Skip to main content

Can Federal Communication Be Saved?

As a writer for the Federal government for more than a dozen years, I observe that we used to be very well-respected. Our authority derived from three things:
  • Dedication to public service
  • Command of the English language
  • Collaboration with technical experts, for accuracy
The past decade saw the gradual erosion of government writers' credibility, due to the rise of, among other things:
  • Pervasive social media
  • Increasingly sophisticated but easy to use digital communication tools
  • Global awareness of and commitment to human rights
  • The rise of independent journalism
  • Existence of and retaliation against whistleblowers
Today, what remains of that credibility has arguably been shattered by:
  • Wikileaks
  • Awareness of "fake news"
  • Revelations about the Deep State and its infiltration of the media
  • Paid trolls
  • Paid citizen "uprisings" and demonstrations
Essentially, we have entered a world where suspicion is the rule and not an exception. Government content is part of that. It doesn't matter how many times the press release was checked for accuracy, or how many experts vetted it.

The people simply do not believe the government anymore.

In the old days, the worst thing you could do as a government writer was be inaccurate, or perhaps even to use bad grammar.

The biggest fights you'd have would center on plain language (which is now the law), as technical experts would accuse you of "oversimplifying" the facts, or even of "misrepresenting" them.

And if it took a long time get words out the door, it was because all the parties involved were haggling over the specifications and implications of language.

Today, anyone engaged in such a conversation is missing the forest for the trees.

The major problem confronting us is restoring the credibility of government itself.

How are we going to do that?

Not by punishing the writers.

But by starting a conversation about what it is the writers ought to be doing.


All opinions my own. Public domain photo via Pixabay.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …