Writing Boots

On communication, professional and otherwise.

The goal is self-actualization, not self-censorship

by // Leave a Comment

Andrew Kaye writes speeches for Vince Cable, the Business Minister of Britain. Kaye also likes to tweet about Brits, too. For instance, according to a report in The Sun, he called U.K. "grey" and a "shit heap," full of people "yakking on their fucking phones."

Naturally, I like Kaye's style, and a Department of Business spokesman defended him, saying, "These are private tweets, made in a private capacity."

But U.K. Speechwriters Guild founder Brian Jenner gently suggests to his speechwriting colleagues that Kaye is in the wrong: "Shouldn't our attitude be: I only express the opinions that I'm paid to."

Should a professional race car driver confine herself to public transportation?

Should a farmer not grow a garden?

Should a prostitute never have sex with his wife?

Not that speechwriters are prostitutes. Most aren't, actually. Most marry their ethics and their intellects—though not always passionately—with the institution and the speaker they serve. That's good.

But retaining one's own voice requires using it now and then—straight and loud and true.

At your own risk, of course. And with the hope that your honest opinions don't directly contradict the positions you professionally promote. In which case you would, in fact, be a prostitute.

Anyway: A.K., I've got your back. And B.J., upon reflection, I'm sure you do too.

Now I remember why I always hated two-way symmetrical communication

by // 10 Comments

I sent out a whimsical Tweet yesterday, because I had a bunch of small posts going up, a shitload of work to do and no time to flog each item:

"Read Writing Boots regularly," Twoth I. "Then, I wouldn't have to Tweet every one of my posts a hundred times."

I put up something similar on Facebook, and a number of people said they "Liked."

Not Public Relations and Communication Management Veteran Judy Gombita.

She Tweeted my ass right back: "but simply enjoining tweeps to read your posts and broadcasting publicity tweets about them isn't terribly engaging or social…."

Yes, but that is the only reason I ever Tweet, as Judy Gombita goddamn well knows. "Publicity," as she calls it, is the only reason it would ever occur to me to Tweet. Sometimes I retweet somebody else's "publicity" Tweet—if I think it deserves the publicity I can give it.

But never do I try to start some separate converTwation on Twitter, or actually express ideas there, to whatever four strangers happen to be listening at the time. I don't mind wasting time, but I refuse to waste time sober.

But yesTwerday, the Twuth was, I had a mountain of copy to edit and needed a diversion. So I took Gombita up on her conversational gambit.

"I do my job," I Twaid, "it's up to readers (who don't have their own daily blogs) to do theirs."

"you responded to my tweet," she Twold me. "That's an 'engaging' start. Next time you can try INITIATING some two-way symmetrical communication. :-)"

When you use a pseudo-scientific term like "two-way symetrical communication," you damn well better put a smileyfartface next to it.*

Gombita also said, "blogging every day simply means you're a prolific creator & publisher; It doesn't qualify as 2-way, unless passive readers comment."

Me Twinks she doth proTwest too much.

I Twied to point out the abTwerdity of the converTwation:

"You responded to my jokey Tweet about self-promotion on Twitter by criticizing me for self-promotion on Twitter."

"I guess I didn't 'get' the jokey part."

"You seriously thought I was admonishing my 1,000 Twitter followers to read my blog without being asked? Judy, you need a vacation."

I hoped that would Twut her up. In fact, I Twought it had.

Nope. Hours later:

"*I* need a vacation. C'mon, David: who peed in your cornflakes, today?"

Nobody, Judy. I just actually felt like engaging you today, in some two-way symetrical communication.

🙁

* For readers unfamiliar with the term "two-way symmmetrical communication," it was popularized almost two decades ago by a study IABC paid some tens of thousands of dollars to have made, called Excellence in Public Relations. Larry Ragan once critiqued the study and its precious, egghead definition of communication and PR. His review was titled, "Does selling scads of brassieres constitute 'excellent' public relations?"

The best way not to be seen as hypocritical is not to be a hypocrite. And so on.

by // 7 Comments

The PR guru and longtime correspondent Fraser Seitel has a good piece today at Ragan.com self-explanatorily titled, "Like your PR job? Then keep your Twitter trap shut."

Lamenting the fate of several PR pros who have recently Tweeted their jobs away, Sad & Wise Seitel elaborates:

"… you want to keep your job, especially in the practice of public relations, then you must subordinate your right to tweet or blog to the interests of your client. If what you would like to tweet or blog won’t reflect well on your client, then you simply shouldn’t do it—unless, of course, you are willing to part with that portion of your income."

Impossible to disagree with that, but another obvious point goes unmade: The foolproof way to avoid saying something that would cross your client is to find clients whose interests generally don't disagree with your beliefs and whose brand matches your communication style.