Tag Archives: media

Truth and the cult of objectivity

Posted on January 5, 2012 by | Leave a comment

This is going to be one of those not-quite-fully-developed posts, where there are just too many ideas in my head to say something terrifically cogent. As usual, that’s where you all come in.

But my core message (in case it doesn’t come through clearly!) is this:

We can’t let our obsession with objectivity, and our equation of it with “fairness” or “even-handed treatment”, obscure our search for truth.

I thought about this the other day when I was internally railing against coverage of our nation’s ongoing immigration debate. I was reading yet another article that quoted some immigrant students’ ories of their own lives and hopes for meaningful reform in the coming year, followed by a few quotes from a restrictionist group about how the “pro-illegal immigrant” groups were hoping to blackmail members of Congress with electoral threats related to the 2012 elections and the rising prominence of Latino voters. Or some nonsense like that–I kind of stopped reading.

And it reminded me of part of The Race Beat, where some of the reporters charged with covering the civil rights movement found it increasingly difficult to do so to their editors’ satisfaction, because the issue had crystallized to such an extent that, truly, there wasn’t a legitimate “other side.” In their quest to provide the balance that their newsrooms demanded, they were giving voice to actors who truly didn’t have a real place in the debate, morally or politically. I mean, people of color were being killed for trying to register to vote, and we’re somehow supposed to give credence to an alternative explanation–something other than the evil of racism? Really?

I’m not arguing that we’re in exactly the same place with immigrants’ rights. I don’t get into the “whose injustice is worse?” game. Ever.

But I do think that we’re beginning to find ourselves facing some of the same quandries, at least with elements of this debate. Who do you find who is a legitimate voice arguing that amazingly bright and hard-working immigrant youth should be rounded up and sent “back” to a foreign country? Who represents the “other side” in a question about how we should handle the deportation proceedings of mothers with young U.S. citizen children? Where do you put a shrill nativist voice clamoring for sealed borders and harsh detention conditions? And why can’t we have this national conversation without including them?

Truth obviously means being open to inquiry, curious about alternative views, and willing to engage in an earnest dialogue, including with people who disagree with us. But, in order to fuel the knowledge on which we rely for those conversations, I just don’t think there’s any rule that we should have to try to give equal time to those whose views masquerade as opinion, when they are really dangerous attempts to dress hatred up as dissent.

Objectivity is just not necessarily a virtue.

Our values are a valid lens through which to view our world.

And giving more attention to those voices our values compel us to heed does not mean that we’re so hopelessly biased that we cannot think.

That might make me a terrible newspaper editor.

But I think it serves me fairly well as a seeker of truth.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Analysis and Commentary

Tagged , , , ,

Building a Better Frame

Posted on August 2, 2011 by | Leave a comment

*I’m still on maternity leave, and, so, reposting some of my favorite posts from the last two years of Classroom to Capitol. I’ve tried to pick out a mix of those that attracted a lot of attention at the time and those that are just personally meaningful to me (and, I hope, to some of you!), and I’ve also updated them, in some cases, with some new questions and information. Thank you for your patience as I dedicate myself to full-time motherhood for a few more weeks!

Speaking two languages has been very helpful to me in many aspects of my life, and my social work practice. Certainly I could have never been an organizer and advocate within the Latino immigrant community without being fluent in Spanish. And now, even removed from that community on a daily basis, I find abundant opportunities to use my Spanish, not just to interpret while waiting in line at the pharmacy to pick up medicine for a sick kid (although that happens quite regularly), but also because there are so many things that can be said more eloquently or emphatically in one language than another. My husband, who doesn’t speak much Spanish, has fully accepted these idioms in our family life.

But speaking another language has also been helpful for me in my thinking about language itself, how we communicate, and how messages gain resonance and power. It helps me to think about how people are excluded from power by virtue of what their history or social place hasn’t provided them in terms of context. And it helps me to think about how we can use language to accomplish the kinds of shifts in public opinion and understanding that we need in order to push forward a social agenda more consistent with social work values.

A few months ago, I participated in an advocacy training session on media and messaging. While they are connected for the sake of calendar simplicity, they’re of course quite separate exercises (or should be!). In order to succeed in messaging, we must learn to see media coverage as just what it is–the media through which our established frames can seek dominance in the realm of ideas. Those health care advocates, and, indeed, many of us, are sometimes baffled by the ways in which our accepted frames fail to gain real traction in the common discourse about a certain issue. Often, it’s because we haven’t paid enough attention to how people are already talking about something, or because our messages aren’t framed in such a way as to resonate beyond our own circles. I strongly believe that we have to get better at this. Those of us who are committed to redressing such ills as growing income inequality, rising child poverty, sustained pockets of economic desperation, entrenched injustices for women, people of color, and other groups in society are still not winning the critically important battle for ideas, and this is where we need to focus our energy, in the same way that those opposed to our interests have invested decades and millions of dollars in shaping the way that we think, and talk, about the social problems we face.

An example to convince you of the importance, and then some lessons on framing.

If I would have mentioned ‘the death tax’ 20 years ago, you would have had no idea what I was talking about. “Taxing death?” “Who would do that, and why?” “What on earth do you mean?” Here again, if you were not familiar with English, you would be similarly confused–trying to translate ‘the death tax’ into Spanish is an unsatisfactory exercise. But, indeed, ‘the death tax’ is precisely how the conversation was shaped about the tax on the largest U.S. inheritances, giving this very rational, and modestly progressive, public policy a taint that suggests that the long arm of the U.S. government is reaching into the pocketbooks of the dead and grabbing their last dimes in a final insult. A truly successful adventure in framing, and one that should serve as a challenge for us–how can we ensure that social work values similarly pervade public discourse on a host of issues, from tax policy to economic support for low-income families to child welfare to health care to HIV/AIDS to immigration?

Some of my thoughts, some of which have been sparked by my reading of expert framers like George Lakoff:

1. Don’t use the ‘other side’s’ language—it picks a frame
2. Framing=using language that fits your worldview (so you have to know what this worldview is)
3. Framing has to be about ideas, not just words (if not, you’re just coming up with soundbites, and that’s always going to come up short–our challenge is to use words to shape how people think, not just how they talk–although changing how they talk is a good place to start)
4. People think in frames, not facts—if your facts don’t fit your frame, they won’t believe your facts, but once your frame is accepted, everything you say within that is ‘just common sense’—the battle is won!
5. With framing, your goal is to activate your model/frame among those in the middle (you’ll never convince your extreme opponent, and with your nearest allies, all you need is media to carry your message to them–they’re already predisposed to believe it!)
6. When we lack a clear frame (especially progressives), we overcompensate with extra words—this is a sign of weakness and partially explains why we lose; social workers are particularly notorious for this, because we can always ‘see all sides of an issue’–that’s nice, but framing is not the time or the place for nuances; we need to pick a frame and stick with it!
7. We win when we talk about values and connect with others’ core values without having to sacrifice our own frame in pursuit of common ground. If they get you to abandon your frame, they will have won even if you win the tangible victory (b/c frames shift thinking and attitudes, which is what wins over the long term)
8. Start with values, not facts or issues–we have to find a place to connect (family, liberty, justice…and then how does your particular frame on this issue fit those values?)
9. Repetition, repetition, repetition—people won’t remember where they heard it, but they’ll remember it! (Think of the Doublemint Gum commercials or any parallel from your youth–in framing as in marketing, you get no bonus points for innovation, only for dominance)
10. When interacting with media, always reframe to your perspective before answering—if you answer in their frame, you won’t even have a chance to communicate your real message. Midwesterners have a particularly hard time with this, so you may need to practice this so that it doesn’t feel rude or unduly awkward. Remember, they have to print/quote/use something, so if you only say things that are consistent with your frame, then that will come through by default!
11. Build stocks of effective stories with your frame built in, and work them into every opportunity to talk about the issue–every example you give and every picture you paint with your words needs to be pulling people towards the same, common frame.

I want to hear–what, in your opinion, are the most important frames in public discourse about the social problem(s) that are your particular focus? Who is responsible for driving them? How might you reframe where needed? Do you have a social problem with which you’re especially struggling with a frame? Leave it in the comments and we’ll think together about how you might frame it!

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Tips and How-Tos

Tagged ,

Are we there yet? Evaluating Media Advocacy

Posted on March 4, 2010 by | Leave a comment

It took me longer than I’d like to admit to get through this fairly short document–there are times when hundreds of interruptions to pull apart stubborn Lego pieces are really not that conducive to efficient processing of information!

But I’m glad that I found it, and read it, because it is a pretty simple way of framing something that we should always do but rarely get done (kind of appropriate, then, hunh?):

Craft a clear, measurable, strategic plan for how we intend to communicate about our desired social change, and then (drum roll, please…)

Actually see if it’s working!

When I work with students or advocates about their social change goals, “influence public opinion” or “educate the community” often feature prominently among their objectives. And I always cringe a bit, honestly, because those are so vague and loose and ‘squishy’, the kind of goal that sometimes never gets done.

This guide, produced by the Communications Network, which is, itself, supported by a group of high-powered foundations, has some really commonsense stuff in it. So, you know, the stuff that we should know but never take the time to think about?

Here are some of the highlights, with some examples that really resonated with me. It’s a quick read, though, if you don’t have to fast-forward through the ‘scary’ parts of Curious George videos, so check it out.

  • You need a communications plan. Yes, I know, “duh”, but you DO. Start there; the end of this guide has some good resources if you need help.
  • We need to be constantly monitoring the environment regarding our issues–both because that’s how we figure out where to set our benchmarks and how we should begin to respond, and also because we need a baseline. This means looking at public opinion surveys, reading letters to the editor, looking at our web traffic, tracking phone calls and other organizational contacts in some kind of systematic way.

    STOP. If you’re not already using Google Alerts to monitor mentions of your organization and/or your core social change issues, please start RIGHT NOW. It’s another one of Google’s totally awesome services that you can’t afford not to use (because it’s free).

  • It’s not enough just to say that we want more people to be ‘aware’. We have to ask ourselves why we care that people are aware, and what we want them to do with this awareness–change their behavior, seek policy change, become champions? We need to layer qualitative messages over quantitative ones here, so that we know not just how many people recognize, for example, our organization, but also what they understand about what we stand for. We have to remember that the easiest analytics are usually the least meaningful.
  • If policy change is what we seek (and it is, right? right?), then we need to pay attention to shifting the discourse. This is where communications connect to advocacy and the need to create our own windows of political opportunity. They used the example of an organization measuring the use of the term ‘undocumented workers’ rather than ‘illegal immigrants’ as a way to know when they were succeeding in changing the conversation about a particular topic, and, therefore, potentially opening some space for policy change.
  • Figuring out if what we’re doing with communications is likely to get us to our ultimate goals around policy change requires connecting our messaging to our theory of change–essentially, we’re measuring proxies for our real success, but these kinds of interim measures are how we can assess midstream in order to make changes where needed.
  • If we’re researching which messages connect with which audiences, then we’re MUCH more likely to actually speak the way people will be able to hear. Message matters, and figuring out the right one can put your reform over the finish line (“death tax”, anyone?).

    It reminds me a lot of my work on immigration policy. Those of us closest to the issue thought that our “best” argument was around immigrants’ economic contributions. So we’d trot out these figures about how much more immigrants pay in taxes than they receive in benefits, and right around the time we got to quoting the National Academy of Sciences, people’s eyes glazed over.

    They don’t care. Not much, at least. Those are numbers they’ll never meet and never trust.

    When we, as a coalition, conducted extensive research on the messages that did move people around immigration, it wasn’t about economics. It was about values. When we talked about how immigrants love this country so much that they sought it out, that they care about their families and their faith and want the American Dream that has motivated immigration to this country for generations, that’s when people started to nod. They know those people. And they just might like them.

    We need to count those nods, whether they’re online or on TV or in a town hall or on the editorial page; figure out how to get more of them; and adjust our communications strategy (because we have one now, right?) accordingly. There is a war over words, and it’s one we need to win.

    Resources:
    Are We There Yet?

    Media Evaluation Project

    • → Leave a comment

    Posted in Analysis and Commentary

    Tagged , ,

    A la cama con Canedo: Adventures in Ethnic Media

    Posted on February 24, 2010 by | Leave a comment

    photo credit, stars6, via Flickr

    There are moments in every organizer’s life that he/she will never forget. I have many, but perhaps one of the most humorous was when I found myself as the featured guest on a sexually-themed Spanish-language late-night call-in show.

    Yes, true story.

    Organizers who work in immigrant communities know that ethnic media are very important in reaching the target audience. They have a level of trust that traditional media sources do not (sometimes well-deserved, sometimes not, because some language-minority media are heavily corporate-controlled and not always focused on the interests of the community), and they have a saturation within the community that few other media can match.

    As an organizer within the Latino immigrant community, then, I was very comfortable working with Spanish-language radio shows. One of our key leaders, in fact, was the daughter of a prominent local DJ, and we received a lot of free, very good coverage through our strong relationships. They promoted our fundraisers, did on-air interviews so that I could explain legislation, encouraged people to participate in advocacy, and turned out to do remote broadcasts from our rallies and legislative days. It was a huge part of our mobilization effort, from which came some people who later became core leaders.

    For an upcoming fundraising event, I wanted to reach a lot of youth, and my research and conversations with youth leaders in the community revealed that, among Latino immigrant young people, the most popular local radio personality was one Mario Canedo. His show started at like 10PM, but this was before I had kids, so I was working then anyway! I called him on the phone, explained who I was, and we had a great conversation–he was very well-versed in politics, had a good consciousness of the issues, and clearly saw his role as including information dissemination and building connections among his listeners. He invited me to come into the station for an on-air interview the next evening and promised me 30 minutes of time, spread out over 90 minutes or so, so that we’d retain good audience share. He asked me to send him some information on the event and our issue priorities so that he could prepare.

    He was just as friendly and intelligent in person, and so I settled into the booth, put my headphones on, and got ready. And then the heavy breathing started. And the moaning. Mario looked nonplussed–he was searching the Univisión website, which had a vote breakdown on HR4437. Sexual innuendo in Spanish came from my headphones. And then Mario flipped the switch and said, in a sultry/playful voice, “Ya es hora de comenzar…a la cama con Canedo!” “Now it’s time to begin…to bed with Canedo.”

    Yes, I was on the late-night program, the name of which I had neglected to ask, where the Spanish music was interspersed with bawdy chatter and all of that recorded sex. I think my eyes got huge, because, at the next break, Mario asked if it was my first time to listen to the show. Um, what was your first clue?

    Truly, it was a successful show–he toned down the rowdiness a bit for me (especially when it was obvious I didn’t get most of his jokes, and not because of a language barrier!), and several of the callers were sincerely enthusiastic about our advocacy. I think I stopped blushing about halfway through. And when I checked my voicemail later that night, I had two nearly unintelligible messages from our youth leaders who were laughing so hard that they could barely get a word out. I’m glad that I could make their night.

    It was a good lesson for me, in all, in the importance of really knowing the community in which you’re organizing. I certainly was much more at home in Spanish-language media than most non-Latinos, but I could have benefitted from a bit more research in advance. Listen to the programs you’re going to be on, and always use indigenous ‘guides’ as you’re exploring new media.

    At the same time, how many immigrant rights organizers can say that they’ve also been a guest on a sex radio show, right? So there’s always that.

    → Leave a comment

    Posted in Background Reading

    Tagged ,

    21st Century press release: creating your own content

    Posted on January 29, 2010 by | Leave a comment

    microphones

    Nonprofits and their need for media attention have been on my mind lately. I reviewed a new version of a textbook on advocacy and organizing that I have used in class before, and I noticed that the section on writing press releases and holding press conferences is virtually unchanged from previous versions. A few days later, I was talking with a nonprofit organization that is planning a press event in the state capitol and helping them think through how to manage their information dissemination for maximum impact. Later that night, I was going through my RSS feed, checking out updates. And, then, as these things often happen, all of those encounters mixed together in my brain at some point (probably while in the shower; I do my best planning then!), and got me wondering whether nonprofit organizations really need traditional media outlets to tell their stories in the same way, and to the same extent that we used to.

    In the age of blogs and social media, how can we modify our press strategies to not only get our message out but, more importantly, start a conversation with those most likely to support our work? How can we use new media technologies to change the context around our work and influence the kind of traditional coverage we get? How can we use that traditional media to drive traffic to the more interactional sites where real relationship building can happen?

