Let’s start small.  A recent article on the national health care debate posted to the trade website, www.insurancejournal.com, included this eye-catching bit of business:  “The 2,074-page health care bill includes a range of items that some say could be time bombs in waiting for some agencies – or new opportunities” for insurance agents and brokers.

The non-attribution attribution (as in, who the heck is the some who said?) is a useful tool for jamming a lot of meaning into a small phrase.  But it is also a way to veil intent and, ultimately, undermine credibility.  That may not be too much of a problem for a journal targeting a single trade, but “some say” is getting a lot of airtime on a bigger stage.

In fact, if you asked Google to search for the two phrases “some say” and “White House press” you’d get 242,000 results.  It is a phrase and its variations that are in particularly active rotation at the daily briefings held by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.  Note this bit from the November 6 session:

“Q:  The President in the Rose Garden said that the unexpectedly big jump in unemployment past the 10 percent mark was sobering, and he also listed some ideas that he said his economic team was considering for further job creation. The question that some economists are asking is, is this really enough? And some say it’s not, but there needs to be a second stimulus program of some sort. Is there any consideration going to be given to a second stimulus package, or is the President ruling that out?”

How much credence should we give the question?  The answer?  And what of the ultimate report?  Without attribution, it is hard to confidently know if the problem is real and the report meaningful.

Ten years ago, author, editor and media lightning rod Steven Brill tried to shine a light on the name and nature of journalism’s sources when he launched “Brill’s Content.” Three years later, after creating a stir over the unsavory use of agenda-driven, off-the-record interviews, the magazine died and the practice lived on…and on.

Visit the New York Times and you’ll find this in a story about health care costs and small business:  “Some say the threat of an overhaul may be at least part of the reason.”

Go to The Economist and you’ll find this in a story about the Muslim finance market:  “Some say Paris could take 10% of the global market by 2020.”

Then swing by Fox News and you’ll find this in a story about President Obama’s Afghanistan war deliberations:  “As President Obama and his war council search for the most effective military and political strategy in Afghanistan, some are questioning whether the lengthy process is playing right into the hands of the Taliban.”

In the end, whether left, right or middle, the use of “some say” doesn’t inform, it only reinforces what we already thought.  That’s not news, it’s advocacy.

Share

From a communications perspective, the cost of health care reform has trumped the cost of not reforming a system that has 47 million Americans on the outside looking in.  They and their advocates have been vocal in support of change.

As a participant in the nation’s health care system and a card carrying member of an insurance plan, it has been a surprise that the 250 million Americans like me aren’t raising a ruckus for reform, too.  After all, who better to see the short-comings of the health insurance system than those who are covered by it?

This quiet may be broken now with release of a report from a group called, America’s Health Insurance Plans.  According to news reports,  “The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013 (and) Premiums for a single person would go up by $600.”

It may be that rather than reinforcing a fearful silence among those of us that have to deal with rising premiums, reluctant reimbursements, a labyrinth of seemingly contradictory rules and unilateral program ineligibility, this latest log tossed on the fire of opposition may throw enough light on the role the health insurance plans play in our rising national anxiety.

This is no clearer than in the Catch-22 of the pre-existing condition.  If the standard delivery of health care is by employment, losing or changing jobs makes everything an pre-existing condition and opens the door to diminished coverage.  Is that sane?

One insurance company advocate pile on when he presented the financial equation this way:

“The taxes imposed on insurance companies in the Senate Finance bill are certain to be passed on to consumers,” says Joel Kopperud, government relations director at the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Washington. “They encourage employers to cut ancillary benefits to avoid crossing the tax threshold, and even the Congressional Budget Office says that the proposed fees will result in higher premiums.”

For at least one person — me — not only does this “rolls down hill” approach potentially fire the national imagination for reform, but price controls, too.  And about the “camel’s back,” is it a metaphor for the last straw.

Share

“Balance” in the name of objectivity continues to give the media a black eye.  Nowhere has the battle been as one-sided as it has during the national health care reform debate.  But rather than serve as a call to recommit to a safe discipline of “one on hand, on the other hand,” the outcome of the argument this time would best be an end to our commitment to what can never be achieved.

Author Neal Gabler in the Los Angeles Times described the problem this way:

“To look at this in a larger context, journalists would no doubt say that it isn’t really their job to ferret out the ‘truth.’ It is their job to report ‘facts.’ If Palin says that Obama intends to euthanize her child, they report it. If Limbaugh says that Obama’s healthcare plan smacks of Nazism, they report it. And if riled citizens begin shouting down their representatives, they report it, and report it, and report it. The more noise and the bigger the controversy, the greater the coverage. This creates a situation in which not only is the truth subordinate to lies, but one in which shameless lies are actually privileged over reasoned debate.”

If reporters know better, they feel constrained to say it because, well, that would not be “objective.”  The result is not insight but intensity — and anger.  Just look at the videotape.

