[pp.int.general] International public relations initial drafting process,

[Reinier Bakels]

> Glenn Kerbein wrote:
> > ATTN: Heads of parties
> >
> > It has come to my attention that we need to iron out details in regards
> > to press officers and press outfits. As the old adage goes, actions
> > speak louder than words; gesticulations, expressions, and outward
> > appearance will speak volumes about the person in question. So, in
> > short, we should evaluate who can say what to whom, and within what
> > capacity.
>
> So, du möchtest also perfekt durchgestylte Medienvertreter haben, so wie
> sie die anderen Parteien haben. Angepasste Clowns, die dir dreist ins
> Gesicht lügen und denen man glaube, weil sie einen Anzug tragen.
> Entschuldige, ich habe lieber einen ehrlichen Piraten im
> Pirate-Bay-T-Shirt im Fernsehen, als einen Lügner im Anzug.
>
> Hope you didn't mind me to write in german instead of english. I'm no
> native english speaker and was afraid of not beeing able to express
> myself apropriate.
>
Hi Christian.
Du hast völlig Recht - sorry, you are fully right. This may be a matter of 
difference between US and EU "culture". Americans prefer perfection, 
Europeans prefer authenticity. Clothes should only be chosen not to distract 
(from the message). Asking for an explanation in (whatever) native language 
of an English question is outrageous and will be understood as an attempt to 
obstruct. Fighting with your interviewer usually is not productive.

In politics, the impression is more important than the contents. In the 
extreme, a policician who convincingly presents nonsense wins from a 
politicians who is as precise as a scholar but fails to make a convincing 
presentation (mostly a matter of body language).

Vague - but impressiong - terms should not be avoided. They should be 
fostered. Information policy and information freedom are excellent examples. 
"Information freedom" is a "motherhood" concept: while its concepts are very 
controversial, no one can reasonably oppose against the concept. 
"Information freedom" is even better. Ask a competing political party about 
its position towards "information freedom". They will be embarassed. It 
sounds too general to allow a straight ÿes, this is important" answer. Next 
step: "so you don't believe that information freedom is top priority?". 
After such a devastating statement, just stop.

Perhaps a real hardline maight reply: "yes, but this type of freedoms should 
not jeopardize our SAFETY and SECURITY".

Well, I won't elaborate on the risks of a police state here ........
reinier