depending on legal and other considerations, the person may be free to talk in more detail (presuming the media are interested).

Third, it is typical in government agencies the world over for civil servants to manage the separation between their professional role and personal political opinions. They leave public comment about government policy to those elected to deal with it. Or stand for election themselves (Remember Andrew Wilkie? He ran, and failed, as a Green for the Prime Minister’s electoral seat of Bennelong).

To balance all this however, we live in a liberal (small ‘l’) democracy with constitutional freedom to communicate matters of political opinion. Organisations have moral responsibilities to their communities and employees. They should not be so draconian as to prevent employees speaking truthfully about matters of public or personal importance.

Back to Hansen. What should he do? If Dr. Hansen feels gagged on issues he feels strongly about, perhaps he should leave to work for an organisation happy to pay him to express his views. The ‘no change’ option will continue to antagonise administrators, setting him up for further collisions with them. He could wait it out, hoping that the government will change its policy on emissions before he somehow loses his job. (As NASA is not an independent body, but part of government administration, my money’s on the administration in the medium term.)

The problem for administrations however, is to protect their reputation for accountability, honesty and effectiveness in the face of intense (and sound bitten) public scrutiny. This is a fine art calling for judgment, subtlety and communication skill—not sophistry.

Incidental trivia: the building housing the Goddard Institute for Space Studies that Hansen runs is the well known building from TV program Seinfeld. Its bottom corner houses the diner where Jerry and co. hung out.

I wrote this article in Dec 2005. In March 2006 the International Association of Business Communicators published it in their global member e-zine of Communication World.

Two days prior to the hanging in Singapore of Australian citizen Nguyen Tuong Van for drug trafficking, Fairfax newspapers ran an opinion piece by Joseph Koh[1], Singapore’s high commissioner in Australia[2]

Regardless of your position concerning the death penalty, the piece is a useful study in rhetoric.

Koh opens with a reasonable qualification, “opinions are not unanimous.” This is a concession to all sides of debate and it prepares the audience to respond reasonably, to receive further information. Koh does not minimize his audience’s feelings. Koh acknowledges and honours his audiences’ perspective and opinion: “Many Australians strongly oppose…I respect these views, which spring from a deep sense of human compassion.” Creating agreement from the outset softens an audience’s skepticism and opens their minds and hearts for what the author is about to say. In doing so, Koh effectively positions himself as a credible commentator.

He then frames his country’s position clearly and positively: “Singapore’s decision not to commute”. He does not write: “Singapore’s rejection of Australia’s request.”

Having presumed implicit permission to present his case, Koh makes a foundational point: “the outcry has made it difficult to separate fact from fiction”. Surely reasonable people want to separate fact from fiction in important matters? He continues to frame his position in positive and reasonable terms. Sensibly, he relies on the rhetorical device meiosis, or understatement—a powerful tool of restraint in explosive situations—and one that adds to content an air of credibility. He does not use overly loaded words like “hysteria”, etc., etc. (Too often communicators resort to hyperbole. Ironically, said device better applies to light and humourous, rather than to serious content.) Koh’s understatement baits readers to read on.

The author’s next step is to use the rhetorical device of amplification (viz. enumeratio) by listing seven so-called fictions. Enumerating helps readers (and writers!) orient themselves within the material. It creates a logical, traceable and elegant pathway of progression toward a conclusion.

The author presents each fiction in a clear, short, simple statement. The statements resonate as being issues currently on the public agenda. He follows them with statements of negation, and believable, reasonable examples. For example, “Fiction 1: ‘Singapore has breached International law.’ There is no international agreement…capital punishment remains part of the criminal justice system in 76 countries, including the US…respect Singapore’s choice…overwhelming majority of Singaporeans support this”. Numbers (which can mean everything and nothing) if used well, are convincing. Notice the appeal to the way things are done in the USA, which many people consider to be the world leader in morals and developed, civilized society. Koh uses positive emotive terms.