    Do we still need press releases? Should we still have press conferences? Do we need a blog?

    I think, ultimately, that the answer to all of those questions is ‘yes’. That doesn’t mean more and more work for nonprofit communications folks, though (read: the people who wear a ‘communications’ hat in addition to dozens of other things that they’re doing). Here are my thoughts on how to bring these goals together with today’s technology, and in today’s media environment, along with some fantastic links to nonprofits that are using an official blog to great effect.

  • We still need traditional media to reach those who use it as a primary media source, but we need to be smart about that audience and about the limitations of the venue. I have written before about some of the challenges facing newspapers and other traditional media outlets, and about the importance of recognizing those in preparing our content–helping with stories, understanding their deadlines, submitting things that appeal to the demographic slice where your target audience overlaps with their reader/viewership.
  • This also means thinking about how traditional media are using new media like blogs, online content, and social networking themselves–how can you connect to media in those contexts in ways that will generate coverage for your organization? Are you ‘friends’ with your local reporters on Facebook? Following local media on Twitter? Do you read blogs by reporters that cover your areas of work?
  • All of your traditional media should funnel folks back to your own, organization-generated content. That was part of the discussion I had in advance of this Topeka event–all press releases should have your organization’s website, Facebook page, Twitter feed link, and blog (as applicable). You should also think about ways to get media coverage for your new tactics. This does NOT mean sending out a press release because you started a Facebook fan page (yes, I have seen it done). But it does mean that raising a significant amount on money through social networking may, in fact, be newsworthy, just as a fundraising event would be. Think about what that success says, not just about your organization, but about the changing face of nonprofit media engagement. Pitch it to the newspapers, radio stations, and/or television stations in a way that doesn’t denigrate what they do as news providers. And direct people to connect with you through those sources, too.
  • Perhaps most importantly, prepare different kinds of content for the different venues. Think about your traditional media work primarily as reaching out to those with whom you don’t currently have a relationship and setting the general tone of conversation about your issues/work. And then create your own content, where you have more control over the outgoing message AND can invite meaningful exchange–in your social networking and blogging platforms.
  • Frame these ‘new’ media activities as MEDIA, to get organizational buy-in for them. Most nonprofit CEOs and Boards of Directors understand the importance of media coverage, but many are more skeptical about social networking’s real impact or about the tremendous time commitment of a blog. Helping leaders at your organization see how the two can feed each other can help to overcome some of this initial hesitation and build a better strategy across the board.
  • Finally, there are times when you may want to skip the whole “write a press release, work the phones, try to get coverage” thing. When the people with whom you mainly want to communicate are those with whom you already have some sort of relationship, or when you hope to really generate conversation, more than anything, a well-written, well-connected agency blog can do this more effectively and efficiently than traditional media. There are some good resources available for nonprofit organizations interested in starting a blog, so I’m not going to reiterate those points. And here are some
    great examples of nonprofit organization blogs; if you’re interested in those written about nonprofit work, I’d be happy to share my RSS reader with anyone!

    Citizens’ League of Minnesota–website features two different blogs related to their efforts to engage people in Minnesota in discussions about progressive policy work.

    Oceana–a conservation group using a blog to invite conversation about people’s experiences with ocean wildlife.

    Oxfam News blog–this is my personal favorite of this list; I love the first-person accounts of Oxfam’s work around the world and the call-to-action in nearly every post

    First Book–this is an organization that gives books to programs that serve low-income kids; what I like about the blog is that it appeals to people not just as donors or volunteers, but also as parents and readers, with reviews and news on child literacy. I’d check this site out even if it wasn’t for a nonprofit organization.

    One thing that you’ll notice about many nonprofit blogs is that some of the best ones are for more advocacy-oriented nonprofits. Not that that’s a bad thing, obviously, but there’s also tremendous possibility for direct service nonprofits to use blogs. The links above give great suggestions for how to set up your blog (technology to use for hosting, how to encourage sharing and linking, how to think of topics, etc…). I’ll just end with a few ideas for social service nonprofits, in particular:

  • Highlight a volunteer per week–a photo, an interview, and, of course, a call to potential volunteers!
  • Profile client success stories, ideally in the clients’ own words
  • Highlight public policies that impact your programs, and include information to help readers take action
  • Discuss issues facing your nonprofit, using your blog to ‘crowdsource’ ideas from other nonprofits and from leaders in the community

    What about you? What are your favorite nonprofit blogs? How is your organization using a blog? Or how might you? What help do you need to get started? How is your traditional media work informing your social/new media, and how it it being transformed by the multiple and evolving connections you have to your various ‘publics’? How might you modify your press work to reflect this new environment?

    • → Leave a comment

    Posted in Tips and How-Tos

    Tagged ,

    Social Justice and Citizen Journalism

    Posted on December 11, 2009 by | 2 Comments

    So, some people are just geniuses. Really. And when they apply their genius to social change, some pretty amazing things can happen.

    I have been intrigued since the moment last summer when I first heard about Spot.us. In the research I’ve done since, this is what I’ve learned. These folks created a website that allows people (it’s only on the West Coast now–started in the Bay Area) to invest in freelance journalism projects, mainly investigative work, that they feel their communities need. Likewise, journalists can pitch stories/series that they’d like to do and then solicit community-based funding for them. It started with specific stories or series but has expanded to include entire beats: one, for example, is City Budgetwatch for San Francisco.

