I’ve noticed a
trend in communications from large corporations and organisations.
Their messages come across as corporate, impersonal and devoid of any
human emotion. And I’ve watched professional communicators and
communications trainers encourage this practice. And I hate it! It
goes against so many things that MicroMedia stands for.
A lot of the time it
isn’t going to make any difference – and as such, it won’t
cause an effect (either one you want, or one you don’t). But using
a corporate, impersonal message at a time when people are feeling
high emotions can potentially throw fuel on the fire.
I watched with
interest, and concern, communications that were released by the West Yorkshire Police following a fatal shooting on the M62 motorway in the UK on the
evening of Monday 2nd January 2017.
Like many, I have a
breaking news app running on my smartphone and was shocked to read:
‘Around
6pm this evening (Monday January 2), during a pre-planned policing
operation near to the M62 in Huddersfield a police firearm was
discharged and a man has died.’ (See the statement at
the bottom of the document.)
What shocked me?
Was it that there had been a shooting in the UK? Was it that someone had lost their
life? Of course. But the communicator in me baulked at the statement:
‘a
police firearm was discharged and a man has died.’
This couldn’t be
more corporate, it couldn’t be more impersonal and it couldn’t be
more devoid of emotion.
For communications
of this type to work, you have to assume that humans are
logical beings with emotions…
But we’re not…!
We’re emotional
beings that can find logic… if we want to!
We are highly
complex beings capable of being highly logical. And we can reject
that logic instantly. We’re capable of cognitive
dissonance and compassion.
We only have to look
at the ‘post-truth’ political era that we have entered to
see that people would far sooner react emotionally than process facts.
You try to process
the phrase ‘a
police firearm was discharged and a man has died’ and
there are emotional and logical disconnects. Examine the
perfectly acceptable and understandable emotional and logical
assumptions a reader would have, after reading that statement:
Someone’s
been killed!
A
police officer has shot someone dead!
Who
was killed? (If you lived close to the M62, you might ask is you
knew them.)
But
the provided
statement doesn’t match the reactions above – and I’m assuming
that's on purpose. It has been ‘crafted’ to remove all
emotion. But is that a good idea?
My
major problem with this statement is the use of the phrase ‘a
firearm was discharged’. Everyone can see that this is code. It’s
code, trying to get away from the fact that there was a human being
holding the ‘firearm’. It’s code trying to get away from the
fact that a human being made the decision to pull the trigger. It
a corporate mechanism to try and remove the human holding the gun. It
can be argued that it’s trying to convey that the ‘firearm’
killed the man, not the person holding it.
It’s
like the military using terms like ‘collateral damage’ in an
attempt to remove the emotion from the fact that civilians have been
killed, or ‘friendly fire’ to desensitise the fact that
service-personnel have been killed by their own allies.
I
read this statement and worried that the message had been overworked
and tweeted
about it. I was surprised that no one commented on my concerns –
but in reflection, I shouldn’t have been. Communicators are
currently trained to be corporate, impersonal and remove emotion –
so why should they think that there was anything wrong with the
message?
But
I will argue that being impersonal and devoid of emotion
backfired on the police. The message was effective in
‘informing’
people that something had happened. But the lack of emotion
potentially fuelled something they didn’t expect…
Community
resentment.
Quite
rightly, the initial statement didn’t tell us anything about the
person that had died
– after all, it would be improper to do so until their next of kin
was informed.
But
very soon after the incident, it was revealed that the dead man was
from an ethnic minority.
As
soon as you have that fact, it’s all too easy to stereotype. But as
communicators we have to have our audiences are the foremost of our
thoughts. And this man’s community should have been one of the
principle audiences.
Again,
it’s all too easy for me to review this in retrospect – but if I
had been asked to prepare a statement for this situation, my first
question would have been ‘How
trusted is my police force
within this community?’.
I would then have used this as a check-mark against any message I
generated – let alone
release.
How
would I react to the
statement if I were a member of this community?
Am
I seriously being told that a gun killed this man, not a police
officer?
A
member of my community has died, but the police don’t have a single
emotion about it…
Ironically,
the lack of emotion in this statement could be seen to have evoked
high, negative emotions in the community. Indeed there were protests
against this
shooting that caused traffic
to come to a stop and damage
to a police vehicle. The local MP took to Facebook to appeal
for calm.
Can
I 100% say that this initial statement caused this community
resentment or
civil unrest? Of course not.
But
I will argue, that in this case, it did more harm than good.
So
what should this constabulary learn from this and what could they
have done better?
First,
a quick review of constabulary’s
Twitter
channel shows that they have used the words
‘firearm’ and
‘discharge’ together
so often, that it’s
become a cliché – and
it’s being pointed out to
them by their own audience.
They have to stop using this
phrase immediately as it’s undermining audience trust.
If
you look at what the force said at the inquest, the messaging was
better. During the inquest it was stated that ‘During
the incident an officer discharged a firearm in the execution of his
duty with the shots going through the windscreen of the Audi.’
This still uses the words
‘firearm’ and ‘discharged’. But
there’s a human present with ‘an officer’ and there was a
‘reason’ to use that weapon via ‘in the execution of his duty’.
Review
all the statements released by this constabulary online and you’ll
see they all lack so much.
If
the communications
had started with:
'A police officer was called upon to use their
weapon during an planned
operation on the M62 that resulted in the death of one male. More to
follow...’
Would
it have provided a better foundation on which to communicate with
the desired audiences?
In
my opinion, yes. That’s what I train at MicroMedia; realise there
are emotions and acknowledge them; if humans are involved, be honest
and say so.
And
most of all, if you remove emotion and stay impersonal… Expect your
audience to come after you. People speak to people, not faceless
emotionless organisations.
No comments:
Post a Comment