Last week, I took a fellow eco-blogger to task for falling into the self-indulgent habit of trying to shock people into action with bad news alone.
The blogger ignored my provocation. He did not take the bait. Hellooooo?? No response. Deafening silence.
Oh well, a Water Words reader weighed in:
From my own point of view and experience, alarm and outrage have been grossly over-used in recent years, especially when it comes to the environment. Yes, there are some situations in which a person *should* react with both alarm and outrage, such as direct pipelines of raw sewage into a watershed. I think the stress should be on information and education, with a strong emphasis on doing something rational and effective with long-term positive effects.
Rational. That’s a word I have some views about. It’s a mighty fine line there between rational and clinical. And trying to cost-benefit-analyze everyday citizens into action with a boring presentation of scientific and policy facts is a failing of ours, too. You may get (some of) those everyday citizens to agree with you with this kind of approach (if they understand you), but most won’t DO anything.
A group of people I really respect, including Kristin Grimm at Spitfire Strategies and Marty Kearns at the Green Media Toolshed, recently spent some time deep-thinking this conundrum, and wrote a paper called Discovering the Activation Point. It’s way better than the usual self-serving self-published white paper that consulting firms all pump out these days, so I encourage you to read it.
If I was to summarize the report findings in a single phrase, it would be: agreement comes from the head, but action comes from the heart.
It is my own view that negative emotions get people’s attention, but these feelings are abundant. We all experience a glut of bad news as we go through our day. It is the opportunity to feel positive about doing something that makes some problems stand out from all the rest.
Everyday citizens want to feel positive, virtuous emotions like accomplishment, confidence, belonging, generosity, camaraderie, charity, resolve, frugality, etc… Opportunities to feel this way are rare, and if they can experience that by doing something about your problem, they will. So don’t make them guess — come right out and tell them how great they’ll feel, using words that work like:
Subscribe via RSS
Fan Our Facebook Page
Connect on LinkedIn
The April 13, 2007 piece on “On the Media” (www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2007/04/13/04) titled “Blinded with Science” provides terrific support for what you are doing on this blog Eric. Here is the opening statement:
“Why do many Americans still refuse to accept scientific consensus on issues like climate change and evolution? Communications scholar Matt Nisbet says it’s largely because scientists aren’t framing their research in terms everybody can understand.” This is from an article in a primary scientific journal that spans all science specialties, “Science.”
BROOKE GLADSTONE went on to say, “The Competitive Enterprise Institute may be adapting to new scientific realities, but how about the scientists themselves? Not really, according to a short article in the current issue of Science magazine. In it, American University communications professor Matthew Nisbet and science journalist Chris Mooney argue that scientists have done a poor job of getting their message across, and that if they really want to convey the implications of their research they need to focus more on framing, recasting their message in terms the lay public can really relate to.”
Wow! That is exactly what Eric figured out for the environmentalists. What a terrific gift you are providing, Eric. Is there any way to support your blog?