<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Artful Dodger vs. Stonewall Jackson</title>
	<atom:link href="http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/environmental-communication-tips/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/environmental-communication-tips/</link>
	<description>Make a splash with your communications! Environmental writing and photography advice and consulting</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:16:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/environmental-communication-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-3789</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/the-artful-dodger-vs-stonewall-jackson/#comment-3789</guid>
		<description>I know where you all are coming from, and the long-run gains of not making anyone look foolish are important.  My point is that, done right, the elegant truth wins support by depriving the &quot;hostile and stupid&quot; person of their argument without flaring tempers.

Why dodge the question?  The maps were 50 years old, they got lost.  So here is how we&#039;re handling it...why avoid the question?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know where you all are coming from, and the long-run gains of not making anyone look foolish are important.  My point is that, done right, the elegant truth wins support by depriving the &#8220;hostile and stupid&#8221; person of their argument without flaring tempers.</p>
<p>Why dodge the question?  The maps were 50 years old, they got lost.  So here is how we&#8217;re handling it&#8230;why avoid the question?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gale</title>
		<link>http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/environmental-communication-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-3788</link>
		<dc:creator>Gale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:42:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/the-artful-dodger-vs-stonewall-jackson/#comment-3788</guid>
		<description>I think Lisa and Katie have a point - I honestly tried to think of such a question, and was unable to. Transparancy and honesty are important in any public agency.  I think it would be not so much a question of dodging as answering in a way that satisfies all stakeholders.

This is the closest I could come up with â€“ I took a media pr class which culminated in a practice scenario where the mock situation presented was one where a sewer pipeline sprang a leak right underneath the stage on high school graduation night.  The graduation ceremony had to be rescheduled, the public was upset, and the aggressive reporter wanted to know why the wastewater management company didn&#039;t know exactly where the sewer  pipeline was. 

In the mock scenario, the pipeline was very old and the original system maps were long lost. The spokesperson&#039;s job was to redirect the focus away from the fact that the wastewater company didn&#039;t know exactly where the pipe was to the fact that their primary focus was public health and safety and that they were doing everything possible to ensure it - by cordoning off the field and stage, sending construction and cleanup workers to the area immediately to clean up the sewage and fix the pipe, coordinating with city police and public health agencies, etc. 

The pr person artfully dodged the questions about why the 50 year old maps were lost and successfully redirected the focus to the outstanding response the wastewater company was making to the unanticipated sewage leak, how it was aggressively moving to clean up the mess and protect public health, and how it successfully coordinated efforts between relevant public agencies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Lisa and Katie have a point &#8211; I honestly tried to think of such a question, and was unable to. Transparancy and honesty are important in any public agency.  I think it would be not so much a question of dodging as answering in a way that satisfies all stakeholders.</p>
<p>This is the closest I could come up with â€“ I took a media pr class which culminated in a practice scenario where the mock situation presented was one where a sewer pipeline sprang a leak right underneath the stage on high school graduation night.  The graduation ceremony had to be rescheduled, the public was upset, and the aggressive reporter wanted to know why the wastewater management company didn&#8217;t know exactly where the sewer  pipeline was. </p>
<p>In the mock scenario, the pipeline was very old and the original system maps were long lost. The spokesperson&#8217;s job was to redirect the focus away from the fact that the wastewater company didn&#8217;t know exactly where the pipe was to the fact that their primary focus was public health and safety and that they were doing everything possible to ensure it &#8211; by cordoning off the field and stage, sending construction and cleanup workers to the area immediately to clean up the sewage and fix the pipe, coordinating with city police and public health agencies, etc. </p>
<p>The pr person artfully dodged the questions about why the 50 year old maps were lost and successfully redirected the focus to the outstanding response the wastewater company was making to the unanticipated sewage leak, how it was aggressively moving to clean up the mess and protect public health, and how it successfully coordinated efforts between relevant public agencies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gale</title>
		<link>http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/environmental-communication-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-3787</link>
		<dc:creator>Gale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/the-artful-dodger-vs-stonewall-jackson/#comment-3787</guid>
		<description>Kelly, a &quot;slap down&quot; may make you feel superior, but the objective is not to &quot;win&quot; a singular argument but to build public buy-in and support for the environmental protection project.

