I can understand why some government agencies feel they need to centralize control of “messaging” - particularly if the agency is responsible for wide-ranging issues or fundamental policies, like economic development, unemployment insurance, or fiscal policy.

But a policy of centralization tends to backfire when applied to an organization made up of scientists and researchers. Any attempt to truly restrict communication, whether by limiting the number of spokespeople on  truly technical matters or by boiling messaging down until only a wisp of information remains, will inevitably result in dis-satisfaction among the technical corps.

It’s also reflective of a poor understanding of the way scientists and researchers work. They may spend a lot of time in the lab or at a research station, but they also depend upon a web of publications, seminars, academic conferences and professional consultation to further their work and their careers. Increasingly, universities, businesses and governments are funding multi-disciplinary research projects. By their very nature, these projects encourage cooperation and information sharing.

Communicators earn their bread and butter by working with technically-minded folk to identify the innovative or ground-breaking nature of their work, then develop a theme or storyline appealing to the public and the media. Often, the scientists and researchers have done most of this work.

Which makes the centralization effort by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration unusual. Apparently, the NHTSA Administrator is the principal spokesperson for the agency.

“…I found this out recently when I asked to talk to an N.H.T.S.A. researcher about some technical safety issues in which he had a great deal of expertise. Agency officials told me I could talk to the expert on a background basis, but if I wanted to use any information or quotes from him, that would have to be worked out later with a N.H.T.S.A. official.”

“…Ms. Nason [the Administrator] felt it was necessary for N.H.T.S.A. to have a “central spokesperson” and “we were finding a lot of stuff did not need to be on the record,” David Kelly, her chief of staff, told me. He also insisted, after our telephone conversation, that he did not want to be quoted and had intended to speak only on background. (My notes show no such request.)” (NYTimes Wheels blog) 

This sort of policy doesn’t encourage fealty and silence. Just the opposite: scientists and researchers still have to do their work. They just stop telling communications staff and headquarters officials what they’re doing. Want evidence? Try this comment posted in response to the blog post cited above:

“… I’m a mid-level (non-management) lifer at a government agency that sometimes makes the news. I have talked to reporters before and will continue to do so. When I do so I inform my boss and the public affairs people after the fact. (They’re friends, and they deserve not to be blindsided.) I get a good paycheck and in return surrender 40+ hours of my time each week, but they can’t buy my silence … — Posted by Bureaucrat”

We’re public policy experts, right? We’re communications specialists, right? So why can’t we pull together a simple web advocacy app like:

Does what happens in the Facebook stay in the Facebook?

Technorati Tags: privacy, Facebook, copyright, information protection

Rummaging through a number of “how to do not-for-profit social networking” posts, I came across one rarely cited but vitally important piece of advice: Be prepared for the big moment.

Typically it takes time for a message to percolate when it doesn’t have a supporting marketing budget. But whatever your effort is, there will come a moment that puts you in the news. Will you be able to retain all of the people that show up at your door? For nonprofits, a example scenario is the Red Cross web site after Hurricane Katrina hit. For a consumer Internet vendor, it could be a great mention in digg. (christine.net)

I suspect there are a lot of government communicators and marketers trying to scrape together the money, the infrastructure and the political support for social media projects - without giving thought to the strain that a truly successful outreach or marketing effort could place on your project and your shop as a whole.

How do you spot a civil servant in a crowd? It’s normally quite difficult, especially if the civil servant is out of its element and traveling outside the capital.

Launch an ethnographic expedition into the heart of the civil servant’s breeding grounds, however, and specific badges, insignia and markings become quite evident. Like the feathers of a peacock - or the raised tail of a skunk - these details mark a civil servant as ripe for de-briefing and a presentation.

Now, this is a typically Canadian civil servant I’m describing, but I’m sure you’ll see shadows of your own colleagues in this description.

• a two year old Blackberry, extremely worn (managers)
• brand new Blackberry, never used (executives)
• hair, cut short sides and back
• pleather large Daytimer, with pocket calculator and notepad
• pleated 50/50 slacks with pursed pockets
• a cordura carrier bag, branded for a 1994 OECD policy conference
• generic black government notebook, with printout of Outlook daily calendar
• neck lanyard imprinted with an unintelligible departmental url
• on lanyard: departmental I.D. card, office phone list and transit pass
• wide collection of hotel pens
• book of taxi chits
• for the older civil servant, a lapel pin with multiple flags

Google’s about to add a comment feature to Google news - but with a twist. Only people directly involved with the story, like those quoted in it, can submit a comment to be moderated by the Google News staff.

We’ll be trying out a mechanism for publishing comments from a special subset of readers: those people or organizations who were actual participants in the story in question. Our long-term vision is that any participant will be able to send in their comments, and we’ll show them next to the articles about the story. Comments will be published in full, without any edits, but marked as “comments” so readers know it’s the individual’s perspective, rather than part of a journalist’s report. (Google News Blog)

I’m also interested in this part of the FAQ on the new comments policy:

“However, we’ll try to be in touch with you and possibly include your comments in future stories that mention you. “

Future stories? You mean a pre-emptive attack?

This is another avenue for spokespersons, technical experts and plain old communications folk to consider when evaluating their coverage. Why not respond to how your interview, fact sheet or news release were interpreted in the article?

British researchers, working in conjunction with an Ottawa government lab, discovered a rock with the composition sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide - which is the imaginary chemical formula for kryptonite. That’s right - the rock that could defeat Superman.

It was, as one Ottawa communicator called it, “a science writer’s dream.” The Citizen tells us why the trans-Atlantic partnership failed in its attempts to cross-promote the discovery. It’s all in an article called Even with kryptonite, scientists can’t smite red tape.

After nearly six years, I’m back to being an official spokesperson. And I like it. The back room’s a fine place to work, but I also like speaking to researchers, reporters, clients and Canadians in general.

There’s a sense of personal accountability and professional pride that comes with actually explaining and debating your organization’s programs and policies.

In some fashion, the change in jobs has prompted an adrenaline rush, like Hunter S. Thompson’s jackrabbits.

Oh - and there’s the google juice too. Your personal and professional profile benefits from the online media coverage. - unless you really screw up.

That’s one thing that’s changed since we were partying like it was 1999.

Technorati Tags: spokesperson, online media relations