Op-Ed: Why Communicators Should Keep Their Critics Close
Editor’s Note: The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of CommPRO.
Communications professionals sometimes have difficult choices to make, especially when they have troubling news to deliver, whether it’s a CEO who has made a foolish remark, exercised poor judgment or simply made a mistake.
As a communicator, do you try to cover it up or gloss it over? Or do you deal with it head on, recognizing that your credibility with the media depends in large part on being viewed as a straight shooter who tells the truth?
Sure, you can frame mistakes and misjudgments in ways that provide context, lower the temperature or perhaps make the story less newsworthy. That’s part of the communicator’s job.
But you also want to keep your media friends close and trusting you. And if you happen to have some hardcore media critics, you may want to keep them even closer, especially during upheaval and controversy.
The same idea has long been debated in politics and diplomacy.
President Trump’s willingness to meet and engage personally with adversarial leaders such as Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un has generated both criticism and support. Some Americans see those encounters as giving authoritarian leaders legitimacy. Others argue that direct communication with adversaries, particularly nuclear powers, can be a pragmatic way to reduce tensions and better understand their intentions.
That raises an interesting question: Is engagement with an adversary a sign of weakness, or can it sometimes be a strategic advantage?
A quotation frequently attributed to Abraham Lincoln captures the idea: “Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
There can be benefits to understanding an adversary. The more each side understands the other’s capabilities, priorities, goals and fears, the greater the opportunity to avoid miscalculation. Communication does not require agreement, nor does engagement mean abandoning deterrence or preparedness.
The same principle applies in our own profession.
A reporter who challenges you, questions your organization or approaches your story skeptically may be precisely the person with whom you need to maintain a relationship. You don’t have to agree. You don’t have to become friends. But shutting out critics rarely makes them disappear, and understanding how they see you can make you a better communicator.
In international affairs, the stakes are obviously much higher. Decisions involving military exercises, diplomatic meetings and relations among nuclear powers deserve careful scrutiny, and reasonable people can disagree about whether any particular approach strengthens or weakens national security.
But the underlying communications lesson remains worth considering: knowing your adversary can be just as important as knowing your allies.
As Michael Corleone famously put it in The Godfather Part II: “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.”
It may be movie dialogue, but for communicators, there’s some wisdom in it.
Keep the relationships open. Keep listening. Keep talking. And when the pressure is greatest, don’t underestimate the value of understanding the people who are least inclined to agree with you.