    When the stories are complete, they are picked up by mainstream media, run in the alternative press, and/or shared directly with the community. Obviously, a major impetus for this comes from the severe budget restrictions facing many newspapers, traditionally the biggest font of investigative journalism in the country. Many papers have cut back drastically on their local and in-depth reporting, including The Kansas City Star. The increasing consolidation of media ownership likely plays a role, too, given its contribution to growing homogenization of news coverage and greater difficulty finding audiences for local/niche reporting.

    I’ll be honest; I have some concerns about this model. First, it is in some ways just a grassroots application of a model long-maligned by social justice advocates (for good reason); wealthy, powerful interests have a long history of ‘buying’ the media coverage they want, through pressuring media companies with their ad dollars, purchasing media outlets altogether, and/or other questionable tactics. There’s some truth to the ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ adage, but that part still makes me a little queasy. Second, will there be pressure on the journalists to produce the story that the community investors want? In some cases, certainly, this won’t be a problem, but, in others, the media’s role as pursuer of the truth may be distorted by financial pressures again, just of a different kind. And, third, will this trend threaten the survival of those alternative media sources that, while corporate-funded, have still done impressive investigative work over the past few decades, providing important information and credible perspectives in policy debates? Similarly, would the good reporters still part of mainstream outlets flee, meaning that these venues, where many people still get their news, would deteriorate further? I realize that this last concern is probably far-off and the kind of thing that the founders hope will become a problem, but I think we need to try to think this through as this effort gets going.

    I had a chance to communicate via email with David Cohn, the founder of Spot.us, after I left some of these comments on Beth’s blog (where he was kind enough to share Spot.us’ success with crowdfunding (small donations collected from many donors), which has tremendous implications for advocacy and other nonprofit ventures, too). He stressed that they are working with alternative media outlets to bolster their freelance budgets, so that they are an asset to those assets, not a threat. He also made a strong case for transparency as the ‘new objectivity’, so that people will know where the support for a particular story came from and be able to make their own judgment about its validity, based on full information, rather than a purported reputation for objectivity, the way traditional media gains credibility today.

    After communicating with David, I feel more confident that the creators of this initiative are, in fact, the enthusiastic, brilliant, principled people that they seem to be, and that they will guide this effort to its full potential as a revolution in our production and dissemination of information. And I’m going to encourage social workers and others committed to social justice to become involved in this community-funded reporting, to shape it as a force for social good.

    It’s not in the Midwest yet, but, to get the ball rolling, here are some stories to which I would gladly contribute $20. What do you think? How can you envision this kind of media shaping our social change work? What stories do you wish you saw today that you’d be willing to fund? How would you use community-funded reporting in your field of practice?

  • Anti-immigrant state legislators who employ immigrant workers in their homes/yards
  • Contrast between two Food Stamp beneficiaries: low-income working family and ADM executive
  • ‘Welfare’ received by some of the harshest anti-public support policymakers (the value of their mortgage interest deductions, 401(k) deductions, tax credits, etc…)
  • Some kind of ‘nativist’ watch, where it would be flagged anytime an elected official repeated a claim of racist anti-immigrant organizations (like the Social Security theft deal, or La “Reconquista”)

    Resources:Have Fun-Do Good blog post about Community-funded reporting

    • → 2 Comments

    Posted in My New Favorite Thing

    Tagged ,

    It’s not high school anymore–Winning Policy Debates

    Posted on September 28, 2009 by | 2 Comments

    To debate or not to debate? Sorry to be so trite, but that really is the first question. Especially in the immigrant rights movement, where all of us feel (justifiably, I think) that the anti-immigrant side gets way more attention and credibility than it deserves, there is a lot of controversy about whether we’re doing our cause any favors when we engage in debate with those voices. Are we unwittingly legitimizing them by sharing a stage? Or is it a part of our obligation as advocates to ensure that their views do not go unchallenged? Uncharacteristically, I remain a bit ambivalent on this question. For the most part, I refused debates with anti-immigrant organizations/individuals when doing so meant that the event would not be held (because they couldn’t/wouldn’t do the debate one-sided and could find no one else appropriate for our side) and agreed when it was clear that the alternative was uncensored time for the anti-immigrant perspective. My one clear absolute rule was that would not debate Minutemen. When asked for names of people to represent ‘the other side’ I always suggested someone from Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services since, as bureaucrats, they tend not to be zealots but rather to represent the government’s position.

    Most of the time, because he was the most presentable figure they had and because he (like me, I’ll admit) likes to debate, I debated Kris Kobach. I debated him when he was a congressional candidate, after he lost his bid, when he was representing FAIR in court, after that case was dismissed, and even once after he became Chair of the Republican Party in Kansas. I debated him on television (live and recorded), on radio, and in front of live audiences. I debated him indirectly, in legislative hearings (see the post on testimony), but this post refers to direct debates, where, sometimes alone and sometimes joined by 1-2 other people (or, on one occasion, an entire panel), we engaged in a debate of sorts around questions of immigration policy.

    Until I can figure out how to get VHS tape of one of those videos into digital format so that I can upload some snippets here (can anyone walk me through that?), I’ve tried to go through my notes and the coverage from those debates to come up with some thoughts to share. I know that debates are more common on very hot-button topics such as immigration, but I have worked with some students and advocate colleagues who have also been called upon to debate, and it is my hope that this can be helpful in the future.