It&#039;s important to keep track of the objective, and successfully implementing an environmental protection project trumps personal ego boosts.  Would you really sleep better at night if your &quot;intellectual slap-down&quot; was at the cost of environmental protections?

In PR, you never want to make someone else look bad, even if they do not show the same restraint.  Look at the current election campaigns and you see the reaction - Obama has stuck to discussion of the issues and is enjoying a healthy lead, whereas McCain&#039;s negative campaigning is turning people off in droves, even costing him endorsements from his own party.

It is not necessary to slap someone down to accomplish your objective - in fact the opposite is true - if you can build consensus among all stakeholders, inclusing those who you wouldn&#039;t normally consider as allies, you have a much better chance at successfully bringing your environmental protection project to fruition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kelly, a &#8220;slap down&#8221; may make you feel superior, but the objective is not to &#8220;win&#8221; a singular argument but to build public buy-in and support for the environmental protection project.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s important to keep track of the objective, and successfully implementing an environmental protection project trumps personal ego boosts.  Would you really sleep better at night if your &#8220;intellectual slap-down&#8221; was at the cost of environmental protections?</p>
<p>In PR, you never want to make someone else look bad, even if they do not show the same restraint.  Look at the current election campaigns and you see the reaction &#8211; Obama has stuck to discussion of the issues and is enjoying a healthy lead, whereas McCain&#8217;s negative campaigning is turning people off in droves, even costing him endorsements from his own party.</p>
<p>It is not necessary to slap someone down to accomplish your objective &#8211; in fact the opposite is true &#8211; if you can build consensus among all stakeholders, inclusing those who you wouldn&#8217;t normally consider as allies, you have a much better chance at successfully bringing your environmental protection project to fruition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Katie</title>
		<link>http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/environmental-communication-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-3752</link>
		<dc:creator>Katie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/the-artful-dodger-vs-stonewall-jackson/#comment-3752</guid>
		<description>I second Lisa&#039;s request! Specific examples would be great.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I second Lisa&#8217;s request! Specific examples would be great.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa</title>
		<link>http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/environmental-communication-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-3751</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:24:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/the-artful-dodger-vs-stonewall-jackson/#comment-3751</guid>
		<description>Eric, I think this is a worthy discussion.  But can you give us more specifics on the types of &quot;off-base&quot; nature protection or pollution control questions that you think would deserve an artful dodge rather than a truly honest answer?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric, I think this is a worthy discussion.  But can you give us more specifics on the types of &#8220;off-base&#8221; nature protection or pollution control questions that you think would deserve an artful dodge rather than a truly honest answer?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly</title>
		<link>http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/environmental-communication-tips/comment-page-1/#comment-3750</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:55:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://waterwordsthatwork.com/2008/10/07/the-artful-dodger-vs-stonewall-jackson/#comment-3750</guid>
		<description>See, I&#039;m just crazy and naive...I prefer the intellectually honest &quot;slap-down&quot; to a &quot;stupid or hostile question&quot; rather than an artful dodge.  Probably won&#039;t get me far, but I&#039;ll sleep at night.  Done right, the honest answer can be devastating and leave the &quot;stupid or hostile&quot; person sputtering, much to his argument&#039;s detriment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>See, I&#8217;m just crazy and naive&#8230;I prefer the intellectually honest &#8220;slap-down&#8221; to a &#8220;stupid or hostile question&#8221; rather than an artful dodge.  Probably won&#8217;t get me far, but I&#8217;ll sleep at night.  Done right, the honest answer can be devastating and leave the &#8220;stupid or hostile&#8221; person sputtering, much to his argument&#8217;s detriment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
