We're all too familiar with the "give me the bad news first" scenario.
Kathy Kerchner's post about Wells Fargo is worth looking at from a communications standpoint. As Kerchner observed, "never underestimate the media's desire to focus on 'what's wrong,' not on 'what's right.' " Wells Fargo essentially had a good news story that got upstaged by a bad news scenario framed by a loaded reference (to the Great Depression.) We communicators always push people in the organization to use colorful examples -stripped of insider jargon- when speaking to the media. But how they use the quote is never within our control.
If I am to switch hats for a moment, as a writer I always look for those colorful quotes because they tell me something about the problem of opportunity, often the back story. A metaphor sometimes humanizes a very complex topic. (For an example of this, see my weekly roundup of quotes for the week, that I pick because they succinctly describe in a few words the issue.) It is very tempting to lead with a negative statement, and follow it up with a positive one. This does not necessarily mean the writer is obsessed with bad news, just that he/she is seeing the story in a problem/solution format.
Here's a story from NPR yesterday about "dozens of bald eagles" that died when they dove into a truck loaded with fish guts, and got into a feeding frenzy. Terrible story, but guess what? Although 20 eagles died in the mishap, 30 were rescued. Was this a good news or a bad news story? The headline was "20 eagles die, 30 recovering after feeding frenzy." It could have been worse, in the Wells Fargo story approach: "Alaska cannery blamed for death of 20 bald eagles."
Link to original postLink to original post