  • Figure out who you are trying to convince and tailor your arguments very clearly towards them. Remember, you are NOT going to win over the person(s) against whom you’re actually debating (even if you did convince them on a couple of points, they could never admit it, or the debate would no longer work!), so don’t bother trying to figure out what might sway them. They are not your target; you’re aiming at: the media, undecided legislators, your potential community allies, the general public…you have to decide, but know that in advance, because it must shape your message. You should address your opponent some of the time, because otherwise you can just look rude, but make sure to look at the moderator or audience often, since they’re the ones with whom you want to connect.
  • Have a message box in front of you, if at all possible, and refer to it in every single answer/response. You don’t need a whole stack of references; in fact, if you bring a ton of material, you’ll just look flustered trying to look through it to find what you want. Instead, you want a box with 4 quadrants, one core message in each, and a few carefully chosen supporting facts. If you can work something from that box into every time you open your mouth, you will be largely successful in getting your message across. Practice using this message box, if at all possible, both to make statements that you really want to get in and to answer questions in some sort of practice debate.
  • Appearances count. A lot. In a media training once, I watched my friend Angela Kelley debate Dan Stein (Director of FAIR) with the volume turned off entirely. After we watched the debate in silence, the trainer asked us who won. His point was that many people watching debates are going to only partially pay attention and may not understand a lot of the content, so how you come across matters a lot. Dan Stein looked angry and sweaty and kind of scary, while Angela was smiling and pleasant and seemed generally satisfied with life and, therefore, with the position that she got to represent. That made a difference. I’m not saying to look as though increased funding for anti-retrovirals or new foster care policies are happy, wonderful topics, because they are tragedies with real consequences for people, but you will greatly enhance your cause if you appear calm, kind, poised, and confident rather than snarky and mean and nervous.
    Note: I remember in one debate when Kobach actually said, “what we need is to reform the immigration system so that people are coming here legally.” I knew that wasn’t exactly what he meant, but he had said it, so I was able to smile broadly and say, “Kris, that’s wonderful that we’ve come to an agreement on such a critical issue. I hope that Congress can move forward on such an agenda with your blessing.” He got very flustered, the moderator and the audience actually laughed, and a journalist told me later that it was a really good moment, because I was able break across the adversarial stance and humanize myself.

  • Appeal to values, not facts. If ever we need a really good frame, it’s when we’re debating. You can’t throw facts at each other back and forth because, remember, you’re trying to convince some third party, and they’ll conclude that they can’t possibly know whose facts are correct, so they’ll just go with the position that most resonates with their pre-established values. So you have to frame your argument accordingly.
    Note: This, too, reminds me of a moment in another debate. Kobach had referenced several studies that (supposedly–they don’t fit my frame, so I discount them!) claim that immigrants are a huge drain on the economy. There are several others that make the opposite claim, but rather than pull them out, I said, “Kris, we both know that for every study you cite, I could cite another one that says exactly the opposite. People don’t want to hear us throw numbers at each other. They know that immigration has built this country–they and their ancestors lived that story. What they want now is an immigration system that ensures that immigration can continue to work for the U.S. as it has throughout its history.” He set his stack of economic analyses aside, because that argument was now neutralized.

  • While you want to be pleasant, you don’t have to be nice. Remember, you want people watching/listening to think that they can identify with you, but you are not trying to make friends here. In a debate with a Missouri State Representative, who had claimed several times that his anti-immigrant student legislation was ‘not racist, not aimed at Hispanics, just concerned with not subsidizing illegal behavior’ or some other nonsense, at the very end (it was on KCUR, so I knew exactly when it would be over), he got caught up with a caller and said something like, “these people have more babies than American families, and if we’re not careful our kids will have to speak Spanish if they want to compete.” Was it a little bit mean to then use my last statement (the end of the show) to say, “See, Steve (Kraske, the host), the proponents of this legislation may claim otherwise, but, at its core, it’s a racist attack on the hopes and dreams of Latino families who, just like every other Missouri family, are only asking for a chance to build a better life for their children”? Maybe. But it’s true, and it worked.
  • Find out as much in advance as you can about the parameters of the debate before you begin. What topics will be the moderator’s focus? Will questions from the audience be allowed (if so, try to convince them to have them screened first, since it’s so frustrating to have to sit through someone’s diatribe to get to their inane question)? How much time will you have? What format will be followed? How many people will participate, and how will time be divided?
  • Just like with the media, remember that you don’t have to directly answer every question (whether from the moderator or in response to something that your opponent just said). Look at every chance you have to speak as another opportunity to say what it is you want to say, and just figure out how to tie that into the opening you’ve been given.
  • Try to establish some control early on–whether that means greeting the moderator warmly, because it makes it look as though you have some sort of ‘in’; talking to some folks in the audience (same reason), or greeting your opponent with enthusiasm for the debate. Social workers, this is all about using what we know about human behavior to create the conditions in which a message of justice can prevail!
  • Expect that you’re going to be nervous, and remember that everyone watching is, in part, rejoicing that they’re not you, having to be up there. It’s okay to be human and okay to be scared, but it’s just not okay to use that as an excuse not to stand up for what we know to be right. I remember before my first televised debate with Kobach, sitting in the parking lot of KCPT, fervently wishing that I was the lunch delivery guy, because he didn’t have to debate Kobach on TV. On the way out, though, I was really honored to be able to represent people who trusted me to carry their stories, and it felt really good.

    If you have footage of debates that you’ve done, I’d love to see them! If you’re preparing for a debate, as an advocate, what concerns or questions do you have? What are your core messages, and what is your audience? I’d even love to practice with someone who’s getting ready to debate on a key policy issue. We know that we’re on the right side, when we’re standing up for vulnerable people and battling entrenched social problems, and, with a little skill, we can use debates to convince others of that too!

    • → 2 Comments

    Posted in Tips and How-Tos

    Tagged , ,

    Does your nonprofit organization have a blog?

