People who say no one reads anymore are overstating the trend toward alternate means of communication, because clearly words played heavily in the headlines this week.
As a result of a Rolling Stone interview by Michael Hastings, General Stanley McChrystal is out of a job. The former Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan apparently forgot that a reporter never stops doing his. The words he shared with Hastings, even if only casually, were captured, documented, and propagated – and now will live on indefinitely.
Having spent most of my career in the newspaper business (though not on the editorial side), I’ve always been puzzled and amazed at how people will spill their guts when simply asked a few questions. I’m not sure if it’s a sense of self importance, a desire to be polite, a fear of saying “no,” or just the chance to be heard, but down come the walls of privacy and out fall their innermost secrets.
This blog isn’t about whether McChrystal’s comments were on target or inappropriate, but rather, the power of those words – as an unauthorized statement, as a political slam, as a matter of opinion, and simply as great reading material to drive circulation for an industry that sorely needs it. These words will ripple out to spark discussion, prompt investigation, foster analysis, and inspire subsequent rounds of reporting across multiple media channels.
It’s interesting to note that this incident is apparently so volatile that Commenting was turned off on this YouTube video. To me this means that those written words and spoken words would generate so many comments (subsequent words), that they’d launch a firestorm of feedback. Even more interesting, in this video Hastings notes that Obama “does not use words like ‘victory’ and ‘win’ which the military loves.” This makes me wonder if just a sprinkling of those forceful words could help change the presidential persona.
To balance the brouhaha around McChrystal and his words … as I ponder whether freedom of speech should be forfeited when a position of import is accepted … I encountered a wonderful phrase by one of my favorite writers, Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, and What the Dog Saw. In that last publication he says, “Good writing does not succeed or fail on the strength of its ability to persuade. It succeeds or fails on the strength of its ability to engage you, to make you think, to give you a glimpse into someone else’s head.”
While his context relates to the premise for his book, I can easily apply that perspective to the frenzy at hand. I’m guessing that McChrystal did not utter his words to persuade but to air frustrations that were in his own head. Hastings knew those words would engage readers and as any good journalist should, he seized the moment. He saw a story and nailed it.
This is a perfect example where words are so powerful they self-perpetuate on newscasts, around dinner tables, and in water-cooler conversations. With that in mind, this is a good time for writers to brush up on the guidelines about defamatory language. Remember, in most basic terms, slander is spoken and libel is written – yet both can put you at the end of a lawsuit. So take precautions and don’t let personal bias or eagerness interfere with accuracy: checks facts, get well-balanced viewpoints, secure signed releases on quotes, attribute correctly, use reliable sources, and identify Opinion as such.
But clearly as the former Commander has learned, even under the protection of “Opinion,” words are potent and should not be offered (or taken) lightly.
Tags: Gladwell, libel, McChrystal, Rolling Stone, slander
Categories: Language, Opinion, Public Relations, Word use