Context and Sound Bites

by Susan Johnston | Jun 27, 2005 | Uncategorized | 0 comments

Well, here I am in Washington, DC, wandering through the corridors of power.  OK, it’s just the corridors of the Hilton, but stick with me here because I’m about to share some communication insights from advisors to the great and powerful.

Washington’s most famous political strategists, the husband-and-wife team of Mary Matalin and James Carville were the keynote speakers at today’s opening session of the annual conference of the International Association of Business Communicators. Out on the right, Matalin was an assistant to George W. Bush. Over on the left, Carville has run election campaign strategies for Bill Clinton as well as assorted Latin American and European leaders.

Matalin, who was on the White House staff at the time of 9/11, is concerned about the context in which communication takes place. While there were rough spots, she said, President Bush correctly recognized that communication would be as important a tool as any in the fight against terrorism. She believes that the immediacy and pervasiveness of today’s communications "decontextualizes information." 

"Transparency goes to the heart of communication," she said, "but the problem with transparency is not so much about making information available, but dealing with the abuse of information when it’s used in an inaccurate and incomplete way. Competition amongst the news media, she contends, makes being first with a story more important than getting it right, or complete and in context. "Context is a casualty of sound bite politics."

In reducing the news to one-liners, competitive news organizations serve their own agendas, not the public good, claims Matalin. I know, because I was one, that journalists look for conflict because it makes a better story. And if they can find a simple phrase that makes a story memorable, such as, "It’s the economy, stupid," or "I am not a crook," they’ll play it up so their story will lead the show or play on the front page above the fold. The slogan becomes the story and lives on after the context is forgotten.

Carville, a hilarious genius, used the idea of context to relate the (fictional, I hope) story of George W. Bush telling French leaders, "The trouble with your economy is that there’s no French word for ‘entrepreneur.’ " Challenging his wife’s idea that ubiquitous, real time communication technology is a problem, he reminded us that the ‘how’ of communication changes constantly, yet the ‘what’ never changes.  He came out in favour of the sound bite, assuming it’s relevant, for its simplicty.

There are four basic elements to communication, he told us.
1. Simplicity – people have to understand
2. Relevance – it has to be in context
3. Repetitive – "if you haven’t said it a gazillion times, you haven’t said it yet"
4. Exclusivity – put the relevant issue above every other topic

He also recommended that we learn the difference between litany and narrative. In the last presidential campaign, Kerry used litany, listing all the things he and his party stood for. Bush told stories.

Hmmmm. Does that just seem too simple?

I’m not sure how, exactly, this fit into his point, but Carville also slammed PowerPoint presentations. I love it when people do that. If you do, to, you may enjoy my article, "Does PowerPoint Make Us Stupid?" at  http://www.itsunderstood.com/docs/PowerPointMinifesto.pdf.

Down and Out in DC

by Susan Johnston | Jun 26, 2005 | Uncategorized

"Down and out."  Those were the instructions. It seemed funny, since I’ve spent much of my life working hard to avoid being "down and out" anywhere. But here at Dulles International, in Washington, DC, "down and out" was looking like the path to salvation. We’d spent half an eternity wandering around looking for our luggage and the other half looking for the taxis. Following the tunnel "down" would bring us to "out," presumably to freedom.

I don’t pretend to be an airport expert, but I am a frequent traveller, and often wonder why airports don’t communicate better. They seem to hide all useful information. You can find arrivals information when you’re trying to locate your departure gate. You can find departure gates when you’re looking for your checked baggage. Once you find the baggage carousels, there’s no clue to indicate which one will produce the luggage from your flight. Pick up your bag, and you get to solve the mystery of where to get the shuttle or taxi. And why does every airplane trip seem to involve a secret bus or train to get you to your terminal, your plane, or your baggage?

How a building communicates, whether through logical design, clear signage, or posting friendly, knowledgeable people at strategic spots, is critical to our experience. Flying is stressful enough these days without the buildings at either end compounding our anxiety by confusing us.

Do the people who design such places forget the context of their communication? I get the impression that they imagine that the building is all there is. But these places are full of people.  The nonverbal language of these public spaces must work when they are filled with people – tired, hungry, disoriented people in a hurry, dragging luggage, laptops, and small children. The artists renderings of architects’ building designs  usually show one or two people – never the hundreds that swarm around us as we move through a major airport in reality.

Like these designers, we sometimes fail to take note of the context of our communication. Whether it’s spoken or written, what is happening with the people involved or affected needs to shape the message. Otherwise, they’re lost and confused and searching for the exit.

++++

I’m in Washington for the annual conference of IABC, the professional association of business communicators. I’ll be sharing my learning and my impressions through the week.