DISQUS

Sarah Cook · 1 year ago

Great article and good points. I think that people in general are so tired of hearing walking advertisements and one way communication. It doesn't work in social media or in any type of situation. It's too bad that some politicians/businesses need to clear out their ears to really hear what people are saying.

JasonFalls · 1 year ago

Agreed and thanks, Sarah.

merrycricket · 1 year ago

Thank you for saying this. I have been reading quite a bit since the election to see who is really catching on to the message that was sent during this last election. Many are not getting it still. I am amazed at how the Republican Party is spinning it's wheels looking around for people to blame for their losses and still not figuring it out. No real mention of using social media and on line tools to open dialogue or making a commitment to listen.

As to Kay Hagan's win, there were two things that contributed to it. One, the number of Democrats on line sharing the story about the attack ads and two, the public's disgust with this type of tactic over all. We are all tired of this and somewhat insulted that any politician running for office would believe that we are that easily manipulated into being polarized.

@Stephen · 1 year ago

This election will go down in history as the tipping point for wholesale bias and consumer ignorance. I also submit that the MSM has had it with the public that *is* informed. See "United or Divided, who can tell anymore? http://tinyurl.com/6k9mfb"

This next presidency is going to be tumultuous, as all parties involved attempt to regain control of their messages and brands, not realizing that it does not belong to them anymore.

seth godin · 1 year ago

Sorry to disagree, but just because someone asks a question doesn't mean you need to answer it. There was no upside in Kay demonizing the defeated, humiliaited and shamed Liddy Dole. Couldn't help her one bit to do so.

So what if no one listened? Rope a dope is a totally valid strategy in this case. The media loves x vs. y controversy, but that doesn't make good government and smart politicians and ceos just avoid it.

I heard the same interview and once I realized what Kay was doing, I just turned it off. Which is exactly what she wanted me to do, because the dialogue wasn't helping her constituents.

JasonFalls · 1 year ago

Well, Mr. Godin, or whomever you are, I think you miss the point. Instead of talking circles and not answering the question, the public and the interviewer just wanted her to answer the question. Now, if the question was unfair, I can see her saying, "You know, there's no reason to beat a dead horse. Let's move beyond the ad." But it certainly was a valid question and all Montagne was asking was for a brief recap of what the ad said.

I turned the interview off as well, but I suspect we both did for the same reason - because we don't like double-talk, answer avoidance. I wouldn't call Hagan a smart politician in this case. I say she was sticking to irrelevant political messaging and avoiding the question.

If you are really Seth, thanks for stopping by my blog. If you're not, what are you hiding?

seth godin · 1 year ago

Proof! (sorry for the typo)

Katie Morse · 1 year ago

GREAT points. To me, your post is summed up in the following sentence: "She didn’t answer the question."

People know when they are being spun a story, whether by a marketer, a politician, or a salesperson in your local shop.

Isn't the point of an interview to be asked and answer questions??

JasonFalls · 1 year ago

It is, Katie. Just hoping that we as communications professionals can start helping spokespeople, especially politicians, understand that what made up a "skilled communicator" a few years ago no longer holds water. We want transparency, honesty and integrity in our communications now. That's what social media has given the marketplace. And it carries over off-line as well.

Thanks for the comment.

lisamariemary · 1 year ago

Along these lines, it has been so disheartening to me, how 'human' McCain and especially, Palin, have become AFTER the election! Hello?

It's like they morphed into these different people - real people.

JasonFalls · 1 year ago

Everyone looks more human when they're dusting themselves off. If only they'd done a better job of it before the election, it might have been different.

Thanks for stopping by again, Lisa.

Wes J · 1 year ago

If PR pros are WTFing over Hagan, they must be leaping off of very tall buildings over Palin.