I think it is time for the reporters to set aside antique notions of objectivity. They should write their stories not in some artificial balance but weighted by the evidence, information and history they bring to the piece.  Ultimately, it is all about advocacy.

A company is an advocate for its shareholders. A public relations agency is an advocate for its clients. Elected officials are advocates of their re-election. In these cases and many more, the media ought to be an advocate for the companies’ customers, agencies’ audiences and a politician’s constituents.

In each case, reporters are (generally) paying closer attention to the corporate practices, marketing programs and public policy than are the rest of us. We ought to have the benefit of that insight, not have it lost as they turn themselves in pretzels trying to present “balance”.

Share

In a column by Rob Preston, vice president and editor-in-chief of Information Week, he laments a coming wave of regulation affecting the information technology industry.  In his August 17 “down to Business” column, Preston argues that such a move by Congress will only “toss more goo into this economic engine of growth.”

While it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness, sometimes cursing the darkness is satisfying, so why not do both?  I tried to do just that in a letter to Preston.  My point is that understanding the way Congress works, standing on the sidelines (where most technology companies have stood) opens the door to unnecessary regulation.

Here is (most of) the text of my note:

You properly forecast an increase in technology regulation but improperly weight responsibility and ignore the nature of Congressional oversight.  As someone who spent 15 years working in Washington, D.C. and nearly that much time since in San Francisco, I can assure you that regulation is Congress’ response to upcoming elections and the cash needed to underwrite them.

The history of technology companies’ reticence to engage in politics gives them little leverage when Members of Congress see the chance to earn support by “standing up” for constituents and interest groups concerned about what might happen when their world goes digital.

I have seen this play out for years in the privacy arena.  The FTC’s “red flags” are only the most recent example of new regulation aimed at the threat of identity theft.  It is getting close to the kinds of warning labels placed on lawn mowers prohibiting consumers from lifting them for use as hedge trimmers.

But before anyone gets too smug about the “illiterati” who cause laws, rules and regulation to get in the way of the future, note that the technology industry has done little to give Congress a chance to see things differently.  Every industry ought to be subject to appropriate regulation.  The rule of law replaced dueling many years ago.  That’s why we have lawyers.  Whether we have the right number of them is a question for others.

But it falls to the technology industry, individually and collectively, to make its case now that the indictment has been handed down.  As any lawyer will tell you, when the defendant does not appear, the court has no recourse.

Share

Plug the word “context” into the Google News search box today and you’ll get 30,491 results.  That’s up from the last report, driven by events like the Senate hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, Microsoft’s launch of Office 2010 and the Major League Baseball All-Star game.

Truly interesting was this bit of advice from an employment blog from Canada’s National Post:

“When networking and interviewing, use any personal information you find about others carefully. If you choose to use personal informaiton about someone, make sure the context is appropriate.  Remember that old saying: Its not how much you know, but what you do with the information that counts.”

The same advice holds for companies, institutions and officials who seek to advocate for a product, plan or point-of-view.

Share

It is hard to keep track of the political skirmishes in Washington, D.C. when the battlefield lies in the shadow of a sour economy, but when the two converge, people stop and take notice. It seems such is the case with President Obama’s current tax proposal.

As expected, U.S.-based businesses with overseas operations are rallying to oppose the plan.  Success will likely hinge on who does a better job of linking their point-of-view to a credible — in the eye of the public — context.

“(President Obama) doesn’t have to explain anything,” Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a major opponent to Obama’s tax proposa, told Politico.com.  “We have to explain.”

They will have to do more than explain.  They will have to prove the case to Members of Congress that opposing the tax proposal is better for Americans than supporting it.  The difficulty is that many of the off-shore operations look just like off-shore operations; designed to avoid taxes at a time when every dime counts on the home front.

At a time when we aren’t willing to trust too many people about too much, why will we believe it is good for companies to pay lower taxes than we do?

Share

Credible Context is founded on the insight that effective marketing — of products, services, even the company itself — requires more than commitment, authenticity and transparency. Advocacy and persuasion must be contextually credible.

For companies and their agencies, this new era requires a new approach. Messaging needs to be more consistent; it is better to run counter to the current news agenda than to change too often to meet it. Story lines can’t be drawn from thin raw material. Missteps will not be seen as matters of policy, but as personal failings.

This is made more urgent by an under-reported effect of the digital revolution. It has changed the way consumers and customers are motivated to act. In a more complex world, where each of us is bombarded with information and the cost of a wrong decision grows greater every day, it is hard to know who to trust.

That’s why we reward companies, institutions and others that deliver value in a consistent and sensible arc of market behavior. That’s why we punish those who take a more erratic, offer-driven approach. Context is the next evolution of effective communication. We have moved from commitment to authenticity to transparency to context as the ante for successfully motivating the market place.

Our mission is to help clients reveal, cultivate and leverage the power of their context. Our goal is to help make every communication — internal or external, casual or formal — a voice of advocacy.

Share