Issues Management and Crisis Communication

Chapter 10 on issues management interested me on several levels. One, on page 185, Cornelissen offers a position importance matrix. I’m bothered that positions can be ceremoniously positioned on a matrix as if problems are currently in one quadrant or another. Most problems are messier than that; they often occupy all quadrants or at least two at a time. I think that thinking about positions in this way enables corporations to ignore certain problems. For example, insurance companies that look for ways to not cover some medical expenses. The problem of nonpayment would fit more on the “problematic” quadrant for the client and more on the “low priority” for corporations. Problems do not fit nicely into quadrants; they only do for corporations that force them to fit.

Two, the case study about the Framing of the Bonus Payments bothered me as well. I did like that Cornellissen asked a discussion question that focuses on how the reader would frame the issue, but the reader has very little agency in how that issue is represented. A better question, I think, would be how can the banks better frame the issue in ways that the public would better sympathize? To suggest that they’d lose talent if they didn’t pay outrageous bonuses is ridiculous. There are way too many talented people in industry for them to worry about that. Plus, some of the CEOs have performed horribly as CEOs yet they still receive a huge bonus.

Three, I was bothered by the use of language concerning PACs. Calling them political action committees uses positive connotations (action) to describe their purpose, which is to sway political parties to vote or create legislation that benefits them. But the language used to describe any group that doesn’t agree with them has negative connotations (anti-corporate activism or radical activism). This phenomenon is, of course, reflected throughout society, but is especially prominent now given the current presidential race, which is on my mind a lot these days.

The chapter on crisis communication reminded me of a public relations class I took in college. We watched a film about crisis communication and it showed a clip of a hospital administrator being asked about layoffs. A reporter asked a question about whether the hospital was operating at a loss and that’s why they’re laying off people. The administrator mistakenly said no, we’re operating at a profit. When she realized what she said, she just turned around and walked back into the hospital. This is why companies have to plan for a crisis, especially what communication to use.

Media Logic and Ideology

This definition of “media logic” as defined by Cornelissen stood out to me in our reading for this week: media logic is “an ideological frame of reference of a news organization which influences how editors and journalists see, interpret, and cover political, corporate, and social affairs. A logic in other words underpins media coverage including how material is organized, the style in which it is presented, the focus or emphasis and the grammar and wording of an article.”

I wonder about the ideological framework for, say, Fox news, which does not allow newcasters to report on issues like global climate change or allow any one on a show who wants to talk about it. If they do set the agenda, as Cornelissen suggests, then what kind of agenda is that? I’m sure it has to do with Fox’s financial interests and partnerships. And what kind of agenda are they setting. Of course, Fox is the only news station to shape the news for to their own benefits, but it's the first one that comes to mind for me. 

I also think about Fox as I listen to republican candidates talk (for as long as I can stand it anyway). With all the attention the media is paying to Trump, I’m wondering if they really want to elect him or if he is just the day’s entertainment. They’re not covering Bernie, I suspect, because he’s not as entertaining (in that buffoon way). Writing the news used to be all about objective reporting (at least as objective as we could make it). Now it’s all about entertainment. I wonder about the reporters who work for Fox, or stations like it. They had to get journalism degrees like any other reporter. Or maybe they don’t have to have credentials to work for Fox. Actually, I wonder about any communicators at Fox. Are they all believers?

I watch PBS Newshour. What reputation does that station have? Do they pander to what's entertaining. What I like about them is that they give people enough time to talk to finish their thought. They don't cut them off. You get the whole story with them.

Research

Whenever I think about research, I always ponder how much I don’t know. Most of my research uses critical theory, so I’m not as well schooled in the methods Cornelissen describes as I feel I should be, especially now. I’m currently writing and introduction to an edited collection about teaching professional and technical communication. I am planning to conduct a survey about teacher preparedness and to do that I need to write the survey, get IRB approval (which I’ve never done and need to have CITI training), post the survey, and then analyze the results. I have never done this kind of research, and I find that I’m learning as I go along. It seems to me that with all the methods Carnelissen describes, what is true to all of them is know your audience. I think I have written my survey about four times, and I’m still wondering if I’m on the right track. I’m lucky to have colleagues willing to help me through this process. I’m glad Cornelissen uses the word, cycle, to talk about the stages of research. I think, for the most part, that all the stages happen at the same time because as researchers we’d constantly thinking about the planning, execution and measurement and evaluations as well as revising the our objectives. In some ways, I’m feel like I’m already writing the introduction and that I know what to expect from the survey results. I hope to be pleasantly surprised by the outcomes. I’m looking forward to reading your seminar papers at the end of the semester. I don’t usually get to teach a seminar so I don’t get to see seminar papers very often. I’ll be interested in how you go about your research so feel free to talk about that when you write your End-of-Semester Reflection.

