The recent snowstorms in Washington, D.C. led to more than closed schools, postponed events and shovel-sore muscles. The unusually cool atmospherics became a hot metaphor in the argument against climate change. After all, how could the climate be warming and there be all this snow?

The back-and-forth was captured in a story on Fox News:

The battle between science and politics also was the subject of a recent NPR  “On the Media” story on the now-debunked link between a measles vaccine and autism.  Here is what Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal, The Lancet, had to say:

“We used to think that we could publish speculative research which advanced interesting new ideas which may be wrong, but which were important to provoke debate and discussion. We don’t think that now.  What we don’t seem able to do is we don’t seem able to have a rational conversation in a public space about difficult, controversial issues, without people drawing a conclusion which could be very, very adverse.”

The most disturbing part of what Dr. Horton said, because it seems to be true, is “we don’t seem able to have a rational conversation.”  For communications professionals this is at best a caution, at worst, a call to arms.  Most of our work is focused on adding context to the actions of our clients.

But context — be it scientific, medical or financial — requires an ability to see in three-dimensions.  How can we succeed when our public discourse is locked in black-and-white?  It demands we be more precise.

When the LA Times took another look at the D.C. snowstorm it did just that:

“Increased snowfall fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures warm the world’s bodies of water, leading to more evaporation.  Climate scientists say the amount of atmospheric moisture has increased, which they predict will bring more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures.

‘All you need is cold air and moisture to meet each other’ to make snow, said Jay Gulledge, senior scientist for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. ‘And with global warming, the opportunities to do that should be more frequent.’”

The misunderstanding and misuse of the word “warming” in the “global warming” warning undercuts its value as context.  Perhaps “change” as in “climate change” is more effective, but, based on Mr. Michaels said to Fox News, that may be lost, too.

The  most effective argument at a time when science is so willingly dismissed may not yet have been made.  But just because the task of adding depth and perspective to political, social and commercial conversations has gotten difficult doesn’t mean it cannot be fought and won.

Share

Politico asked this question today: “What if George W. Bush had done that?”  The post chronicled a list of actions (and lack of action) for which for former President was excoriated, but the for which the current President avoided criticism.

In the post, “Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?  And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?”

The answer offered is “context is everything.”

Last year, in the trade publication, PR Week and prompted by the nomination battle between Senators Obama and Clinton, I suggested that communications had become all about context.

The article requires a subscription, so here are the essential parts:

“More than frequency, authenticity, and empathy, effective communications must be built on credible context.

“When Hillary Clinton said she would end the war in Iraq, her commitment was undercut by prior actions, such as her votes on the original Iraq war resolution and the labeling of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as ‘terrorists.’ The market-tested message of ending the war, delivered consistently, might have been the truth, but voters came to hear it as non-credible and inconsistent.

“These forces came into play to the benefit of John McCain. At a meeting in the Rose Garden with President Bush, McCain’s visible discomfort reinforced his credible context as a maverick. In contrast, voters found the ‘conversions’ of his competitors far less credible.

“Manage these risks and the results are powerful. Barack Obama took those lessons and made them his own. He began by being adamant about ending the war. Before even entering the US Senate, he had publicly opposed the Iraq war resolution. Voters saw this as credible context for his position; when he opposed the Iran vote, it added to his support - even though he skipped the actual vote.”

Amidst the snark of Politico’s story is an object lesson for any candidate, company or institution seeking to earn your (or my) vote, purchase or contribution.  Success is not a snappy turn of phrase, it requires a consistent commitment.b

Share

Type the word “context” into the Google News search box today and you’ll get 28,829 results.

The impending Senate hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a key driver this week, as were the Independence Day weekend announcement by soon-to-be-ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and the Obama/Medvedev summit in Russia.

The number of results had been holding steady in recent weeks at about 32,000, but the 10 percent drop this week may not mean less emphasis on the value of context, but its unspoken inclusion in ever-widening set of human, industrial and political issues.  Health care reform has not yet taken center stage, but it is unlikely that it will compete in the near term with the stories of the McNair homicide and the Michael Jackson memorial at the Staples Center in LA.

Share

Type the word “context” into the Google News search box today and you’ll get 30,628 results.

The death of the self-proclaimed “King of Pop,” Michael Jackson, House passage of a climate bill and the continued fall-out from the Iranian crack-down on those protesting the outcome of the recent election there were the drivers this week.

The number of results has been holding steady in recent weeks, but the value of context continues to be applied to an ever-widening set of human, industrial and political issues.  With the debate over health care reform moving into its battle over health care reform phase, that may be the driver that prompts a real uptick in our ticker.

Share

No, I am not humming the sound track of “West Side Story,” I am savoring the faux pas committed by Mike Huckabee when he, in his first post (now corrected) opposing the nomination of Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, called her “Maria.”

The story got air tonight on the “Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC.  Setting aside the snark, it was Gene Robinson of the Washington Post who helped guide the viewers — and Rachel — through the nuts-and-bolts of her career and credentials.  In fact, when asked about comments made at a conference in Berkeley which have led Rush Limbaugh and others to call Ms. Sotomayor a “racist,” it was Robinson who said the judge’s comments had not been put in “adequate context.”

It is a small point, but powerful in its implication.  Labels stick more readily in the absence of context.

Here is a link to the Robinson/Maddow exchange.

Share

We have known for 100 years, thanks to Mark Twain’s “Chapters from My Autobiography,” that there are three kinds of lies; “lies, damned lies and statistics.” At the very least, statistics — numbers in general — can be, uh, misleading. Take, for example, the recent noise over tea bagging.

Whether brewed up by Fox News and kept warm in the cozy of MSNBC’s criticism, the grassroots uprising over taxation and federal spending drew a lot of attention because they drew a lot of attendees, didn’t they?

Basking in its election day success with numbers, the political website 538.com became the non-partisan source of just how many people attended the 500 events staged nationwide. Right now that number stands at 311,000. Big.

Unless you consider that the same day there were a mere 14 Major League Baseball games (excluding one rainout) that drew 360,000 people. Bigger; especially in context.

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