NOTE: I encourage people to comment on this blog. It’s about dialog. However, this is not an opportunity to espouse political views on health care (or any other topic). Comment on the discourse. Comment on the media. Deliver your insights on misinformation campaigns or marketing ploys. But please leave political diatribes at the door. Thank you.
I make it a point not to discuss politics in this blog. For one thing, it’s a measure of self-preservation — I don’t want to miss out on opportunities to do good work because a client dislikes my politics. For another, I want to stay on-message. The AVC blog relates to communications, media, marketing, PR, language.
But these days, I can’t help but be reminded of the various points where politics and communication collide. Staying on-message has never been so important. And in a time when newspapers are folding and reporters are seeking new careers, never before has good journalism really mattered.
I’m wrapped up in the health care debate. How can you not be to some extent? It’s everywhere. There’s White House messaging, congressional messaging from both sides of the aisle, various news reports, third-party analyses of the arguments. And yet, with all this information, very few of us can grasp what will be in any measure of a bill. We are trying to understand the issue and reach an informed conclusion, but it’s increasingly hard to find civil debate — anywhere. For me, there are just too many messages. And it seems that instead of talking about the issue and really delving into it, pundits and politicians and media figures are talking AT us — telling us the world might end if we do it … or if we don’t. But truly informed, fact-based debates are lacking. (Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough …?)
I recently posted a commentary about health care on my personal Facebook page. I added no commentary of my own. A handful of friends “liked” it or commented. Three friends in particular kept the conversation going. The thread now stands at a hearty 35 comments. Aside from being my most successful FB post (when measured by the activity that follows), the discussion that ensued was controlled. Passionate, but controlled. Participants’ political views ranged from libertarian to near-socialist. But questions were being asked and answered. Ideas were being heard and considered. Experiences were shared. We are nowhere near being able to solve the health care issue in this contrary, but I think there’s something to be said for the nature of the conversation. It has — to some extent — given me faith that such a conversation is possible. If you have the right people in the room.
We all have a stake in what happens — and from where I sit, the first obligation our news media and our leaders have is an obligation to civil, informed discourse. Don’t market to us. Don’t play PR tricks. Don’t fling incendiary catchprases at each other. Don’t mislead us. Persuade us with facts. Yes, actual facts. This is not a light beer you’re selling. It’s a critical change in policy. I crave civil and clear communication about this issue … and other issues, too. And I’m left to wonder if I’ll ever get it.
Fascinating, if stomach churning.
At the heart of the matter, I think the political class as a whole skipped over *informing* us straight into attempting to *motivate* us, which gave the media tacit permission to do the same. All of us marketing/media folk know that urgency and scarcity are blunt weapons.
What I see as the critical problem, however, was the lack of an identifiable *thing* to discuss. Rather than getting together a group of experts in healthcare, economics, insurance, etc., to come up with a plan that might address everyone’s concerns (or meet the diplomatic criteria of “making everyone equally unhappy”), the political class created several hugely complex moving targets and behind-the-scenes deals. As a result, everything is subject to interpretation, and they can’t give us any straight answers. And an answer provided today could very well change tomorrow. Most people aren’t willing to buy something on those terms; I’d suggest it comes down to how much you trust the seller.
I’ve already gone long, so I’ll conclude by extending your light beer metaphor: Things would’ve gone more smoothly if our leaders had started by figuring out how thirsty people are, what exactly they were thirsty for, and how much they’d be willing to pay for the next round. Because in the real world, there’s no such thing as “on the house.”