re: "Diplomatic Political Reporting: Say What You Think?"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") gave thoughtful advice to diplomatic report writers.

He urged "the following general rules:

• if you want it to be read, make it readable
• some things are important - but don't matter
• no stupid words!
• don't be boring"

This crossdecks nicely to the U.S. diplomatic context.

"Part of the problem with political reporting is getting right the balance between what HQ wants to know and what it needs to know. Usually HQ is several months behind where any given overseas problem 'is' - standard briefs get word-processed and stale, drawing on expired assumptions.

So just as it is right to try to keep HQ up to date, Embassies also need to remember that HQ usually won't be that interested in anything which significantly changes the 'narrative' unless it is dramatic enough to catch the headlines in the HQ country.

Likewise you can say what you like in an urgent telegram, but the dominant thought about any given overseas development back at HQ will be whatever the media are saying that morning about it. Ministers pay more attention to the newspapers read in the car on the way to the office than to diplomatic cables, since any questions they will be asked during the day will draw on that media reporting, even if it is wrong or stupid..."

All very good advice, simply substitute words like "the Department," "Main State," "the Seventh Floor," or "the Bureau" where "HQ" appears, "secretaries" for "ministers," and understand that "newspapers" actually means CNN, NPR, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

Urgent messages should relay breaking news; the context and conditions should already have been provided by background cables sent so that desk officers and the like get the "ground truth" and flavor of the place that only on scene reporting can provide.

"(T)here is no easy answer on how a young diplomat should best deal with a situation where the mission and its policy are at variance with reality, honour and common sense. Of course anyone feeling really upset can launch into the various available grievance/appeal processes, but that merely builds up a reputation as a vainglorious boat-rocker and in any case is a hopeless vehicle for changing policy analysis."

Amb. Crawford provided a nice anecdote from his own, occasionally controversial, past. Note that he made ambassador after this episode.

"(I)t ultimately comes down to how you want to live. Most of us rationalise such things away on the grounds that it just takes time to change policies, and that much of what 'policy' is ebbs and flows anyway. Sometimes it's better to avoid fighting a losing battle on one issue for the sake of making a difference in another.

If that isn't your style, resign and do something else. But remember that if you do that, the organisation you've left will have one honourable voice fewer - does that really help either?"

A very good question, but keep your hand on your wallet, and your soul, while you ponder it.

11/20