    Posted on August 21, 2009 by | Leave a comment

    → Leave a comment

    Posted in Polls

    Tagged , ,

    Press Releases that Work, and Working Them

    Posted on July 27, 2009 by | Leave a comment

    When I first started my advocacy career, doing media work essentially meant writing up a press release and then faxing it to the three local television stations, the one local newspaper (and maybe a couple of regional papers), and the public radio station. Unfortunately, while media and technology are changing rapidly, such that people are getting most of their news content from sources that didn’t even exist 10 years ago, many nonprofit advocates have not similarly altered their way of disseminating information.

    The press release, as a form, is still useful. If you are soliciting coverage of an issue or an event from public or commercial news outlets, you still need a way to tell them what’s going on, why it’s important, and how they can get more information. In fact, I would argue that what made a press release good 10 years ago, when I started writing them regularly, has not changed much. What is radically, almost unrecognizably different is with whom we communicate about them, and how.

    I use the Organizing for Social Change text for the Advanced Advocacy Practice course, and it includes some content on writing press releases, as do many print and online tutorials for organizers. These resources are absolutely helpful, as they give formats that make your press release readable and help you to make sure that you don’t omit any crucial information. Unfortunately, though, I think that sometimes we pay too much attention to parsing words in our press releases, and to how they appear stylistically, and not enough attention to how we put this information in the hands of those who can do something powerful with it, in a way that prompts them to want to. That’s primarily what this post is about, with a couple of different sections that are my way of trying to organize what I’ve learned about doing this kind of media advocacy. That, I guess, is the first ‘lesson’–we have to view this as advocacy. If we assume that all in the media will just naturally be enthralled by the content we have to share, then we are less likely to present it persuasively. While we can hope that news people will not be overtly hostile to our issues and messages, we should certainly consider them targets when we’re seeking coverage.

    So, then, what are some considerations for the actual drafting of press releases that others might not mention?

  • Make sure that it’s about something actually newsworthy. Please don’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out the snazziest way to write a press release about something that really only matters to you. You don’t get any bonus points for sending out lots of releases; the point is to get coverage. If your issue and the hook you’ve given it are exciting enough, your release will practically write itself.
    NOTE: If it’s really considered significant, you can get good coverage even with a subpar release–the one (linked below) that I wrote in March 2007, is way too long (that’s what happens when you’re writing by committee, with lots of stakeholders to please), but we still had 3 television stations, 4 newspapers, 2 radio stations, and 1 blogger at the press release to provide coverage.

  • Think about the purpose of your release; what ‘kind’ of coverage are you hoping for? If you just want to be mentioned, then you might include enough detail so that someone can run with it with very little investment on their part (including quotes from key actors). If, however, you’re hoping to lure people to come to an event, then you won’t want them to be able to write their story from the release alone.
  • Control the pacing–if you want to send a release out in advance of an event but don’t want the coverage to happen until a certain time, embargo your release until the date when you’re ready.
  • If you can include something eye-catching or surprising or in other ways attention-grabbing, that’s an advantage. What I do like about the Bill Introduction Press Release below is that we included some voices that media didn’t necessarily expect to see; my hunch that this was a part of their attraction was confirmed by the extent to which those perspectives were the ones reflected in the coverage!

    And to whom should we send our press releases, and how?

  • Don’t neglect any of the traditional sources, but remember that they are more overworked and understaffed than ever before, which makes it all the more critical that you have a specific contact to whom you’re sending the release. Take the time to call in advance and get a name.
  • More media folks are requesting electronic press releases; they can access these from their smart phones or other mobile devices, often, and they can more easily take key facts from the release to include in their pitch or story. You can email the release out, then, but don’t send it as an attachment, because it may be rejected by security software.
  • In addition to these traditional sources, cultivate contacts among and send your release to ethnic media (including radio, television, and print) (making sure to provide language-appropriate documents where necessary), Internet media sites relevant to your topic, and bloggers with an interest in your issue. People get their news from all of these places now, and we have to reach out to them as well.
  • Don’t forget wire services and media outlets a bit removed from your immediate geographic area; since more people are getting their media (even from traditional sources) online, there has been some expansion of territory covered, and you might find some interest in a bit larger area.
  • Be a media consumer–if you expect to create releases that will appeal to media outlets without having any sense of how they use content, you will likely be disappointed. At the least, you’ll probably misread some outlets, sending to some who couldn’t care less, and missing some that might give you good coverage. My husband taught me a lesson on this once–he often listens to an alternative music radio station in Kansas City, and he told me in advance of one rally that the DJ had made a couple of supportive comments about immigrants the other day. I called the station to get the producer’s name, sent over a release, and the DJ came with an assistant and a producer to one of our rallies for a live broadcast! They interviewed several of the immigrant participants, hilariously mocked the counter-protestors, and gave people directions for how to come down to show their support. It was an audience that we never would have reached without the intelligence that there might be some receptivity.

    And what do we do after a release has been distributed, to try to increase our exposure?

  • Probably one of the biggest mistakes that I see nonprofit advocates make in early media work is assuming that sending the release out constitutes the extent of your outreach. Remember, in advocacy, you want as few surprises as possible, so you should follow up with everyone to whom you sent a release, by telephone if at all possible (that’s why you guard good media contact’s cell phone numbers closely!)–make sure that they received the release, see what questions they have, talk to them a little about the event or issue if they seem at all receptive, and then ask them directly if there will be coverage. You’ll be surprised at what these calls might yield–I’ve gotten offers to do guest editorials, on-air call-in shows, and even remote broadcasts. Advocacy always requires closing the loop, and media advocacy is no different in this respect.
  • Ask for and save contact information from every media representative who gives you any good coverage. Connect with them directly the next time you have a release to send out. At policy events, have someone dedicated to working the media–looking for representatives when they arrive, providing them with information, answering questions.
  • Don’t disparage the media broadly. I have worked with colleagues who make comments (in front of media representatives) like, “people just oppose our issue because of all the they read in the media,” who are then baffled when they don’t receive favorable responses to their requests for coverage. Remember that the media are your advocacy targets here (see above), and uniformly insulting them is not a good approach.