“Fiction 2: ‘The death penalty has not deterred drug trafficking.’” Without quoting further statistics, Koh simply states that, “…The death penalty has not eliminated drug trafficking, but it has deterred drug trafficking…in Singapore”. A proposition without a source is not fact, but opinion. However here, who could argue with the author about his own country? Not many of us. Because the author’s prior statements seem reasonable and rational, many readers would continue to take Koh at his word.

And so the article continues, making relevant, strong points, finishing with, “Fiction 7: ‘Singapore has treated Australia with contempt.’ Singapore highly values good relations with Australia and its people”. This is a reminder of and an appeal to ongoing friendship. It says, “Let’s continue to be civilized.” Some readers may perceive this tactic as heavy-handed, but using a mild form of flattery is often an effective way to preface the need to make a choice.

Look closely at the concluding paragraph: “Some Australians will not agree with everything I have written.” A statement of truth. When a communicator states an understood truth, and especially one that so clearly appears to offer respect and understanding, it resounds and increases believability and likeability in the audience.

“But I hope they will accept that the Singaporean Government has a responsibility to protect the many lives that would otherwise be blighted and destroyed by drug syndicates….” Koh uses more positive words: “responsibility”, “protect”. These are confident, paternal words with affective overtones.

“…We are all touched by the pain and anguish of Nguyen’s mother, but if we waiver in our firm position against drug trafficking, many more families will be shattered.”

The author ends on a strong note of empathy, in effect saying, “We are doing what is best for many people, even though it is a difficult undertaking.” Some readers could finish reading feeling thankful and (incredibly) almost sorry for the Singaporean Government.

Some commentators would argue that Koh’s piece employs faulty logic, others would argue about statistics. In stating Singapore’s position, Koh in some ways retains the initiative and a communication advantage.

Interestingly, Koh does not address the issue of hanging as a means of execution. It is certainly a grisly way to die. If you are in any doubt, read Geoffrey Robertson’s The Justice Game, which outlines some facts in this area. Perhaps Koh felt that hanging versus lethal injection, firing squad, electric chair etc., was a moot point. Indeed, is there a nice way to die?

Then again, maybe Koh knows that to promote hanging—at least in Australia—is an un-winnable argument. In which case, finding seven other fictions to debunk was not a wasted effort.

1. Too many quotes on media releases sound stilted. As the fiction writers say, “If it sounds like writing, re-write it.” The way to tell if what you have written is over-formal, is to read it aloud.

2. Don’t unwittingly discriminate against broadcast media. Television and radio are not the press. The press are the print media. Be inclusive: call your releases media or news releases rather than press releases.

3. Don’t ask your PR agency to help you ‘control the media’. You can’t control the media, just as you can’t stop the tide with a cricket bat. You can control your messages and how you deliver them.

4. Don’t ask for a list of journalist’s questions. An effective PR person will find out the interview’s evolution, context and likely scope. He or she will anticipate the likely questions you will be asked, and help you prepare cogent responses.

5. Write down the points you want to cover in the interview, and mark them off as you address them in the interview. It’s the journalist’s job to ask the questions, but how you answer them is up to you. If you don’t get your message across, you have to ask yourself, “Why not?”

6. Before the interview, practice answering likely questions. Make sure your responses and messages are reasonable; i.e. level-headed, sensible, pragmatic. Fine tune your choice of words to express your points.

7. In mainstream media, avoid using jargon and cliché. Simplify your language to make it understandable. As the wit said, “This is not dumbing down, but smartening up.” If there’s a shorter word to convey your message, use it, rather than an overblown or technical term. Cull filler and qualifying words. Common examples include: well, er, um, I think, frankly, honestly, at the end of the day, the bottom line is, and whatever.

#

Marketing Magazine (Australia) published a version of this article I wrote in September 2005.