Strategy

One of you made a comment in a previous post that Cornelissen sounds like he agrees with the content. That’s the problem with textbooks—they need to present information objectively (of course, there’s no such thing) and, in doing so, take on a passive type of stance. I don’t think Cornelissen necessarily agrees with everything he is writing, we’d have to read his articles to see his real arguments, but he does understand what he’s talking about and how it should b—at least theoretically. For example, he said that communicators should be in on the strategic planning and not just the implementation of a strategy. This is absolutely correct, but how common is that? If it’s not common, I suspect that one reason is that situating an employee at the strategic level means paying that person more. He says on page 94 that there are two types of communicators: communication technicians and communication managers. This is the difference, I think, of what’s viewed as practical and what’s viewed as theoretical. If you’re a technician, you’re doing rote work—grammar and spelling checker, fact checker, and so on. But if you’re a manager, you are paid to think bigger and more theoretical: he says that “corporate leaders do feel that corporate communication as an area of practice, “will be more valued when advice is offered by professionals who have the background, knowledge and standing that will enable them to contribute to decision-making at the highest levels” (p. 95). As long as they think of a communicator as a mere technician—or wordsmith (I hate that term), they will never make more money or be as respected.

He does point out, however, that many technicians lack the knowledge and skill of business, finances, and the strategy-making process. This is not a bad point (although I think communicators need strategy skills to write well), which is one of the reasons I want you all to write an industry report, to discover what you need to know in order to work in a particular industry. It’s not enough to simply know how to communicate; you need to know how to communicate in a particular context. I’m hoping the reports (which will be shared among all of us) will shed some light on an area you’ve been thinking about for your future. What most people know about a business comes from advertising, but each industry has trade magazines that tell you a lot more than simply why to buy their product.

On page 113, Cornelissen says that a message style involves “the creative concept that articulates the appeal of the message and brings it to life through the use of catchy slogans and visual stimuli (pictures, images, logos, and the typographic setting of a message).” Creative thinking is essential for critical thinking. But this statement seems to suggest that creative people make things pretty and come up with catch phrases. I get this perspective a lot because I do document and information design. But design grows out of content, so one has to have an understanding of the message in order to do the communication, which if you take my Information Design class next fall, you’ll learn all about that. But does this perspective add to the idea of “fluff”?

Stakeholders and Corporate Identity

Cornelissen’s overall discussion of stakeholder theory brings to mind the current policital campaigns, especially big money’s attachment to them. It’s easy to see that the stakeholders in the election are from corporations that have a vested interest in where federal money goes and how laws are written. It’s difficult from this perspective to see the ways corporations attend to other stakeholders such as customers. My personal opinion is that the focus on money at the top takes away from the ability of customers to purchase goods, which brings down profits. In that vein, CEOs and shareholders take money away from employees. Stakeholder theory makes me wonder how meaning is constructed in some of these companies, especially the big ones. For example, I heard that Fox news has specifically instructed news anchors to avoid using certain terminology for certain issues. It’s obvious that the stakeholders in this situation are the CEO and shareholders.  What dominant logic are they using when they relay their instructions to what is suppose to be an objective account of happenings?

Stakeholder theory also got me thinking about students as stakeholders. The only feedback (collaboration?) students can contribute to a class is through course evaluations. But because they are conducted at the end of the semester, student never really get to see the results of their commentary. In fact, I think most students think teachers don’t read or consider their comments with any seriousness. I can’t speak for other teachers, but I know I take them seriously. Most of how I teach comes as a direct result of a student’s comment. It’s not that I change everything just because one student complains or comments. It’s more that I consider the value of the comment in conjunction with what I tried to accomplish in the class. To what extent should students have power in pedagogical decisions? What kind of stakeholders are they or should they be? College is an investment in their future, so it seems like they should at least have a collaborative logic in the makeup of the class. What do you all think?

Cornelissen comments that “organizational identity has a specific strategic purpose in that it cuts across departmental and other group boundaries and aims to foster a common orientation for everyone in the organization” (p. 69).  It is important to foster a common orientation, but when I teach information design, I tell students that the design should grow out of the content. This, then, becomes difficult when we have a department project that involves the English department website or print materials because I’m often asked to suggest a student who might do that kind of work for us. My dilemma is that because UNO is very strict about its branding, the student does not have to make any design decisions, and making decisions is key to teaching students how to design. Design work (like writing) is a process of problem solving. Without a problem to figure out, what is the student learning. And students should insist on problem solving projects. But, then, any organization a student ends up working for will have it’s own branding rules too. Following a style guide is equally important for design work and offers it’s own problem solving dilemmas. This is one of the tightropes that I walk when preparing a class. What kind of tightropes do students walk when preparing to take a class?