Clarity, Censorship, and a Confused Editorial by Hanne Kjöller

In this morning’s newspaper (DN) I read an editorial by Hanne Kjöller about government communications. What has upset Hanne is the fact that the government office Stockholm’s Stad have developed rules for how to talk to the press, and distributed small reminder cards to remind of these rules. Granted, this could have been a problem if the rules where intended to cloak government affairs, but really Hanne, I think you’re overreacting. Here are the rules:

NEVER
* Lie, guess, or communicate your own theories.
* Get upset or angry.
* Let the situation or the reporter put you under stress.
* Discuss classified information.
* Use the expression “no comment”.

ALWAYS
* Take your time.
* Think before answering.
* Stay within your area of responsibility.
* Say if you don’t know, are able to, or allowed to answer the question.
* Stay to the facts.
* Assume that all conversations are interviews.
* Be decisive, fair and honest.

To me, these seem to be rules intended to improve communications with the public, not censor it. See – clarity of message communicates far more information, while confusion and opinions communicates less (unless you’re interested in private opinions, but these rules are about the communication of Stockholms Stad).

Hanne’s recommendation to Stockholms Stad is instead “…to withdraw their plastic card and instead encourage their staff to contact journalists whenever they think they have something to tell”. Wow. As a communications consultant I would strongly advice against that if you would like to create anything but confusion.

So Hanne, I think you got this all backwards. These rules may make your life as a reporter at work less fun, but if we’re talking about creating effective communications between Stockholms Stad and the people, they’re probably quite good for everybody.

Tagged as: clarity, conversation, DN, ph, Philosophy, Psychology & Strategy, press, rules