There's a story in today's Edmonton Sun about an HIV/hepatitis scare, after it was discovered that some hospital workers had been administering medication using reused syringes. Health officials are urging 2,700 patients to be tested for HIV and hepatitis as a result.

The reporter gets quotes from a variety of sources. I found two of those quotes particularly interesting. One of them is effective, while the other leaves you wondering what the spokesperson was thinking.

Judge for yourself and see who tells their story more effectively:

#1. Alberta's health minister, Ron Liepert, refused to lay blame until the Alberta Quality Health Countil is finished its review of the incident. Here's his quote:

"This is a system made up of human beings. There will be mistakes that will happen and we've had other mistakes in the past."

Talk about a lost opportunity. Instead of assuring residents that everything will be done to ensure this never happens again and that the health and safety of Albertans is their top priority, he sums it up with something that sounds like a line from 'Que Sera, Sera'.

#2. The more effective quote is this one, from NDP Leader Brian Mason, who says:

"This government spends more money and makes a greater effort to educate drug addicts about not reusing syringes than they do the health professionals that we depend on to protect us. If they have not put in place the educational practices and procedures to make sure this isn't happening then we should assume it is happening in other places in other forms."

It does what a good key message should do -- it boils down the person's viewpoint into a simple, compelling statement that's easy to remember. The comparison with the education program for drug addicts is pretty effective and makes the government look as if it has its priorities out of whack. It also serves to make the health minister's quote (hey, we're people....things happen) look even sillier.

Read More

I found this quote in the Toronto Star today, in a story about the rising costs of Prime Minister Harper's security detail. The reporter asked Chris Mathers, an international security expert, to comment on the PM's rising security costs and what factors might impact those costs. Mathers offers up the following quote:

"Whether the prime minister chokes on a chicken bone or someone tries to shoot him and he's injured, they have to know where the closest hospital is, how to get him there, is there a helicopter to Medevac him out – right down to who takes him and who stays and shoots it out if it's a group of terrorists."

I don't know about you, but for me, the first thing that came to mind while reading this brief quote was the George Bush pretzel-choking incident of 2002. The next image that came to mind was Ronald Reagan getting shot outside the Washington Hilton in 1981. And the third image was one of a shootout between terrorists and the PM's security personnel.

Anything that can be said in a negative way can also be phrased positively. In this case, another approach might have been to reinforce the positive benefits associated with the Prime Minister's security detail, the extent of their training, the wide range of situations they're prepared for, etc. This is more palatable than reciting a list of things that could go wrong (and in the process, generating a series of extremely negative images in the minds of the readers).

Read More

An article in the October 22 Globe and Mail reveals that former MP and Toronto mayoral candidate John Nunziata was charged with assault. The charge followed an altercation with his ex-wife's boyfriend at a children's hockey game. The boyfriend claimed he was kicked by Nunziata (who says he plans to pursue counter-charges). The incident in question was at Mr. Nunziata's 11-year-old son's hockey game. The following excerpt is taken directly from the Globe story:

Mr. Nunziata, who has joint custody of his children after his divorce from Caroline Brett last year, was standing with his daughter, 14, who became “upset” about a comment made by either Ms. Brett or her boyfriend, Mr. Nunziata claims.

“So I approached him and said: ‘You're upsetting my daughter, please stop,' ” said Mr. Nunziata, 53. “He told me to f**k off and he pushed me. Then a bunch of people got in the middle, and that was the end of it.”

But yesterday, officers laid charges against Mr. Nunziata after his ex-wife's boyfriend, Murray Milthorpe, 48, went to police and claimed to have been kicked in the buttocks by Mr. Nunziata. Police photographed a bruise as evidence. Mr. Nunziata denies the claim, saying he was facing Mr. Milthorpe during the dispute and couldn't have kicked him.

Sure, this is a sad, unfortunate, embarrassing situation. And granted, Mr. Nunziata is undoubtedly enraged at the incident itself, as well as the ensuing charges and media attention. But this doesn't open the door for anyone, especially someone with such a public profile, of dropping an f-bomb in his statement to the reporter.