Glass, china, and reputation are easily cracked, and never well mended.
Benjamin Franklin

In the right combination, wind, heat and water can generate a cyclone. Likewise, information, intimation and public perception can generate a media storm. Anyone who has been in the eye of a media storm will agree that the old saw, “any publicity is good publicity,” no longer applies. Not even in Hollywood.

How long the storm lasts, and how much damage it does to your organisation, depends on the fuel in the issue, and increasingly, on your organisation’s readiness and response to today’s communication dynamics.

In a world where word-pairs like political bribery, government lies, corporate greed, military abuse, and church scandal go together as easily as beer and pizza—how should organisational spokespeople respond, to protect their brands and reputations?

1. Public distrust is high

You may have heard of the cynical journalist who claimed to know how to tell when politicians were lying. The giveaway: “Their lips are moving.”

It is not hard to understand why journalists rank among society’s most cynical. As a former News Ltd boss wrote[1], “The people who gather the news must extract it from people who are determined either to suppress it or to misrepresent it, they must deal with legions of axe-grinders and not a few pathological liars.”

Sadly, some organisations and their spokespeople have only themselves to blame in the face of media and public distrust. Because of their socially, environmentally and economically poor behaviour, they suffer a lack of standing today. What is worse; the excess, deception and corruption of a few batters public trust for the many.

In our vigorous democracy, no organisation is exempt from public scrutiny. Politicians, bureaucrats and big business are fair game. Even charitable and religious institutions are suspect.

In all this, the media is eager and able to provide public scrutiny: this is part of their role. And some people even take their allegations and complaints straight to the media, rather than to the organisation concerned.

Implications:
The best defence is an impeccable record! The proverb is true: without wood, the fire goes out.

It only takes a hint of impropriety—one potentially credible accusation—to publicly tarnish your reputation. Unfortunately, even if your organisation is eventually cleared of misconduct, the scent of scandal tends to linger.

Organisations should not presume too much public trust. Expect the public to be at least wary of your claims. The onus is not on the public to believe you because of who you are—the onus is on your organisation to prove itself in public. To do this, avoid wild hyperbole and back up your assertions with reliably sourced and factual data.

As a measured corporate PR manager recently said, “We don’t expect the public to start loving us, but hopefully, they’ll start hating us a little less.”

2. Media ubiquity

The combined accessibility of radio, television, newspapers and the Internet makes news nearly ubiquitous. We can see, hear or read the news from the moment we wake; during our travel to work, in the office, while we exercise, in the park, on a plane, until the moment we sleep at night.

Such pervasive media set the agenda for much of what is talked about. It creates a desperate ongoing need for content in the form of news, background and information.

Implications:
The media demand for news can work for and against your organisation’s legitimate communication objectives. Well prepared organisations package and time news to piggyback on topical issues. They prepare and provide information to fill pre-determined feature and supplement schedules. They plan and disseminate their own ‘news’ in the form of business announcements, program and product launches, etc.

3. Editorial believability

Even with declining media credibility and believability, people still perceive what is presented in the news as fact. The media will admit—if pressed—that news is the facts available at the time. (Sometimes even the facts before the time, as when a prominent news and current affairs magazine recently declared Prince Rainier of Monaco’s death a week before it happened.)

Through the media, captains of industry, sportsmen and women, entertainers and politicians, become household names. Most of us will never meet and personally get to know these people in the public eye. We form our view of them, by what the media tells us.

Implications:
You and your organisation may view what is being published and suggested about you as specious, but unless you respond quickly and effectively, no one else will. If you effectively present your position to the media, you may be able to use the media’s own persuasiveness to your advantage.

People under close media scrutiny must understand media power to form opinion and reputation beyond the realm of limited personal and business associations. The whole world could be watching you.

4. Media speed

Technology enables media speed, and intense competition drives it. Consequently, nowhere is the word deadline felt with more frequent and real impact, than in the media[2]. Reporters work to absurdly tight timeframes to meet instant, rolling demand for news coverage. Late night sports writers may have less than an hour to write and file 1200 words for tomorrow’s paper. And as Robin Cohn pointed out in her PR Crisis Bible, “Reporters can be on a company’s front steps before the CEO knows there’s a problem”.

Implications:
One PR industry veteran said that a large part of issues management is simply predicting the predictable. Anticipating troubling scenarios will help an organisation respond more quickly and effectively. In the lead-up to the year 2000, most large technology companies, including Microsoft and IBM for example, developed clear communication strategies to address the range of year-2000-bug contingencies.

Organisations should not always wait for all the facts to come in before releasing a comment through the media. In a rising media confrontation[3], acknowledging your organisation’s awareness of a potential situation in a statement highlighting important background, current priorities and action, may alleviate community concern and media criticism.

Sometimes your organisation is unwilling or unable to comment before a media deadline. This can play for and against you. Unless you are under media attack, having no comment on an industry issue will minimise your organisation’s appearance in resulting coverage. No problem if the issue is not one you want to stand on. If you are under attack, it is usually better not to look like you are trying to duck from attention.

5. Media outlets are often under-staffed

Smaller media outlets in particular, including multitudes of specialist, trade and local media, are short-staffed. Consequently, they lack in-depth reporting ability. Although serious journalists believe resource pressures hurt news quality[4], what can be done? Competition, deadlines, and financial pressure are not going away.

Implications:
Desperate for content, and on deadline, journalists don’t have time to plumb every issue. Unfortunately, they sometimes get details—or whole stories—wrong. You may want to write a letter of complaint or clarification, but often it is not worth it: a typo in your CEO’s name may not be funny but neither is it overly serious; the prominence of the correction won’t match the prominence of the original story; the original audience is unlikely to notice the follow-on correction; an you will annoy reporters and editors. Let the error’s significance and ease of correction guide you.

To minimise the risk of misunderstanding, always make your information understandable and usable on the level at which the journalist is reporting. Even a small mistake in grammar, can lead to a big misperception of meaning.

6. Interpretation of what is news

Journalists are ethically obligated to be fair[5], but remember: journalists do not primarily serve you or your organisation. Their first duties are to their immediate superiors and their audience: not to your organisation. They see themselves as public watchdogs, and rightly, they value their independence. Successful journalists often display curiosity, suspicion, even outrage.

As a newspaper editor recently advised his staff:

An objective of a reporter is to find controversy, not avoid it …Those who believe that insipid, boring reports are the future of journalism need to find a job elsewhere. You are not wanted here. And steps will be taken to ensure you do not stay.[6]

Implications:
Beyond certain major events—disasters, government elections, celebrities misbehaving—the media define and control what is news. News at some levels is subjective and usually relative: a matter of reporters’ and editors’ judgments. What is news today, may not be news tomorrow, or on any other day. Your organisation’s activities and announcements may be interesting to you and particular audiences, but not necessarily to reporters, editors and producers. There may be bigger, better stories that day. In the end, media audiences and owners are the judges.

Conclusion

Environmental factors and dynamics may be outside your control, but often you can influence media opinion and content with clear and quick information.

Effective responses can strongly and positively influence the public’s perception of your organisation and its spokespeople, minimising damaging negative coverage, and protecting your hard-won reputation.

Getting your organisation’s communication right can be painstaking, but it will be worthwhile.

#

Proverbs 25:11

Look who’s talking

Every organisation has the right, and often the need, to put its stories to the public. Whether CEO or line manager; the spokesperson is the human face of an organisation when it addresses the public through the media. How well a spokesperson ‘performs,’ can profoundly affect the future well being of an enterprise. Numerous studies back this up, finding affects on image, reputation, share-price and sales.

Novice spokespeople may think media relations is drinking beer with reporters. They hope to impress, spouting bunkum and jargon. They are vulnerable to flummery and other ambushes. They risk inaccurate and inappropriate commentary; embarrassment to themselves and their organisation.

