What works

Twice in the past two days, people have sent us  press releases, with big capital letters at the outset: "UNDER EMBARGO" until such-and-such a time. This is new. And if there are PR professionals out there, reading this, a word -- embargoes are negotiated with the media, not dictated. If you want us to sit on information, and thus not do our jobs, a polite request and explanation for  why we would do so  would be nice. Personally, unless I say yes to an embargo, I have no reason to go along with one. 

And that brings me to another point -- that negotiation thing. Really good negotiators are able to say why it's in your interest, not their own, to come to some agreement. Years ago, when I was writing a book about an MP (who had somewhat extraordinary success getting what she wanted in her riding)  I was struck by how many cabinet ministers were able to say her simple recipe: she walked into the minister's office and said, "here's why this thing I want would be good for YOU." 

On some days in Ottawa, it's kind of amazing to watch how many people can forget this simple truth. Flacks call and explain why they need publicity; aides call and complain that we aren't making their ministers look good; lobbyists (bad ones) rant that we aren't doing stories that serve their clients.  And we do it too -- we tell folks we need to be on front page or we need stuff that makes our bosses happy.  Why that should be relevant to a politician or anyone else, I have no idea. Unless you assume that the other person is totally focused on giving you what you want and not at all concerned about him/herself. 

Which brings me again (and for now, enough about this) to that revealing little document that ministerial staff prepare before a "message event." See previous couple of posts. Notice that there isn't a word in there about the public interest. "Message events" are all about polishing the image of the politician and making him/her look good. 

That's the egregious part of the whole, painstaking preparation --  not one question or blank space for the part where the public benefits. I'd venture to say that it's one of the reasons the public has simply checked out.  The self-interest is obvious and apart from being kind of offensive, it's impractical too. No one actually wants to spend a whole lot of time listening to what you want or what makes you look good. 

Comments

[twitter.com/ChrisInKW]

From scrums on the stairs to spin rooms. How far we've come as a country.

[Ron Wood]

Susan: when I was a bureaucrat from 1975 to 1978 we had a similar, but not as comprehensive, approach to public announcements. Nothing was written down but the objective was always to make the Minister look good if he or she was involved in any way.One of my Ministers at the time was Jean Chretien and of course the PM was PET.

[Wascally Wabbit]

Heavens - what's next? "D" Notices?
[The most institutionalised method of self-censorship is the D Notice system (short for Defence Notices) [in the UK]. They are a unique peacetime arrangement of voluntary suppression of certain categories of information on the advice — not orders — of the Government. The system was established in 1912 and continues to this day. The justification for the system, as stated in the official guidelines, is as follows: Hostile intelligence services draw on information from a variety of sources both overt and covert, and by piecing it together can build up a composite picture of a subject. The dissemination of sensitive information can make their task easier and put national security at risk. It can also be of value to terrorist groups who lack the resources to obtain it through their own efforts. For these reasons there are dangers inherent even in the publication of information covered by D Notices which has already appeared elsewhere. It is strongly requested that there should be no elaboration, nor confirmation or denial, of the accuracy of items published elsewhere, without reference to the [D Notice] Secretary.

There are currently eight general [kinds of] D Notices (which, incidentally, used to be secret information themselves, but were made public in 1982):

Defence plans, operational capability, state of readiness and training
Defence equipment
Nuclear weapons and equipment
Radio and radar transmissions
Cyphers and communications
British security and intelligence services
War precautions and civil defence
Photography etc. of defence establishments and installations

[Wascally Wabbit]

Incidentally Susan - is there some form of Quasi- D-Notice in effect for the negotiations for the Trade Agreement with the EU?
This has been flying below the radar since 3 days after the last election in October 2008 - when Harper kicked it off with the French President and the EU President - and except for a couple of articles by Paul Wells and one from David Olive - this has totally dropped off the map - and frankly - I think there are things in there that the public should know - what parts of our cultural, resource (like fresh water) and internal governance is Harper prepared to give up?
It is at least as potentially wide reaching as NAFTA - and the MSM is just giving it a pass!

[Inge]

I have been saying for years that this government does not govern, rather, it campaigns non-stop. Harper has no interest in the country or its well being. He is only concerned about winning the next election.

[a-non]

The fact that you would have to explain the implications of these MEP's imposed by the PMO suggests that a great many people have simply accepted the process of promoting the Harper government while ignoring the matter of whether or not there is benefit to the country. It's a very troubling situation when so few people recognize how far down that slippery slope of absolute power we've fallen.

[jenna]

So are you trying to tell us that part of a ministerial communications person's job should NOT be to make the minister look good, to simply let him/her flounder along as best he can ? I think you should get off this topic since we have now had about three of these rather silly posts, and you are looking more removed from reality with each one.

As far as embargos are concerned, I have certainly dealt with embargoed press releases (non-political ones too). I don't recall contacting everyone they were sent to to explain why I didn't want them released until a certain time. I simply assumed that the people I was dealing with were professional enough to know there was a reason, and courteous enough to comply. As they always were.

The PPG need to stop thinking that Government should operate with the journalists best interests at heart. They also need to realize that most Canadians see this type of complaining as simply childish whining.

[Johnnyk]

I used to get in shite when preparing talking points in my previous life. I had the temerity to ask "what's in it for the texpayer?". Annoyed my bosses no end. They really didn't like questions to which they had no answer other than they were kissing someone's.