Category: Media Engagement

Who wouldn’t like to be a more persuasive communicator? In every aspect of our personal and professional lives – from seducing a beloved or winning a promotion to controlling the TV remote or getting your way at the Air Canada counter – our ability to marshal words into sentences that compel others to think as we do, or do as we’d like, makes us more effective.

New York State’s historic approval of same sex marriage on Friday reflects a triumph of persuasion by Governor Andrew Cuomo. The issue had been rejected by the legislature only two years ago and the Republican-dominated state senate didn’t seem likely to change its mind in response to the Democrat’s new bill.

But Cuomo reportedly combined two classic persuasive strategies in securing sufficient votes to pass the gay marriage initiative:

1. He put two values in opposition, reminding key conservative colleagues that the freedom for same sex partners to marry was an issue of personal freedom, and preventing it would be inconsistent with their libertarian views; and

2. He exercised emotional appeals, arguing in an impassioned speech that gay couples wanted and deserved to have the state recognize that “Their love is worth the same as your love. Their partnership is worth the same as your partnership.”

Both approaches are useful ways of improving the impact of both speeches and written commentary, and they’re echoed by the advice offered by Kevin Dutton, Cambridge University Psychologist and author of Split Second Persuasion – The Ancient Art and New Science of Changing Minds. He recommends keeping in mind the acronym SPICE:

S – Simplicity – Avoid complicating matters, make your case clear and focused

P – Perceived – Self interest – tell your audience what’s in it for them

I – Incongruity – Tell them something unexpected, challenge their preconceptions

C – Confidence – Assert your case with certainty

E – Empathy – Demonstrate your ability to see others’ perspectives

If your commentary isn’t persuasive, what’s the point in writing it in the first place? 

We’re developing a new format for our Increase Your Ability to Persuade workshop, where you’ll be able to learn research-supported strategies from engaging video modules, short quizzes and assignment on your own time. Be the first to sign up to access our online Increase Your Ability to Persuade workshop modules and register for a one-hour, small-cohort coaching session with Informed Opinions’ Catalyst, Shari Graydon.

There’s nothing like the inspiration of anger to fuel a frenzy of word-spilling; fury is a page-filler, tried and true.

But emotional momentum only takes you so far. The synapses that fire when you’re worked up and spewing guts aren’t always the same ones needed to ensure that the argument you’re making is clear and compelling. This is where the expression “sober second thought” comes in. Resist copying and pasting your commentary into the message box and sending it off to an editor before you’ve had a chance to sleep on the piece – or at least put it aside for an hour or two.

Then when you return, ask yourself the following:

• Have I made one clear argument?
• Have I supported it with different kinds of evidence?
• Does every paragraph illuminate or reinforce my central thesis?
• What will readers who disagree with my position say in response, and
• How can I acknowledge and refute their critique within my own piece?

The answers to these questions will help you polish your commentary, enhancing its persuasiveness and your chances of being published.

The dilemma is often an unconscious one: you’ve laboured over the text of your commentary (or letter, or website) and now you’re looking for feedback: do you send it to your mom? Your best friend? Your assistant? The people who either love you unconditionally, agree with you always, or think you’re brilliance personified?

Absolutely, if what you’re looking for is affirmation.

But if you want the kind of feedback that will make what you’ve written better — by identifying the holes in your argument, challenging your fuzzy thinking or encouraging you to clarify a muddy explanation – you’re far better off sending your draft to someone else. Someone who disagrees with you, or has lots of experience publishing in the form and field you’re writing and is willing to share it. Because if you can’t engage, compel or persuade them, you’re not likely to make it past the gatekeeper editors who are inundated with unsolicited submissions and  looking for a quick reason to delete your pitch and move on to the next one.

You don’t have to accept every piece of advice you get, but soliciting constructive criticism can’t help but improve your work. Professional writers never question the value of a good editor; they see the process as short-term pain in pursuit of long-term gain.

At 3:18 pm Wednesday, University of Victoria law prof Rebecca Johnson sent a three-sentence email to Dave Obee, op ed page editor of the Times Colonist, expressing her interest in writing a commentary about a news story that had appeared in that day’s paper. He responded almost immediately, asked her what angle she was interested in exploring, and then encouraged her to go ahead, indicating he’d need the piece before noon the following day. Less than 24 hours later, he had a thoughtful and persuasive op ed for his page, and Rebecca had the promise of a byline in today’s paper.

