I’d like to begin with a short prologue offering a few caveats:
- What I’m about to say may seem offensive to some in our government, so please understand that these are completely my personal observations and do not, in any way, reflect the organizations with which I am associated (or, for that matter, some members of my family).
- On the other hand, I readily acknowledge that it’s easy to be critical as an “outsider” without exposure to the many nuances of policy formation and its implementation.
- I’ll offer these comments not as revelations but as reminders of some basic principles that should apply, and often do apply, not only in government communications but generally in the symbiotic field of journalism and public relations.
- This subject is profound. In the time allowed, our comments will likely just skim its surface. We hope that you’ll extend the discussion in the Q&A period and, in fact, extend it further while you’re here in Washington and when you return home.
- And, finally, I’m going to read these comments in the interest of saying, as precisely as possible, what’s on my mind.
The seminal question is, “How can our government communicate ethically and responsibly, especially with international audiences?”
I put it to you that this question has never been more important than it is today – even more important now than it was when the birth of the United States of America was announced some 250years ago with this proclamation:
“When in the course of human events . . . a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they [Americans] should declare the causes that impel them to the separation.”
In today’s multipolar world – need I cite international terrorism, immigration, regional poverty, transmittable diseases, the global environment, energy and natural resources, trade and capital flows? – the word “communicate” is clearly both multidirectional and multifunctional.
So, the U.S. Government – any government, for that matter, any institution – must (1) listen creatively to what is expected of it; (2) consider adjusting policy and performance to what it learns; and (3) then present its position, policy and action. It’s a circular, never-ending process based on, again, a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”
Of course, you recognize this as Grunigs’ “two-way symmetrical public relations.” Professor Fitzpatrick can examine that more effectively than I.
But in that connection, it’s interesting to also recall Harold Burson’s compact description of the evolution of public relations. To paraphrase, Mr. Burson reminds us that we have developed from “deliverers of the message” to, quite often, advisers on policy and performance.
My remaining “outsider” remarks, grouped in four interrelated areas, are offered, with respect, mainly to our colleagues in U.S. government communications whatever titles they may bear – communications director, press secretary, public information officer, or public affairs officer.
Parenthetically, I must say that Geneva and Dante have already admirably addressed the other half of this equation – journalists – so I’ll not go there. But if you are interested in more input on this half, I suggest Helen Thomas’s recent book, Watchdogs of Democracy? and the Bill Moyers program, Buying the War which is airing on PBS this week.
So, on to unsolicited advice to government communicators:
1. Let’s be real. You are an advocate.
That in itself is OK as long as you are also acting in the public interest.
There is no inherent contradiction between being an advocate and ethically serving the public interest. After all, doctors, lawyers and teachers are also advocates. Still, public relations people bear an ethical trifecta – we are responsible to an employer, to the journalists we work with and to the public interest.
U.S. government public relations pros work primarily for the American people and only secondarily for the current administration, no matter how they have won their appointments.
To be sure, “the public interest” and “the public right to know “are sometimes hard to parse, identify or balance. For example, this is how Abba Eban, the Israeli statesman and diplomat, once described the tension that exists between diplomacy and journalism:
“We find the conflict of interest in full momentum in the dialogue between the media and the diplomats. Diplomats are entitled to feel that they celebrate a higher social ideal than journalists: the right of peace is more important than the right to know. If the right to know is carried to excess and peace is threatened, what has been gained?”
A troubling challenge.
On another, but related, plane, when as a government communicator, in your heart of hearts you disagree with a policy that is in formation or being implemented, you must speak truth to power (that’s not just the job of journalists).
Want examples? General George Marshall and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1940. Cyrus Vance and President Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis. And, closer to home, Jerry terHorst, who resigned as President Gerald Ford’s press secretary, over Ford’s decision to pardon Richard Nixon.)
2. A second proposed dose of reality: Government policy and performance trump communications.
When he was Director of the United State Information Agency in the Kennedy Administration, Edward R. Murrow offered advice that still resonates. He said, “The skillful propagation of poor policy . . . merely intens[ifies] error.”
So Murrow, the journalist and government-communicator par excellence, always insisted that if he were to be invited to the “crash-landing,” he had to be invited to the take-off as well.
God bless Karen Hughes. She’s doing a lot of good, creative things in directing U.S. public diplomacy – many programs that the now all-but-invisible USIA conducted successfully for decades. These programs may very well help improve our international relationships in the long run.
But Sisiphus didn’t have a tougher assignment. Our foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, keeps rolling the boulder of international public opinion back downhill in many countries. So in the light of our current foreign entanglements, expectations of short-term progress in winning “hearts and minds” should be scaled back.
And here’s another concern: Last week, Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote that China “has been using a new approach to expand its influence and global appeal. It’s an approach at which the United States once excelled. . . . Call it ‘soft power’ . . . a country’s ability to lead by example and get others to follow because they admire what you are.”
Ms. Rubin, summarizing the new book, Charm Offensive: How China’s Soft Power Is Transforming the World, by Joshua Kurlantzick, tells us of “Beijing’s increasing skill at using diplomacy, trade incentives, and cultural and educational exchanges . . . to build an image of a benign world leader.”
China and “Soft Power”!
3. Although counsel on “crisis communications” has been virtually talked to death, government communicators would do well to remember its basics.
We’re still experiencing the fallout from the tragic story of Corporal Pat Tillman. As recently as last week, top Army officers, testifying with Donald Rumsfeld before a congressional committee, had to admit that “we screwed up” in telling the world that Corporal Tillman was a victim of enemy fire. Similarly, the fictional account of Private Jessica Lynch’s experience early in the Iraq War still reverberates.
Torie Clarke, the widely-respected communications consultant, had the unenviable task of running the Department of Defense communications operation during much of the Iraq War. She titled the book detailing this saga Lipstick on a Pig. Her advice in a crisis: “Deliver the bad news yourself, and when you screw up, say so – fast.”
4. And that leads to the final suggestion on communicating responsibly and ethically – and I might add, effectively: Candor and emotion can be disarming.
We’re all human. We make mistakes. And we have emotions.
New York Times columnist Judith Warner tells us of the emotional speech given by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at the recent Marine Corps annual dinner:
“It was as shock to see Defense Secretary Gates battling tears as he spoke about Major Douglas Zembiec . . . who was killed in May after requesting a second tour of duty in Iraq. . . .
“Chocking, pausing, visibly suffering and clearly fighting off an onslaught of unwelcome emotion . . . Gates seemed, for a moment, to tap into national sentiment. . . .”
Of course, I’m not suggesting that the daily outflow of government communications can often approach that degree of emotion. But I do wonder if our communications with international, as well as domestic, audiences can – some day, perhaps not until February 2009, if ever – convey a sentiment presented by John Kenneth Galbraith at the conclusion of the Vietnam War. This is what he said:
“When before has a great country stopped in the middle of a war, assessed the wisdom of its participation, decided it was wrong, asserted the judgment against all the chauvinistic tendencies aroused by armed conflict, dismissed from power those responsible, and brought its participation to an end?
“The answer is never. . . . The country corrected the error of its leaders on Vietnam. It was not a defeat but a triumph of good sense. Surely our critics abroad might take more note of this achievement. Does it not say anything for democracy?
And then, with prophetic admonition, Galbraith concluded:
“However, let us not make the presence of this remedial power a license for any more such mistakes.”
That was 1975.
This, of course, is now.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Keywords :