New and scary job duty: hopefully a hypothetical scenario

[monstro]

@YogSosoth

I think it depends on what your department’s purpose with the news conferences is. If its to provide accurate info, then you do it without regard to whether people understand it.

If its to soothe their fears, then maybe you omit some unnecessary or prejudicial information.

If its simply to be accurate without regard to anything, then you do so, and let the press blow it up however they like.

I’m sorry, but I think you’re missing the purpose of government reaching out to the public.

It is not my job to “tell it like it is”. Even if I had free reign and no politics to consider (which would be a dream), I wouldn’t do this. Because people, by nature, will not understand the important details I provide, exaggerate the ones they do understand, and thus my message becomes distorted. And therefore I am not communicating effectively. I am not communicating to the top ten percent of the population who will grok whatever I say. I’m communicating to the average. That, as a public servant, is my duty and responsibility.

But unfortunately I do have the politics to consider.

It’s kind of like the StraightDope. You start a thread in GD about a controversial topic and you’ve got people who have already decided, based on your posting history and the thread title, that they disagree with what you’re saying. Even when they haven’t really read your OP. They may not even be aware that they’re doing this. Their guts are just telling them you’re wrong.

People have the same reaction in real life. Imagine you’re representing 1) the government, 2) an embattled agency in the government, and 3) and a field that everyone has an opinion about (environmental science). If a person doesn’t like any or all of these things–and let’s face it, a lot of people do not–then it is your job to override these prejudices and present a message that conveys the truth while not giving them any more ammo. Unlike the StraightDope, you can’t just put stupid people on ignore. Because these people rabble-rouse, they vote, they contribute to campaigns. That’s one reason why I think this particular task is above my pay grade. If I’m not high enough on the totem pole to rub shoulders with the people who are affected by public perception (votes), then I shouldn’t be placed in a position where I have to essentially protect them from public flack.

If you want to be a good public servant, you MUST consider your audience. You can’t patronize or confuse them by throwing a whole bunch of figures at them, even if they are accurate. And you can’t dumb down too much so as to make what you say meaningless. Your job, as the spokesperson, is to choose the middle ground. That is the challenge. And it is not easy. I personally know two people who have lost jobs or have been demoted just for “telling it like it is”. It’s really sad.

If it were just a matter of telling people the truth and nothing but, I wouldn’t be all squirmy about this. It’s the art of telling the truth that the public will understand and respect…THAT’S what I don’t know how to do.

Yet.

[Little_Nemo]

Do you have transcripts or anything from the past press conferences that your previous boss handled? That would give you an idea of what kind of questions to expect and what kind of answers have worked in the past.

[Sailboat]

@Poysyn

6. NEVER say no comment. If there is a reason you can’t answer something (classified) then say that

What if the reason is, “We’re vulnerable on this issue and hoping nobody asks hard questions”?

[msmith537]

@Balthisar

As a matter of fact, yeah, and as a boss, I know that “willing” and “like” aren’t the same thing. :rolleyes:

A semantic point. It still amounts to arbitrarily deciding what tasks you will or will not perform as part of your job. That is usually unacceptible unless there is some sort of ethical, safety or competency related issue.

I will concede, however, that the flip side of that is a good boss doesn’t arbitrarily assign tasks or roles to people they are unqualified for or unable to perform.

@Sailboat

Originally Posted by Poysyn
6) NEVER say no comment. If there is a reason you can’t answer something (classified) then say that

What if the reason is, “We’re vulnerable on this issue and hoping nobody asks hard questions”?

No more questions!

[LSLGuy]

I’ve had a smattering of media training over the years. I’m not an expert.

To collapse it all down to a fine point, you never answer the question asked. You use the question as a jumping off point to deliver your canned response.

[Balthisar]

@msmith537

A semantic point. It still amounts to arbitrarily deciding what tasks you will or will not perform as part of your job. That is usually unacceptible unless there is some sort of ethical, safety or competency related issue.

I guess that I work in an industry where people honestly want to perform their jobs; we’re professionals, after all. Sure, there have been things that I’ve not wanted to do mechanically, but in the big picture, I’ve wanted to do them to make the team succeed. That’s the difference between “like” and “willing.”

As a boss, it’s a huge part of my job to make people willing (even if not “like”) their tasks.

That’s not an easy task on my part. When I was merely someone else’s report, there were things that I didn’t agree with, but in the big picture I supported. My support was unequivocally due to good leadership.

In the end, good leadership will make you willing to do things you don’t necessarily want to do.

[Shodan]

“Is it safe to swim in X River? What about the little boy who died this summer? Will that happen again?!”

"Of course it won’t happen again. You only die once.

Next question."

Regards,
Shodan

[YogSothoth]

@monstro

I’m sorry, but I think you’re missing the purpose of government reaching out to the public.

It is not my job to “tell it like it is”. Even if I had free reign and no politics to consider (which would be a dream), I wouldn’t do this. Because people, by nature, will not understand the important details I provide, exaggerate the ones they do understand, and thus my message becomes distorted. And therefore I am not communicating effectively. I am not communicating to the top ten percent of the population who will grok whatever I say. I’m communicating to the average. That, as a public servant, is my duty and responsibility.

Its hard to communicate effectively when your audience is stupid. For what its worth, I do work in government and we are a sometimes embattled section of the government. I’d rather be pedantic than inaccurate, factual than condescending, detailed than brief, and intelligent instead of dumbing down. Giving a lot of boring but true data cannot be wrong, it might be confusing, but that’s up to your audience

[msmith537]

@YogSosoth

Its hard to communicate effectively when your audience is stupid. For what its worth, I do work in government and we are a sometimes embattled section of the government. I’d rather be pedantic than inaccurate, factual than condescending, detailed than brief, and intelligent instead of dumbing down. Giving a lot of boring but true data cannot be wrong, it might be confusing, but that’s up to your audience

You can’t communicate with stupid people from a position of reason and logic because they cannot grasp it. You have to use fear and emotion. It’s what makes good politicians effective. People don’t understand high finance or macroeconomics. They understand not having a job while bankers and CEOs have large amounts of money.