Such exchanges aren’t always so efficient, and would-be contributors don’t always have the time and energy to turn around a piece in such a tight time frame, but it can be tremendously satisfying when it works out. The adrenalin rush that comes from responding in a timely way to something that — in Rebecca’s words — “got her goat”, can make the writing easier than if you let the moment of fury-fed inspiration pass unexpressed.

In this case, Rebecca took a news story that was mostly about one thing (a review of the operations of a local police force), but made passing reference to another (the force’s lack of diversity), and provided insight and context that illuminated the often misunderstood issue of systemic discrimination. She did this in clear, accessible prose, with generosity, compassion and a memorable observation worth quoting:

“I look forward to a time when we will ask not whether the majority is happy with the status quo, but whether the status quo best serves the majority.”

This week, Maneesha Deckha was, like many, sickened by the story of the sled dogs killed in British Columbia once they outlived their economic usefulness after last year’s winter Olympics.

But as a law prof who developed and teaches an award-winning course in animal law at the University of Victoria, Maneesha was able to channel her disgust into writing an op ed providing valuable context for animals’ legal status as “property” and how that makes it difficult to protect them from such acts.

This morning, her piece was published in The Victoria Times Colonist, and now UVic media relations manager Patty Pitts is issuing a news tip to let other news outlets know that Maneesha’s able to share her expertise on this topic more broadly.

It’s what we call here at Informed Opinions a quadruple victory:

1. Citizens learn something most likely didn’t know about animal rights and the law;
2. The Times Colonist benefits by being able to provide its readers with timely expert content;
3. The University of Victoria demonstrates its relevance and capacity to contribute to the community; and
4. Maneesha Deckha has the opportunity to educate people about an issue close to her heart.

Bad news often presents experts, activists and their organizations with such opportunities; the challenge is usually to marshal the resources necessary to respond quickly. That’s one of the reasons we devote time in the workshops to demystifying the process of writing commentary, and encourage participants to complete the draft they began in the session soon after. That way they can easily update it when relevant news breaks.

An avid reader with too much pride to ever have invested in the Coles Notes of anything, I nevertheless appreciate it when someone smart effectively encapsulates the essentials of a course, degree or philosophy in a 1,000-word treatise. So I heartily salute Guardian journalist Tim Radford for not only writing, but posting online his “Manifesto for a simple scribe.” It consists of 25 valuable tips sure to help any writer — established or aspiring, academic or popular — to do a better job of engaging readers.

They’re all good, but numbers 3, 4 and 5 are short and compelling enough to include here:

• 3. So the first sentence you write will be the most important sentence in your life, and so will the second, and the third. This is because, although you – an employee, an apostle or an apologist – may feel obliged to write, nobody has ever felt obliged to read.

• 4. Journalism is important. It must never, however, be full of its own self-importance. Nothing sends a reader scurrying to the crossword, or the racing column, faster than pomposity. Therefore simple words, clear ideas and short sentences are vital in all storytelling. So is a sense of irreverence.

• 5. Here is a thing to carve in pokerwork and hang over your typewriter. “No one will ever complain because you have made something too easy to understand.”

Is it possible to write a brilliant op ed if you can’t write a grab ’em by the throat lede? (“lede” being journalism jargon for your first sentence or paragraph, the origins of which were designed to distinguish “leading sentence” from the “lead” — as in metallic chemical element — letters that used to be used in the printing process. Now you know.)

Yes, it’s possible. But if your lede sucks, and nobody reads past it to get to your brilliance, what was the point?

In the past couple of weeks, in aid of generating profile for some Informed Opinions activity in London, Ontario, I’ve written two op eds about the project for two local newspapers. Even though the general focus was the same, the two pieces had to be different,  starting with the opening paragraphs. For Western News, the University of Western Ontario’s campus paper, I told an anecdote about trying to recruit expert women to be listed in a resource guide for journalists. This is how I began:

“I’m standing in front of a room full of CBC radio producers and researchers in Toronto, and they’re all nodding their heads, agreeing with the words I’ve just spoken. You’d think this would make me happy. Instead, I’m furious.”

