Sound bites

This post arose from a discussion in the F&SF forum about Orson Scott Card's homophobia, and his defence against this accusation. I'm not going to go into that subject here because I haven't done my homework and read enough about what he's written. Instead, I'll focus on some tactical communication errors that he made, and that most of us have been guilty of in different contexts. It's important to understand these errors, because they can trip us up in any other form of communication.

The first problem arises from the fact that many of us intellectual types enjoy the idea of exploring a subject in depth during a conversation with a bunch of really intelligent people, whether at home or at a convention. In these cases, we have all the time we need to provide context and explore nuances and complexities before coming to a consensus or "agreeing to disagree". The larger context (a very important point) is that everyone knows that the goal is to explore the topic and, in so doing, attempt to persuade your verbal sparring partners of your opinion. Whether at the dinner table, in a classroom, or at the pub, it's possible to discuss the theory behind why you believe something is wrong without condemning it. If you're lucky, you may even reach a consensus that is more interesting and profound than the simpler beliefs that started the conversation.

Unfortunately, all that nuance is lost when you try to summarize that long discussion into a few short words for someone who wasn't privy to the longer conversation. That problem often arises in a context such as an interview or a conversation with someone who has a political axe to grind. It's very hard to remember to include key signifiers like "in theory" and "but in practice" to help the listener understand that you're exploring a concept rather than rendering a judgment that is not open to question. It's harder still to boil a complex subject into a concise statement that passes the "you never get a second chance to make a first impression" test. Start off badly and you may never get a chance to explain yourself because the other person stops listening and starts fuming.

The second problem arises from the first point: the message you think you're sending may not be the message you intended to send. In an interview you have 10 seconds to make your point and send a clear message. A journalist will focus on those 10 seconds, judged based on the "most interesting or inflammatory statement" criterion, and will ignore your detailed explanation. Partly this is a consequence of poor training and attitude (insert rant here about "present both sides of the argument even if one side is wrong by any objective criterion). Partly it's about the reality of modern journalism, namely that you need to do this if you want to stay employed. Whatever the cause, the practical consequence is that only the journalist and possibly their editor will ever hear your full explanation; everyone else hears only the sound bite.

In public statements, not to mention any situation in which you need to state the terms of the dialogue right at the start of the conversation, you have no room for nuance until you clearly establish the context. Thus, you need to craft your sound bite with exquisite care to ensure that you send a clear message: one that says what you wanted to say even though it's been stripped of all the tasty details, because you know that context will be edited out or won't be heard.

The reason many politicians sound like morons on TV or radio and sometimes even in print is that they understand the problem of journalistic filtering and are trying to convey their message, boiled down to its minimalist essentials and stripped of its context, within their 10-second limit. (Of course, it's also true that many of them are morons.)

Clear communication is difficult at the best of times. Public communication is scary hard to do right, and should not be contemplated without both training and practice.