Writing Boots

Back from three days of in Des Moines, thinking about:

American attitudes,

(is life really what you make it? or would only a callous brute not be thrown off his stride by suicides, endless wars, shrinking newspapers on the one hand, and a sweet softball summer evening and a mother-in-law-in-love, on the other?)

American style,

(do the Dutch name their convenience stores with equivalents of Git ‘n Go, Kum ‘n Go, Juice ‘n Junk?)

the American public,

(why is it that any American mutt can go to Adventure Land, take one look at the bovine crowd, and feel like a Kennedy?)

and American history—

(it’s available for $6, general admission, at the Iowa Cubs ballpark, where the view over the centerfield wall is a golden state capitol dome on a leafy hill)

—and feeling no rush—it’s not even July 15 yet, I’m not yet 40, America might be as relatively young as Scout, and she’s just learning how to swim!—to draw conclusions.

On I-80 West yesterday bound for Des Moines—somewhere after the Iowa state line but before the real border, which is the looming, purple thunderhead you inevitably pass through on this road—NPR stations were getting harder and harder to find, badly outnumbered on the bottom of the FM dial by Christian shows.

I was listening with forced intensity, as I was drowsy and my first mate was sleeping. On “Talk of the Nation,” I heard an interview on the energy situation with the president-elect of the American Petroleum Institute. The fellow, who has also represented the mining industry and one other industry lobby whose altruistic aim I can’t recall, said more than once that what he thought we really need in this country is a “robust debate” about energy.

Now I don’t know about you, but when I have as strong a point of view about something as I imagine the oil industry has about wanting to drill more reserves in North America, what I’m looking for is not a “robust debate.”

Honey, I understand you want me to come along with you to Bed, Bath and Beyond, and that this trip will cause me to miss my tee time. I embrace this diversity of views, and I look forward to a robust debate.

I don’t know whether drilling offshore is a good idea. I’m not an environmentalist, a scientist, or an oil energy expert.

I do know that in general, people who call for debates and dialogues are looking to put the problem off (“we need a dialogue on education!”) while pretending to address it (“we need a dialogue on race in this country!”).

As for people who use the word “robust”—whether they’re referring to debates, coffee or marketing strategies—well, they’re bullshitters too.

Finally, the petroleum guy also said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. It’s my experience—and I bet most sensible Iowans will agree with me on this one—that people who use this old saw happen to be liars.

Looking at earnings releases for a daily news roundup that I do for one of my clients, I recently got clarity about the reason management hates the media (a thing that makes media relations’ people’s jobs so stressful).

Management spends weeks arguing internally—the accountants, the IR guys, the lawyers, the CFO and the CEO himself—about how to frame the quarterly results. They finally come to a grudging conclusion, almost all of them believing all the others are either Pollyannas or prigs.

And the press release gets hammered out. And it’s finally released. And the moment it is, these goofy industry reporters interpret the results all over again.

For instance, back in late April the German retailer Metro released its first-quarter earnings.

"Metro Q1 EBIT rises despite German doldrums," Reuters reported.

"Metro Widens 1Q Net Loss," said Dow Jones.

Both facts were true; but the interpretations were different. Same thing happened to Clorox a couple of days later.

"Clorox lowers high end of 2008 guidance range," the Associated Press reported.

"Clorox forecasts eases investor fears, stock jumps," Reuters said.

Again: No factual differences in the stories. Just different interpretations, both of them probably legitimate. But one reporter’s take nudges the stock price up, the other threatens to nudge it down.

You can understand why management hits the roof over this stuff. But have you ever found a way to make management understand that, with a free press (let alone a wild blogosphere), various interpretations are absolutely inevitable and should be received philosophically?