For the London Free Press piece, I wrote the following:

“There’s a great moment in the recent British film, Made in Dagenham, that I’m guessing will resonate with many women, not just those who’ve worked in the macho car manufacturing industry.”

I hoped to engage readers with both ledes, and selected the first because I thought it would resonate with a university audience. The second one made a deliberate connection with the auto industry, which has a presence in London, albeit declining. (To read the entire version of either piece, just click on the live link provided in the publication title.)

There’s no way of knowing how many readers of either paper were intrigued enough by my ledes to keep reading, but I know for sure that if I’d started either piece by writing something along the lines of:

“Next week I will be visiting London to deliver a guest lecture and two workshops to local women, encouraging them to write op eds and say “yes” to media interviews…”

(blah, blah, blah…)

Readers are engaged by stories, and given that writers in almost every newspaper now have to compete with celebrity tales involving the rich and famous, drugged and divorcing, a little drama is required! And although the upfront drama doesn’t make the op ed itself a brilliant piece of work, it increases the piece’s chance of having an impact.

… in comedy AND op ed writing — not just in terms of being able to add value through the delivery of surprising and relevant context to a current news event, but also in terms of when you submit.

Columnists like to take time off at Christmas, spring break and during the summer to be with their families, just like everyone else. SO, if you’re able to time your commentary to coincide with such holidays, there’s often more space in the paper and a greater chance of your piece being published.

Further to my last post about letters to the editor, I heard from several people — some I knew, one I didn’t — after my letter about the retrograde fashion photo in The Globe was published. All shared my discomfort with and critique of the image, expressing appreciation for the fact that I’d bothered to write. (Note to media critics everywhere: advertisers, producers and editors are unlikely to make the changes you want to see if you don’t take the time to request them!)

One correspondent, who had bothered to share his views with Globe decision-makers, passed on the thoughtful correspondence he’d received from the paper’s editor in chief, John Stackhouse, and its publisher, Philip Crawley, both of whom indicated regret about the judgment behind the photograph’s inclusion in the paper.

That was the good news. The bad news? The photo was still available on the newspaper’s website. However, when this was pointed out to Mr. Stackhouse, he quickly arranged for it to be removed.

Not a world-changing bit of activism, but years of communicating my disenchantment with sexist portrayal practices to advertisers, broadcast producers and magazine and newspaper editors has taught me that:

1. If you share your concerns in a clear, concise and timely way, substituting over-the-top condemnation or demands with a passionate and well supported argument that avoids personal insults, more often than not, you get a response.
2. If approached fairly, recipients of such audience feedback are often grateful for the feedback, and most will try to do the right thing in response.
3. Media producers also typically assume that if one or two people write in to express their concern about an issue, another 20, 50 or 100 others likely shared the concern, but just didn’t call or email.
4. The more feedback received about a particular issue, the more likely the editor of the letters’ section is to include some of the commentary.

Don’t have time to craft a thoughtful, carefully argued 700-word op ed in response to a current issue or spleen-inspiring coverage in your newspaper of choice? Try penning a one or two paragraph letter to the editor instead. It won’t have the same profile or prestige as an op ed would, but it’s more likely to get published, and the letters section is surprisingly well read.

In response to an infuriatingly retrograde photo feature published in Saturday’s Globe and Mail, I invested 10 minutes in writing and emailing a slightly longer version of the following rant to the paper, which published my comments in today’s Globe.

Doubly insensitive

“I get that artsy photographers like to arrest attention with provocative images, but really, placing a woman on her back at the bottom of a concrete staircase with a pained (or is that orgasmic?) look on her face (Pretty In Parkas – Style, Dec. 11). It’s not art, it’s not fashion, it’s not even original. The implied violence wasn’t any sexier when Versace did it a decade ago, and it would have been unfortunate at any time, but appearing in your pages the same week readers were encouraged to reflect on violence against women in the context of the Montreal massacre, it was doubly insensitive.”

The Globe would have been unlikely to make space on its op ed pages for a lengthier piece on this issue (although I could have easily produced one!), but getting the letter published within 48 hours was very satisfying.