Archive for April, 2007

Here’s a problem: the board of directors for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources doesn’t have a single environmentalist on it, but has plenty of polluters and developers. So local blogger, “Spacey Gracey” is poking the governor in the eye over it: urging her readers to invite board members to the Upper Chatahoochee Riverkeeper’s big fiesta.

This approach is both pointed and polite. Very deft. I like it. So I’ll weigh in with a tip: Most Georgia voters aren’t familiar with the DNR and might not make the connection between the agency board and the things they care about, like enough clean water, nature protection, and wildlife conservation. But even people who can’t tell the difference between the DNR and the DMV still get pissed off when the governor looks out for the big guy instead of them, so let’s portray the situation that way, using water words that work, and see how that goes:

• Balance: The board should represent a balance of interests, and it doesn’t.
• Accountability: The DNR is accountable to this board, which doesn’t represent a balance of interests.
• Fair: State officials won’t make fair decisions if they are accountable to this cartel of polluters and developers.
• Responsibility: The governor has a reponsibility to rectify the situation and appoint a balanced board for the DNR.

Good luck with your campaign, Spacey.

Over at the Post-Normal Times blog, Sylvia is is pointing to connections between GOP pollster Frank Luntz’s work and the Nisbet/Mooney “framing science” kerfuffle. Sam Bradley at Communication, Cognition, and Arbritrary Thoughts is on the connection as well. I’ll take the opportunity to expound on what Luntz generally does right and where Mooney/Nisbet have misstepped.

What Luntz has a knack for is an appreciation for the perspective — and feelings — of the listener. “It’s not what you say, it’s what they hear,” he writes. Marketing Guru Seth Godin puts it a little differently, noting “what you do is not nearly as important as how it makes people feel.”

How have Mooney and Nisbet made scientists feel? Not very good, if the blogosphere dustup is any indication. But that’s what happens when you accuse scientists of “ceding their ability to contribute to the future of our nation.”

So Mooney and Nisbet have repeated the mistake that the scientific establishment itself makes – focusing on being right over being clear and compelling. Watch the trailer for the film “A Flock of Dodos, which explores how the proponents of “intelligent design” have established it as a legitimate alternative in many people’s minds to the theory evolution by.. being nicer than legitimate scientists.

“I think people have to stand up and say, you’re an idiot!” fumes one scientist in the film about intelligent design believers – a remark that has probably driven many to embrace the theory.

So what’s the lesson for nature protection and pollution control experts? Listening is important. Conveying that you respect your audience is important. And which of the words that work help convey that you’re listening? Try “balance,” “fair,” and “working together.”

Tip of the hat for to Andy Goodman for alerting me to the film.

I’m really enjoying doing this blog, but it is even more fun to get together with activists, scientists, engineers, and regulators and walk through the material in person. The pace and the energy is lively and we always have a good time. I’ve done more than a dozen over the past few years and still try to squeeze them in whenever the opportunity presents itself (hint, hint).

A really nice article appeared in the Annapolis Capitol on April 16 about the “in person” version of Water Words That Work that I presented to the Chesapeake Watershed Forum last November.

Thank you very much to Eric Smith, who wrote this flattering piece, and to Steve Carr for giving me the heads up that it appeared.

The Capital: Simple words can be more effective

Mike in California sent me a promising brochure last week published by the California Department of Water Resources. It has a simple straightforward title: “Write about watersheds with courtesy and clarity.”

It’s a strong piece. It has the same basic objective at Water Words That Work: helping experts get more appreciation, respect, and cooperation from the public though the power of clear communications. However, it approaches the goal from a different perspective — focusing on public officials’ habit of using a lot words when only a few will do.

Far and away the best thing about this piece is the “before and after” section, where you can compare some painful bureaucratic gobbeldygook with a plain English alternative. Check it out — it’s very instructive reading.

The only shortcoming is, of course, the title. “Watershed” is simply not a word that works. Sad but true, only about half of Ameircan adults can guess the correct definition on a multiple choice quiz, and only a very few have a deeper appreciation of what the term means.

It’s a common mistake in our circles to try to get people excited about watersheds — something they know nothing about — instead of opening our approach with things they already care about, like clean and healthy water in their faucets and in their local creeks. Or protected natural areas that provide a home for wildlife and help keep their family safe from floods.

Everytime we invoke the word “watershed,” we hide these popular concepts behind a word that most people don’t understand.

Download Write about watersheds with courtesy and clarity. It’s an official recommended resource!

And after you read it, click the comments link below to share your thoughts.