Tag Archives: New York Times

#206) Narratively Wimpy: The NY Times “5 Treasure Secretaries” Opinion Piece Has a Painfully Weak Opening

Posted on by

Not opinion, analytical fact — they chose to go indirect where they needed to be direct. Don’t you think “Our Democracy Is Under Siege” is more than “substantial cause for concern”? 

Doesn’t the headline sound pretty urgent and direct? Then why did they have such a mealy mouthed opening?

YOU ONLY GET ONE “BUT BOMB”

Yesterday’s NY Times Opinion piece from 5 former Treasure Secretaries was touted as a bold indictment of another Trump Administration move, but if it was meant to be strong, why was the opening statement so weak?

How you open an essay is crucial. It is in the opening that you establish the “framing,” which sets the expectations of the audience.

BREAK IT DOWN FOR ME

Let’s break this essay down by ABT elements (And, But, Therefore) in the first 3 paragraphs. Here’s the opening sentences which are fine — a simple statement of their past experiences. It was exactly what was needed to get us to the statement of THE PROBLEM, which in their opinion is the actions of the current president.

They even managed to move right along with ABT structure, starting the next sentence with a BUT.

They teed everything up for a perfect and powerful BUT BOMB — their one moment to grab attention — everyone’s brains are primed and ready for the central point — bring it on!

BUT THEN … what did they say?

They continued talking about themselves.

Why? Opportunity missed.

And then, even further, they add one more throwaway sentence, then get to a second “turn” — a second point of contradiction (notice that you could have dropped in a “but” to have it say, “BUT regrettably …”), and how strong is this second possible statement of the problem? It’s STILL indirect, saying a wimpy, “substanital cause for concern.”

If your democracy is under siege, it kinda seems like that should be a little more than cause for concern.

Come on, NY Times — if you’re gonna pull together 5 former Treasury Secretaries, at least bring in a narrative consultant who can spot this sort of miscue. It’s like being at a bar, jumping up on the counter, shouting, “HEY EVERYBODY LISTEN TO ME!” And then when they stop the music and the room goes quiet, you say, “I have substantial cause for concern …”

103) Democrats, Messaging and Monty Python

Posted on by

“Right, our polls show the public doesn’t want candidates who pay too much attention to the polls. So let’s do a poll to see what they do want.” The Democrats are in such a quagmire. Here’s an article this morning in The Hill that confirms Democrats aren’t gonna win with no message. In “Houston, We Have A Narrative,” there are narrative tools that can help with structuring a message, but the problem is they can’t work if there is no message to start with. Everyone should get comfortable with the Republicans for a long road ahead. Narrative is everything. The Democrats, at present, have nothing, aside from “we hate that guy” which polls show isn’t enough.

How the Romans didn’t get voted out of office.

How the Romans didn’t get voted out of office.


NO MEANS NO

It’s official — you aren’t going to get elected through hate alone. Here’s a simple article this morning reporting polls that basically show that the “We Hate That Guy” message is not enough to take over leadership of the nation.

It didn’t work for the last candidate. It won’t work for the next.

You gotta have a positive, constructive message. The ABT can help tremendously once someone knows the message. The Dobzhansky Template can actually find the message. But until the Democrats get more analytical about narrative and realize there’s more to it than just gut feelings, nothing will change. THEREFORE … everyone might as well get comfortable with the behemoth that the Republican party has become.

And in the meanwhile, they need to take to heart this quote from a New York Times editorial on January 17 that still holds true:

Post103Graphic2