But that's not the worst of it. In my humble opinion, the truly inappropriate quote from Mr. Nunziata is this one:

"I didn't kick him. I don't know how he got the bruise on his ass, but I mean, he deserves an ass-kicking, but I didn't give it to him. This is an abuse of the process. It's all about a vindictive ex-wife and her boyfriend."

There's an old saying we use in our media training sessions -- that it's easier to get toothpaste out of the tube than it is to get it back in. This quote is a perfect example of that. Let's be clear. I'm not taking issue with the sentiment or questioning the veracity of the statement. I have no idea whether this gentleman does or does not deserve said buttock-kicking. The problem is that for Mr. Nunziata, these words are now part of the public record for the remainder of his days. In the Google-age, where nothing fades away into obscurity, a public figure (or anyone, for that matter) simply can't have something like this attached to their name.

Think about it. This quote, while it might generate some words of encouragement and slaps on the back from other burned ex-husbands out there, is certainly not going to help John Nunziata going forward. It isn't going to help him if this case goes to court. It isn't going to help him with respect to the integrity of his public personna. It isn't going to help him attract or retain clients with his consulting career.

So what would I have done differently? Well, I haven't been in this situation, so I won't pretend to know precisely what was going through his mind during this interview. Ideally, though, he could have asked the reporter for a few minutes to compose himself before speaking and then written down one or two quick messages on a pad of paper. Messages along the lines of the following:

"I want to be 100% clear that this individual's allegation is untrue. I was attending my son's hockey game, as I've been doing faithfully since he was X years old. Suddenly, I found myself in the middle of a confrontation started by my former wife and her companion, who were also in attendance. I plan to vigourously defend my name and I'm confident the facts will support the version of events I have provided to the authorities, with whom I am cooperating fully. But that is of secondary importance to me at this point in time. My top priority continues to be the happiness and well-being of my children, who are caught in the middle of this unfortunate situation."

Is it perfect? Probably not. Is it better than his actual quotes that appeared in the media? Absolutely. And it took me less than five minutes to write. There isn't a reporter around who won't give you five minutes to get back to them or to collect your thoughts. Even if you're gritting your teeth as you read it off the page, it's better to take the high road.

Read More

Dick Pound (the former head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, an officer of the Order of Canada and a Vancouver Olympic Committee board member) has done hundreds of media interviews throughout his career. This is someone who knows how the process works. Which makes his recent remarks in La Presse that much more surprising.

In the August 9th article, Mr. Pound was defending the holding of the Summer Olympics in Beijing despite China's spotty human rights record. The quote in question:

"We must not forget that 400 years ago, Canada was a land of savages, with scarcely 10,000 inhabitants of European descent, while in China, we're talking about a 5,000 year-old civilization."

The comment is nearly three months old. But it was brought to the surface last week when it was learned that a Quebec aboriginal-rights group has filed a complaint with the International Olympic Committee's ethics committee over the remarks.

A story in the Globe and Mail on October 22 said, "Mr. Pound subsequently characterized what he said as a clumsy comment that has been taken out of context."

From a communications standpoint, this is concerning for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Vancouver is next in line to host the games. B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell has taken Pound to task in the media, calling the comments 'disgraceful' and demanding an apology.

We often tell clients to use colourful analogies, examples or anecdotes to help tell their stories. When properly thought through, it can be quite powerful. But in this instance, in trying to make an argument for China, he inadvertently threw Canada under the bus.

In the end, it comes down to an unfortunate choice of words. Today, one day after the Globe and Mail article appeared, Dick Pound has officially apologized for his comments. That was definitely the right call. Failing to do so would have lead to a lingering, growing issue in the months ahead. Being the experienced spokesperson he is, Dick Pound recognized that. If he had only put a bit more thought into his key messages a few months ago, this whole scenario could have been avoided.

Read More