Archive for the ‘RhetoricalTechnique’ Category

In the course of our work, nature protection and pollution control experts often get questions that you should not answer — off-base questions that will derail your communications train, and loaded questions crafted to make you say something that can be used against you later.

So what’s a conservationist like you to do on those occasions when a straight answer is unwise?

In Monday’s Washington Post, reporter Shankar Vendantam’s article “Artful Dodging Trumps Open Evasion” explores the different reaction you get when you offer a “no comment” vs. a more skillful redirection. He cites some psychological experiments, which found that:

…most people are extremely poor at spotting even dramatic discrepancies between questions and answers. They found the failure was especially acute when answers were semantically linked to questions…Audiences seemed to notice dodges only when answers were completely unrelated to the question…

Let’s put that another way — so long as your answer to a stupid or hostile question contains some of the key words and concepts from the original query, most people will think you answered it. The one trying to bring you down might know you dodged the question, but the bystanders will not.

Read: Artful Dodging Trumps Open Evasion

Have you given much thought to Michelle Obama’s role in her husband’s campaign? I hadn’t — at least not until I saw this headline on USA Today. Now I’m wondering, “why do people think she’s a distraction?” “Is she going to hurt her husband’s chances?”

The same thing happens to you when you respond to others’ accusations. When you issue denials like “We’re not going to condemn private property,” “We’re not going to hurt the economy,” “We’re not extremists,” and the like, a lot of people who never thought about it before will start to wonder about whether there’s any truth to the allegations you are denying.

Since people are apparently accusing Mrs. Obama of being a distraction, how do you think she should have responded to that?

And if those same people accused you of being an environmental extremist, how could you respond other than deny it?

I generally avoid taking stands on politics and specific policies on this blog, but the presidential election is the Superbowl of campaigning, so I will dissect the occasional example for nature protection and pollution control experts to learn from. And here’s one now:

Hat tip to this blog for spotting the bumper sticker

So let’s imagine for a moment that we’re the John McCain for President Campaign, and a reporter has just asked you for a reaction to this bumper sticker. Which of the following would be the better thing to say:

• John McCain is not crotchety old man
• John McCain is in excellent health and has the experience to the lead the nation in difficult times

Pretty easy, isn’t it. After all, the more the John McCain campaign denies that their candidate is a crotchety old man, the more some people will believe he is a crotchety old man. It’s not fair — but that’s how denials play out in the public’s ears and minds.

And the same principal applies to you, too. Let’s imagine that you are campaigning to protect some natural areas that help ensure clean drinking water for families in a city downstream. And a reporter has just asked you to react to this bumper sticker, which is starting to appear on pickup trucks in the region:

Source for the sticker: bumperaRt

Should you say:

• We are not environmental extremists!
• Something else.

If you picked “something else,” what would that be?

Here’s a video sure to get your blood boiling. Matt Chancey is running for Public Service Commission in the state of Alabama, and he’s running on a pro-nuke anti-enviro platform. Watch this video and check out all the unkind things he has to say about you:

Most of my relatives live in Alabama, and I’m sure they will all vote for Matt and take great pleasure in telling me about it at the next wedding or funeral. So it goes. But as a general matter, social research suggests that if Alabama conservationists play their cards right, Matt’s accusations won’t do lasting damage to their reputation. Here are some tips:

Don’ts
Chancey has called you “radical.” Don’t deny it! The more you deny it, the more some voters will believe Chancey. You should response by saying “we exercise our freedom of speech to protect the health of Alabama families.”

Chancey has called you the “liberal elite.” That’s a charge that might stick, so watch yourself. It’s not a great time to throw around a bunch of elite vocabulary like “watershed,” “riparian,” “biodiversity,” etc… you’ll only prove his point if you do. (It’s never a great time to throw around elite vocabulary in front of everyday citizens)

Do
Post comments on Chancey’s YouTube video accusing him of being a shill for corporations that want to build dangerous and polluting nuclear power plants that threaten the health and safety of Alabama families (assuming you sincerely believe that to be the case, of course).

Point out that the corporations Chancey is shilling for are accountable to anonymous shareholders rather than local citizens.

Do point out that the responsible way for the state to help residents save money is by investing in conservation and clean, renewable energy, not by giving handouts to wealthy corporations.

Thanks to Katie at the Alabama Rivers Alliance for the great tip on this video.