Don't you just love that phrase, "going forward"? Really,
what other way can we go. If we could go backwards and
forwards then it might make sense but, as we well know, you
can only go forward in time so why use such a superfluous
phrase. I'll tell you why some people use it - because they
think it makes them sound more important if they are seen
to be using a new buzz phrase. But, if you want journalists
to use that part of your interview, drop all jargon,
business speak, acronyms or other stuffy language.
Journalists, and the mass public they represent, hate that
stuff with a passion.
In my country, our new leader cut short his media honeymoon
period by embarking on a world tour and writing his own
speeches that were laced with clichés, jargon and acronyms.
In April 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told the Brookings
Institute in Washington that: "The idea of a harmonious
world depends on China being a participant in the world
order and, along with others, acting in accordance with the
rules of that order. Otherwise, harmony is impossible to
achieve. Therefore, there is on the face of it a natural
complementarity between the two philosophical approaches.
And a complementarity that could be developed further in
the direction of some form of conceptual synthesis."
What? This piece dismally fails what I call my town or city
square rule. Walk into any town square, stop 10 people at
random and ask them what that passage meant. If you get one
person to explain it, you would be very lucky indeed. The
point is that unless seven or eight of those people can
understand your words, don't use them. Replace them with
simpler words that will have more power and the ability to
increase the reach of your message to many more people. Why
limit that reach by using words that the majority of
listeners, readers or viewers can't understand? Our Prime
Minister came home from his 18 day world our to headlines
like: When it comes to plain speaking, the Prime Minister
may be beyond help, What was that, PM? And Rudd says he's
no robot yet he talks like one. Not good.
Mind you, Americans can be just as silly with their use of
the language. The Agriculture Department, which has
consistently used the word 'hunger' to describe those who
can least afford to put food on the table, decided to use
the phrase "very low food security" as a description for
the 11 million people who go hungry at times!
Outcome is another of those stuffy words that has become
commonplace these days. Whatever happened to the word
result which sounds a lot simpler to me? I've actually
media trained people who have later told me they went back
to their jobs eager to use less stuffy language when
presenting to colleagues and were thrilled at how much
better they communicated and how much better it was
received.
This stuff works with both media interviews and with other
communications as well. After all, when you talk to a
journalist you're really talking to the audience behind
that journalist and there's little difference between that
and talking to people in a social situation. If you think
about it, the people at next week's dinner party, BBQ or
other social event will be asking you similar questions to
the ones the journalist asks you in a media interview and
we tend to use simple language socially so why change it
for a media interview. Mind you, if the journalist is not
asking you those sorts of questions, he or she is not doing
their job properly.
----------------------------------------------------
Graham Kelly hates jargon passionately and strives in all
his media training workshops to get participants to talk
more simply and powerfully. Training details at
http://www.kelly.com.au . He has also written three
editions of his media training book, Managing the Media and
details are at http://www.mediatrainingebook.com .