Skip to main content

Reform, Not Resistance Is Needed To Restore The CIA's Reputation

The CIA statement on Wikileaks' recent document dump is less than optimal --  defensive and arrogant. For such an intellectually sophisticated organization, their communication strategy needs work.

Let's take it apart:

The first thing they say is that they won't comment on whether the documents are real. 
"We have no comment on the authenticity of purported intelligence documents released by Wikileaks or on the status of any investigation into the source of the documents." 
What they should say is that they're not allowed to comment. Saying that you "won't" do something implies choice, power and discretion. Saying you "can't" demonstrates that you are following the rule of law. 

Why does this matter? Because politicized, lawless behavior by elements of the CIA is at the root of the problem here.

The statement goes on to defend CIA's right to develop extremely sophisticated technology.
"CIA’s mission is to aggressively collect foreign intelligence overseas to protect America from terrorists, hostile nation states and other adversaries. It is CIA’s job to be innovative, cutting-edge, and the first line of defense in protecting this country from enemies abroad. America deserves nothing less."
This is a really terrible thing to say to people whose trust you have betrayed. "You deserve nothing less" than the best protection we can offer, and so you should keep quiet.

Uh, no, not really. My television is spying on me!

Now they go on to do a typical government communication thing, which is to issue a very narrow, technically accurate denial that doesn't really speak to the issue.
"It is also important to note that CIA is legally prohibited from conducting electronic surveillance targeting individuals here at home, including our fellow Americans, and CIA does not do so."
The problem with a statement like this is that it insults people -- many of whom already assume that the CIA thinks they're stupid. The key words here are "CIA does not do so," with the modifying clause "electronic surveillance targeting individuals here at home, including our fellow Americans." Reading between the lines, I assume that somebody else is doing the surveillance here at home with technology that the CIA has developed, and that there is some sort of partnership or relationship that provides CIA or other intelligence agencies with access to the data collected.

Then we get a statement about the law provides for close review of CIA activities at all times:
"CIA’s activities are subject to rigorous oversight to ensure that they comply fully with U.S. law and the Constitution."
Ask any one of the hundreds of millions of Americans who have watched any Hollywood depiction of the CIA. Do they really believe that their activities are overseen fully? Do they even believe that the CIA knows what the CIA is doing at all times?

Highly, highly doubtful.

We end with this statement, which is troubling not because of the language they used, but because they don't take any responsibility for the problems they themselves have caused:
"The American public should be deeply troubled by any Wikileaks disclosure designed to damage the Intelligence Community’s ability to protect America against terrorists and other adversaries. Such disclosures not only jeopardize U.S. personnel and operations, but also equip our adversaries with tools and information to do us harm."
I speak only for myself in my blogs, but I think it is safe to say this on behalf of other Americans, too: We appreciate our intelligence community, including the CIA:
  • We are grateful to have such smart and dedicated people defending us.
  • We know that our adversaries are just as smart and dedicated.
  • We appreciate that only the most sophisticated tools available can effectively outmaneuver our adversaries.
The problem however is that the intelligence community, or more specifically, elements within the intelligence community, have clearly overstepped their bounds.
  • They have developed technology that can be used to spy on us, even if we think our communications are private.
  • They have developed technology that can make it look like others are hacking our electoral system, and they didn't tell us.
  • They are vulnerable to politicization, and we don't understand the extent of how this has affected their mission.
There are many other concerns, too, particularly when it comes to oversight.

The CIA should engage the American public with a more respectful, accountable communication strategy that speaks to our real concerns.

__

All opinions my own.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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.

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 …