At the opposite yet equally common extreme are amateurs, who for fear and lack of knowledge abdicate their organisation’s rightful influence on the news agenda. Too afraid to speak directly and clearly, they pile reservation on qualification, crippling meaning and killing interest.

In contrast to these amateur extremes, the proficient spokesperson applies skill to efficiently meet the media and public need for information, without compromising proper sensitivities. Such skills are neither natural, nor intuitive, nor easily gleaned.

This is not to say that media slickness is a foundation for media success. It is not. But neither is naïve sincerity.

Underlying the skills outlined in this article must be a commitment to honesty. To accountability that organisations are quick to claim, but sometimes slow to deliver.

Effective spokespeople say what they mean—no more and no less—and are understood as they intended. Every aspect of their communication delivery harmonises with their message content, and with over-riding purpose.

Whose line is it anyway?

Aware of the stakes, organisations generally select their spokespeople with care. Larger organisations authorise a media policy to control who speaks in which circumstances. Staff not adhering to the policy can face strict discipline, including dismissal.

The role of spokesperson is not usually a full-time role: most spokespeople have other line responsibilities. The CEO, chairman or equivalent should always be willing to speak in situations demanding the leader’s perspective. For matters relating to lines of business, other spokespeople can perform the role.

Although reputation management and media handling are vital executive responsibilities, around the world and in Australia, the leading business schools do not strongly focus on media handling skills. There is no formal career path or industry accreditation for a media spokesperson.

The skills are by and large not book-learned. Some have the guidance of past-masters—receiving knowledge via a post-modern, urban, verbal tradition. The rest of us learn by hands-on, and occasionally, by painful but effective, foot-in-mouth experience.

To grow and refine their skills, and avoid pitfalls, spokespeople can also undertake periodic media skills training. A number of commercially available programs are available to service the growing need.

Some still ask, “Why do executives need media skills training? Shouldn’t they just answer the journalist’s questions?” The answer is that even if spokespeople only had to answer journalists’ questions, most people would still benefit from further training. Reasons include:

· Journalists don’t write what people mean, but what they say. Journalists often have to be code-breakers to decipher what is being said. If it wasn’t for the corporate and personal carnage, this would be humorous.

· Often the interviewee has something pertinent to say, but the journalist doesn’t ask the ‘right’ question.

· Occasionally a journalist has a predisposition of bias against you and your organisation. What, if anything, can you do?

· The best mode of response—e.g. written, verbal, in-person—is not obvious to the uninitiated.

· The need to interview in the right location and format. Where and how should we do the interview? On the phone? In the boardroom? At the coal-face (wherever that is)?

· Appearance and expression issues. What should spokespeople wear?

And back to the journalist’s questions: often, they touch commercially, legally, or organisationally sensitive issues. Journalists may not be aware of or even care about these sensitivities, but spokespeople can get in trouble for saying certain things to media, at the wrong time.

Where do you get it?

Media training, coaching, or skills handling is not a new thing. Publicists and ex-journalists have serviced this need for years. According to the Public Relations Society of America, “…media training isn’t just about teaching execs and spokespeople how to look and sound good on-camera…it’s about disciplining them to speak the right words to keep themselves and their companies out of trouble.”[1]

Training imparts and refines necessary communication and organisational skills, and helps organisations assess the effectiveness of potential spokespeople before unleashing them into ‘live’ situations.

In my view, the best training comes in three layers.

The first skill is communication. Any professed expert surely knows the rules of grammar, rhetoric, presentation, and when to break them. Ex-journalists and publicists often step in at this level.

The second layer of skills are in consulting; ideally gained from broad exposure to organisational situations and issues, industries and media. The danger with industry specialists is myopia. The coach who understands not just some media, but wider audiences, commercial imperatives, and competitive pressures can also consult in the real world.

