Communication
Company
Presents:
An electronic newsletter on communication
Issue 2
Contact us:
Phone:
613-271-7377
Fax:
613-271-7376
In this issue:
SARS: A new word, an old message
This month's panic
Should the President learn to say "nuclear"?
Politicians tripping over their tongues
Selected gaffes
Communication tip of the month
SARS: A new word, an old message
Epidemic. Outbreak Cover-up. Quarantine. Travel ban. Contagious. Death rate. Public health.
The name is chilling: severe, acute respiratory syndrome. Theyˇre chilling, fear-evoking words, ˇsevereˇ and ˇremote.ˇ I wonder, though, why we need both. Isn't severe enough? Doesnˇt it suggest acute?
Even the acronym sounds ominous. SARS has a harsh sound to it. It just couldnˇt mean anything pleasant. Even if you donˇt know what it stands for, SARS sounds painful.
SARS is this monthˇs panic. The news messages around it are panicky, even two months into the outbreak. ˇThe epidemic is raging in China,"ˇ reported Canwest News Services on April 29. Not exactly even-handed journalism, that line.
In fact, almost all the reporting of the SARS story seems to have been written from a perspective of fear. Newscasts and printed photographs show people in surgical masks, which have become the visual symbol of the SARS issue. Several times a day, we are given statistics on the numbers of new cases reported and new deaths attributed to SARS in Canada, China, Hong Kong and elsewhere.
The communications perspective
Much of the debate and the reporting on SARS has actually been about the communication aspect:
- the letters between Ontario's Health Minister, Tony Clement and the Canadian federal Minister of Health, Anne McLellan
- Sheila Copps, Canada's Heritage Minister, gets chastised for breaking Liberal party ranks to criticize the health minister on her handling of the SARS crisis
- the World Health Organization issues a travel advisory against Toronto, which sends the tourism industry there into a further panic;
- Mayor Mel Lastman gets characteristically apoplectic the travel ban, and Canadian politicians and officials travel to Geneva to get the WHO to change its mind.
The SARS issue has been turned into another media circus in many ways. Yes, concern is genuine, and this is no joke, as was reported in several newspapers in late April. Still, we see the adage played out again: But these cases don't get much attention. It's an illustration of the old newsman's adage, "No news is good news, and good news is no news."
For instance, public health officials have pointed out repeatedly that there is an important difference between suspected cases and actual cases of SARS. The early symptoms of SARS - high fever, headache, sore throat, and possibly loss of appetite, confusion, rash or diarrhea - could also be symptoms of a lot of other diseases, including the common flu. In the high tension and high stakes of the current crisis, though, people are treating all possible cases as guilty until proven not.
It's a wise precaution. Unfortunately, while new suspected cases get wide coverage, false alarms don't get much at all. For instance, there was the story of the two children from Australia who had been quarantined because they visited Vietnam - they hadn't been infected with SARS in the first place. The man who traveled SARS-ridden Toronto to Montreal and possibly infected a conference-room turns out to have been another false alarm. Early on, a suspected case in Ottawa turned out to have been something else, and so far, at least, Ottawa is SARS-free. However, it took some searching through the news sources to find that little factoid.
SARS is also another example of the media bandwagon effect. When the first reports of a new epidemic from Asia surfaced, newsrooms around the world must have been seething with editors telling reports to "get out there and get a story on SARS."
For the most part, it's been conducted well. For the most part, the mainstream media have been careful not to use language that would create more panic, and there have been many reports, at least in Canada, about the possibility of this country having contained SARS. Columnists and commentators have gone out of their way to praise Toronto and how safe it is.
On the other hand, even while we're just calming down about SARS, many media outlets seem to be eager to ratchet the tension back up over West Nile Virus. Again, yes, it's a serious illness that's killed several people in Canada and the U.S., not to mention around the world. Still, it feels somehow unfair when listening to the news that we've just barely contained one virulent outbreak (but still not controlled or cured it), that now we have to contend with another.
Word Watch
Should the President learn to pronounce "nuclear"?
It's
not original to notice that the current President of the United States
is a remarkably bad speaker. It's especially ironic to note that follows
a string of exceptionally good speakers in the same job.
Reagan was called "the great communicator," partly because he had an ability
to connect, somehow, directly with the audience almost in spite of the
gatekeepers and cameras and other filters in the way.
George Bush, Sr. wasn't nearly as charismatic, and had some eccentric
public speaking manners; still, he managed to drive his point home. And
he did change political communication, although in a manner that many
have described as negative, with the attack campaign against Dukakis.