JasonFalls · 1 year ago

Hey Wes. Unfortunatley, PR pros aren't WTF-ing over Hagan, just me. Most PR pros probably listened to the interview and said, "She did a good job of sticking to her talking points." My reaction was, "She's a freakin' inanimate object." Guess that's why I'm not getting any big PR job offers. Heh.

frankmartin · 1 year ago

Excellent points Jason, as usual. I would suggest that politicians and CEO's are going to be very slow to the new media game of *actually* answering questions rather than dissembling and then launching to their platform speech. To them, it's about control and spin rather than *real* communication. The implicit suggestion there is that they seem to think that we will just blithely accept the last sentence we hear as the *truth*.

So it's an interesting dichotomy between their not being *good* at communicating, and what they would probably argue as being an *effective* communicator. We saw the same tactic in the debates, really. Deflect and dissemble...

Enjoyed the post! Thank you!

JasonFalls · 1 year ago

Thank you, Frank. Appreciate your perspective and agree with your points.

JenZingsheim · 1 year ago

Jason, great post. I remember media training in PR and politics almost always started off with "answer the question you want asked, and are prepared to answer, not the question that was asked." It made me squeamish, because while it does keep people on message, it is evasive. Only a select few were talented enough to answer in that manner, stay on message, and only later (much later if ever) did people come around to "...hey...wait a minute. He/she didn't answer the question." The rest just look like they didn't understand the question, which in my opinion is far worse.

I too, wish people--from politicians on down--would just answer the question. Whether this becomes a trend...well...we'll see...

Jen

JasonFalls · 1 year ago

Hey Jen,

It all boils down to honesty. If you can't answer the question, then you're hiding something. If you're hiding something, I don't trust you. If I don't trust you, then the conversation's over.

Arnold T · 1 year ago

Haha, who said anyone deserves an answer just because they ask a question? That is the point. A question is by definition framing the argument, framing the interview, framing the conversation. Just because you want to do the framing does not mean you will get to do so. You obviously had an agenda in wanting to discuss your topic. But your agenda will not always carry the day with others. Get over it.

JasonFalls · 1 year ago

Well, Arnold, I think anyone who asks a question, at the core of it all, deserves an answer. Certainly, there are times when the motivations of the question asker adulterate that situation, but this wasn't one of them. So, no. I'm not going to get over it. The humanity of conversation demands a mutual level of respect from person to person. Flippant and circumventing answers only mean you're trying to manipulate the conversation, which makes you less credible.

Deirdre Reid · 1 year ago

Great post. You articulated exactly why listening to politicians is so infuriating sometimes, and why the "town hall" format of debates can be a boon for voters, if the candidates really answer the questions.

Jim Durbin · 1 year ago

While I share your frustration, i would like to throw something out there. Politicians aren't just trained to answer questions like Hagan. They're actually trained to respond to keywords with stock phrases. It's one of the reasons that politicians sound so incredibly stupid in the debates.

The argument is that for many people, an interview or debate is the only time they will see or hear the politician. Thus what sounds incredibly dull and repetitive to someone who is keyed in, sounds refreshing and comforting to the swing voters, which are the people who tune in at the end of an election.

Take Palin. A lot of hay was made about Palin's responses to Couric, but it's clear that her baffling responses were the result of too many keywords in Couric's questions. The real game is figuring out when a politician is playing dumb, and when they're just a wind-em-up monkey who has nice hair and takes orders well. The standard role of running of president isn't any of the things we would ask for - it's the ability to give the same speech hundreds of times, while raising large amounts of money, and getting the public and other politicians to project their thoughts as your own. That's what a politician does, and the leadership and decision making abilities, you hope are there.

And while it would be nice to have intelligent politicians (Obama's intelligence clearly won over a large number of upper income voters that voted Bush in 2004), it also gives the opposition the chance to seize on things that are said and twist them. When you take a stand, you're alienating someone, and giving your opponent the chance to define you.

Of course, it helps if the media has a story they want to tell, and you know how to play into that. As for Kagan, her lack of response could be the inability to respond, or it could be that she was told not to, and thus never left her comfort zone, no matter how lame it was.

JasonFalls · 1 year ago

And your point, Jim, is the point - We need communications professionals to stop programming politicians and teach them how to have real conversations again. Well stated and much appreciated. Thanks for the comment.