The third layer is coaching. Coaches aim for personal transformation and engage trainees on several levels, including intellectual and visceral, motivational and relational. Contrary to popular thinking, coaches can lead and advise. Why wait around trying to work out something for yourself, when an expert can show you how?

Seven skills

1. Align with your organisation

Every spokesperson should align with the image and brand of the organisation they represent. They should know and project their organisation’s objectives, strategies and values—in word and appearance.

As well as responding to specific issues, the best spokespeople can readily and concisely[2] answer questions like:

1. What does your organisation do?

2. What is your role in the organisation?

3. What positive contribution is your organisation making to the world?

This is harder than it looks. Unfortunately, some spokespeople have mastered the ability to speak intelligibly only inside their industry segment. They are so immersed that they often have trouble making it plain to outsiders—including generalist journalists.

2. Ability to think clearly under pressure

Under the media glare is a pressurised, unforgiving environment. It is not for everyone. The effective spokesperson can think, write and speak informatively and persuasively in intense circumstances. Depending on the issue, they do it with poise.

A media trainer I respect said, “A media interview is no place for original thought.” He didn’t mean that spokespeople should turn off their brains during interview. His point was that, as with many things, preparation is the most professional behaviour, and usually leads to success. Anticipating a journalist’s likely questions and your answers before an interview reduces the need to come up with answers on the spot. The result will be more accurate, more meaningful and better expressed information.

3. Responsiveness to media constraints

Skilled practitioners appreciate journalists’ needs, including what information is needed, in what form, and by what deadline.

Media success, especially in a crisis, hinges on speed. Make yourself available to interviewers. Give them your desk or mobile phone number and email address. You won’t take every call as it arrives, but what good is a spokesperson who can’t be contacted? In interview, get your points across in the time allotted, whether it’s 10 seconds or 30 minutes.

A related key to success is developing healthy professional relationships—not necessarily friendships—with journalists.

4. Master, not slave, of words

Some think they are a master of words because they can open their mouth and let it flow. If they interact with media at all often, they will soon be in trouble. Finding and using the right words is an art requiring focus and practice. Success requires as much buttoning, as opening of the lips.

Use your words to provide clear, lively and usable quotes (called grabs, or sound bites by electronic media). A professional can express complex ideas simply, without loss of truth or meaning. This is not dumbing down, but smartening up communication.

5. Appreciate news value

Understanding what news is can get you in and out of the news. Journalists are desperate for great spokespeople, and you don’t have to be outrageous to give reporters what they want. In some situations, you can provide information to position your organisation at the beginning, or the end of a story.

Understanding how news is packaged should guide how much information a spokesperson provides and in what form it will be most useful to the media. There is no point talking for 25 minutes, if all a reporter will use is a 10 second grab. Make it easy for journalists to recognise your most important points.

6. Balance promotion with conscience

An aspect of PR the public doesn’t often see is the role of organisational conscience. A balanced spokesperson can also comment on and position an organisation’s weaknesses and mistakes. An ethical and effective spokesperson knows which mistakes can and should be made public—and what should remain in-confidence.

The spokesperson must be the advocate of the organisation. Some people bring out plenty of enthusiastic words—exciting developments, we’re delighted etc.—but forget to make their face and body act along. All it takes is a little practice.

7. Have the pertinent facts

Journalists want to be impartial, not to feel like they are your unpaid marketing assistant. Respect their work by preparing your information and arguments in a reasonable way.

Facts are journalists’ stock-in-trade. Relevant (i.e. not too many) statistics, concrete details, quotes, report sources, names and titles. Ignoring this basic reporting need is one of the quickest ways to get negative publicity.

For relatively little cost, organisations can better manage their public image through effective spokespeople. Although the role is not full-time or formally-trained, it is vital in a pervasive and persuasive media culture. Organisations serious about their reputation must establish and equip the right people, give them the knowledge and skills they need, and plan and create the necessary exposure.

#