And there's no denying the charm and communication skill of Bill Clinton. No matter how you felt (or still feel) about his character or his politics, there's no denying his persuasiveness.
Bill Clinton at his inauguration
It's
almost painful to compare Dubya's public performance to those of his predecessors.
He always looks awkward and seems to struggle to remember his lines, even
though he has the use of a teleprompter. He has a disconcerting habit
of licking his lips - much more distracting than poor old John Turner's
early-1980s habitof clearing his throat.
On
top of that, he almost always wears a perplexed expression. Even if you
like the fellow, you can't help but think that he's struggling with every
public appearance. Maybe he isn't, but he sure looks uncomfortable in
front of the cameras.
And then there's his diction. No doubt his handlers - I mean, advisors
- have reined in any urges he may have had to speak off the cuff, especially
after the "Wanted: Dead or Alive" statement following nine-eleven, or
the use of the word "evil-doer."
Lately, commentators who support Mr. Bush have been coming to his defense
against those who criticize the President's enunciation. The argument
goes something like this: English is a living language, and exists in
many forms. Many people, in fact, pronounce the word spelled nuclear as
"nucular." This usage, then, falls under the category "non-standard English,"
and is a valid form of the word. The President is just using non-standard
English, in the same way as many Americans and other English-speakers
around the world.
Well, that sounds nice. But it doesn't work. Dubya doesn't descend from
an underprivileged underclass. When he was growing up, he didn't hang
around with the kids from the wrong side of town, who wrote "could of"
when they had to write in high school. Dubya derives from the most privileged
class in America, and he proudly bears many of the trappings and trophies
of his background. He had the advantages of the best education that American
money can buy, and he displays the class he came from in his clothes and
his politics.
What's more, who has daily access to the best image consultants and speaking
teachers in the world, if not the President of the United States? Sorry,
there's no excuse for George W. Bush to repeatedly pronounce nuclear as
"nucular."
Granted, it's not a big deal. There are many more important issues to
worry about. George W. Bush has many greater flaws worthy of criticism.
But let's not waste any more ink or bytes defending this shortcoming
as an indication that Dubya is really just a regular guy.
May communications gaffes
An unscientific survey of some blunders made in Canadian public communication
Politicians are often guilty of speaking first and thinking later. It comes from answering to two different masters: the need to be re-elected, and the need to operate according to the rule of law.On Tuesday, May 6, Newfoundland and Labrador's Premier Roger Grimes announced that the province would not help federal authorities prosecute violations of the Fisheries Act if people were to go ahead with a "protest fishery" in defiance of the federal Department of Fisheries and Ocean's continuing moratorium on the cod fishery in Canada's Atlantic waters. The premier also said the provincial government will do whatever it can to protect, defend and support fishermen who defy the closure.
These comments evoked a storm of protest themselves, and not just from the opposition. On Thursday, May 8, Newfoundland and Labrador's own Attorney General, Kelvin Parsons said that he would cooperate with the federal courts in prosecuting anyone who broke the law.
Grimes later said that his remarks had been misunderstood, and that he never advised anyone to break the law. It's an embarrassing turnaround, and in a way a shame: the Premier warring against the federal government, supporting citizens who defied a law they believed was unjust, would have been spectacular.
Skewered by your own side
Gary Carr, Speaker of the Ontario legislature (and thus a Tory MPP) made a ruling against his own government on Thursday, May 8: he said that the release of the provincial budget in a Magna Canada auto-parts manufacturing plant in March put the government of Ernie Eves government in contempt of the legislature.As if it isn't enough to have to face the criticism of the opposition. But what else could Eves have expected from breaking such an important parliamentary tradition? It's hard to see just what he thought the upside of this plan was.
Communication tip of the month
Don't lose your focus on the audience
The most important rule in writing effective communication of any kind is to write for the audience. The single most common reason for communications to fail is that the writers wrote for themselves, rather than the reader.When you're writing something, put yourself in the reader's position and ask "Why should I care? What's in it for me?" If the answer isn't obvious in what you've written so far, it's time to reconsider your message.
People are too busy today to waste time reading something that doesn't have something in it for them. It has to be diverting, entertaining or beneficial in some tangible way.
It's a simple rule, but one that's often forgotten.
A
man reads the warning signs on the doors at the Hospital for Sick Children
in Toronto,
Monday March 31, 2003. (CP PHOTO/Kevin Frayer, from CBC News)
Reagan addresses New York City, 1980; picture courtesy Picture History, www.picturehistory.com
George Bush Sr.: some eccentricities, but an effective communicator; copy of the official portrait