People who read this blog might expect to see some dark humor here that relates to the title of the post and the WikiLeaks imbroglio.
Well, I think SNL did a pretty good job of that over the weekend,with their sendup of TMZ and Weekend Update segments on the topic (above), and I don’t think I could do better, although it is tempting to try.
No, this post is about something I take quite seriously: writing. An article in the New York Times yesterday shared writing tips about diplomatic cables that the reporter thought could apply equally well to cub reporters; similarly, I believe that the PR field can learn something from them as well.
Here, the topic is about writing in a way that is interesting and commands attention
Richard E. Hoagland, the ambassador to Kazakhstan, thinks good cable-writing is so essential that he has written a guide for junior diplomats, “Ambassador’s Cable Drafting Tips.” Many of the tips would be familiar to any cub reporter trying to get an editor to bite on a story.
“The trick is to catch readers’ attention,” he advises. “The first three to five words are all they will see in their electronic queue.”
His specific recommendations? Avoid flabby writing, citing as a typically egregious example any memo that starts: “ ‘The ambassador used the opportunity of the meeting to raise the issue of’…”
On the importance of telling a good story:
And work on storytelling: “Despite what some in Washington will tell you, there is nothing at all wrong with colorful writing, as long as it communicates something.” But he adds a caveat: “Cute writing is never acceptable — cute is for toddlers, not for professional diplomats.”
Mr. Hoagland, who accompanied Mrs. Clinton to meetings this week, declined to discuss the substance of the leaked cables. But he was happy to discuss style. As a general rule, he said he instructs staff members to think like journalists. “Not everything we churn out is great writing,” he said, “but we try to keep up the standards.”
I’m glad to see that our diplomats are concerned with their writing quality. But you gotta be kidding me! It’s alarming to read that serious diplomatic cables are read thoroughly only when one catches the eye of the intended reader. Imagine a cable stating that “The Ambassador used the opportunity to bring up the issue of the tactical nuclear bomb that intelligence suggested would be detonated in xxxxx place and xxxx time” being ignored because it lacked a catchy opening. And where is Mr. Hoagland stationed, Kazakhstan? Sasha Baron Cohen should be preparing material for his next movie as we speak1
Pretty funny, actually the NY Times story does relate a Borat moment.
Is a crisis, it is just a PR embarrassment. There zero discussion about Clinton’s secretary has resigned, nor is it possible that no U.S. diplomats wrote a cable that is being leaked as a result will resign. Most cables in a cable system of a writer anyway because of the nature are not attributed to.
You could also check out What is a Diplomatic Cable: http://techblog.willshouse.com/?p=1272
You could also check out What is a Diplomatic Cable: http://techblog.willshouse.com/?p=1272
+1