    If you have press releases that you’d like to share, please link to them in the comments. If you have had success in getting good media coverage, please share what worked. If you’ve been frustrated by poor response, I’d love to brainstorm with you about how you can increase your appeal. Media coverage should never be confused with the real goal of an advocacy campaign–policy change–but it can be a very important tool to aid in that pursuit. The smarter we get about how to get our message out to our targets through strategic media advocacy, the more we’ll be able to control the message and, therefore, the debate.

    Materials:
    Bill Introduction Press Release March 2007

    Garden City Forum Press Release April 2007

    • → Leave a comment

    Posted in Tips and How-Tos

    Tagged

    Guest Post–From the Trenches: Jen Stoll on Media Lessons Learned

    Posted on July 20, 2009 by | Leave a comment

    For five years I have worked for the Postpartum Resource Center of Kansas, a nonprofit that serves women and families who experience Perinatal Mood Disorders, like Postpartum Depression. Until May, I have been more than happy to turn interviews with media over to someone else. In the past several months, I had begun to recognize that this actually impacted my own credibility when talking with clients and professionals. They did not identify me as a face of the organization. So, when the opportunity to appear on KSHB-41’s (Kansas City’s NBC affiliate) midday news show came about, I took it. My primary job was to promote a fundraiser, which was two days after the interview (ML note: another benefit of fundraising events=extra exposure; this was their ‘hook’!).

    Thankfully, Melinda (who has a LOT of experience with media) did a dry run with me, focusing my attention on the critical points I needed to make (ML–Thank you. It was a ton of fun, really.):
    1. PPD affects at least 1 in 7 women and 1 in 10 men (about 8,700 in PRC’s catchment area);
    2. Calling PRC means getting the best help available; and
    3. We need everyone’s help to combat PPD. Come to the walk!

    It was imperative to have someone experienced with media run me through best-case and worst-case scenarios. She was able to give me helpful hints—like mention that the station will post a link to our website, if they fail to mention it. Additionally, I was put at ease because, as she said, during a live interview, the journalist does not want to look like a jerk. If it were pre-recorded, they could edit out anything that made him/her look bad.

    This interview was successful, in that at least 2 families came to the walk as a result. Also, we did a good job of letting people know how prevalent PPD is and that PRC is here to help (we also gained clients, as a result).

    Upon my arrival to the station, I learned that Brett Anthony (the weather guy) was filling in for Christa Dubill, who was sick that day. Christa & I had communicated through the producer about what the interview would entail. So, I was a bit unsure of this change. Nonetheless, Brett was very kind and seemed to know a lot about PRC and my experience, as we talked before the interview (ML note: sometimes these ‘fill-ins’ will do even more background research than the regulars, so it’s not necessarily a bad thing to get a substitute!). He asked what I wanted to highlight during the interview, and I reiterated the three points. I now wish I had come with a list of questions prepared for him. This would have allowed me to better prepare answers that highlighted PRC rather than my own experience (ML note: good point–works the same way with legislators for committee hearings!).

    Also, next time, I will ask the producer what to expect when I arrive at the station. Truly, she was very busy and rushed through our conversations. But I was thrown by the disorganization that I—and other guests—experienced when we arrived. I wished I had pressed her to tell me step-by-step what would occur.

    Finally, the follow-up piece on their website was pathetic. It was completely plagiarized from our website, and referred to “symptoms at the top of the page” that weren’t there. Also, it was written in first person—a tactic we use on our website to identify with clients—definitely not meeting the standards of journalism. It did, however, link to the walk registration and, for that, I am grateful.

    These are the things I learned from my first interview experience:
    1. Anticipate chaos. They are focused on making the show a success, not on hosting guests (ML note: yes, and so much for these shows has to happen at the last minute).
    2. Take note cards. Despite the fact that I remembered my three points, having something to do, in the midst of all the chaos, would have put me more at ease.
    3. Prepare a list of questions and bring them with you, even if you have emailed them to the producer. You will be more in control of the order of the interview, which may be helpful. They will probably use your questions, because they want as little work to do as possible.
    4. Write the follow-up piece for the website, yourself. Email it to the producer and bring a copy to the station. At the very least, you will be able to send the message you want to their audience, at this particular time. (Controlling the messages about your agency and issue is always a good thing.)
    5. Send a “thank you.” I learned this in a class, I know. But a few weeks ago, PRC’s public relations volunteer said she had mailed cookies to the station, along with a thank you note. Hello! I hadn’t even sent a note, at that time. Despite the fact I didn’t feel great about the interview, it was exposure for PRC. And that is ALWAYS (well, almost) welcome.

    Thanks so much, Jen, for being willing to share this reflection. Watch the piece for yourself–I’m sure that Jen would appreciate your feedback.

    <a href="“>

    Soon, it will also be on PRC’s website, (to make their coverage echo, and echo, and echo…). Given PRC’s mission, it is not an exaggeration to say that a life may have been saved by sharing this message. Awesome.

    → Leave a comment

    Posted in From the Trenches (Guest post), Inspiration and Examples, Tips and How-Tos

    Tagged