Fishburn Hedges

15.08.2011

A Letter to the Editor is one of the ways in which companies, individuals, and, perhaps especially, governments can respond what is perceived as inaccurate and unfair reporting.  One of the most prominent such columns is that in The Economist, the nearest thing to a house journal for the global elite. This week it features no less than four letters from aggrieved governments – Spain, Bangladesh, Italy and Saudi Arabia.  What do they tell us about this particular communications tactic?

The Spanish finance minister’s response is factual and detailed. “Contrary to what is stated in your article”, she explains that the Spanish central government’s financing arrangements with its regional governments don’t increase the national debt, but simply give extra flexibility to the regions.  The letter scores well on clearly refuting the article with relevant facts, but it’s a bit technical if you haven’t read the original piece.  Perhaps given Spain’s financial challenges and the forthcoming elections, there could have been an extra sentence gives some context and broader messaging.

The Director General for Communications of the Bangladesh Foreign Ministry takes a very different tack.  He begins: “The article is disappointing, and totally lacks decency and professional ethics. The accusation that the Awami League assumed power through “bags of Indian cash and advice” is a blatant lie and a slur to the democracy-loving people of Bangladesh.”  He then rebuts the main points in the Economist’s piece, though largely with assertion rather than hard facts.  He then goes back on the attack: “The manner in which you raised the issues indicates that you are carrying out the agenda of those who are out to wage a smear campaign against Bangladesh and its government. Sheikh Hasina, the prime minister, has, through her extraordinary courage, personal sacrifice and inspiring visionary leadership, brought Bangladesh back on track…”

It’s subjective naturally, but I suspect most of Economist readers will think this language is over the top, and actually detracts from the more measured points the official is making.  Perversely, the Bangladeshi government may suffer here from the fact that English has been a language of politics and administration in Bengal for three centuries.  Yet despite that apparent long familiarity, the sub-continent’s use of English is very different from either the UK or the US; often more histrionic in public discourse than we’re now used to.

In contrast, the Italian Foreign Affairs spokesman avoids any direct criticism of the Economist’s coverage – an article that says that Italy offered no aid to the Somali famine.  He details the aid that Italy is giving - €11m going to Somalia through international agencies - and talks of the international initiatives on the famine that Italy is involved in.  It’s a decent letter, it explains what Italy is doing to help without overstating things.  Surprisingly perhaps, it’s didn’t directly complain about inaccurate reporting by the newspaper, perhaps because the truth was somewhat more in the middle, perhaps because such comments might have appeared insensitive given the tragedy in East Africa.

Lastly we have the Saudi Ambassador in London (an Al Saud) criticising the Economist’s “mocking” of Saudi Arabia’s justice system and its use of the death penalty.  He reminds us that the death penalty in Saudi Arabia is “in most cases” the punishment for premeditated murder.  He then makes clear that the security law the Economist criticises is a draft, and still has to go through the Kingdom’s law-making process, in other words its consultative Shura Council and review by its legal scholars.  It probably wasn’t wise to state that the law was “illegally obtained” – it might have been better to call this a leak.   The second part of the letter goes to give the context in terms of “very real terrorist threats”.  The letter then doesn’t pull its punches in making clear that the Al-Qaeda threat was domestic, and goes on to explain how the Saudi Government has eradicated some AQ cells and received the praise of the UN for this.  It ends with the central argument for the Kingdom’s tough policies: “al-Qaeda’s growth in the region continues to present us with serious threats, and policies are necessary to prevent this group from establishing an affiliated network in the kingdom.”

Such letters are written with very differing audiences in mind, including those at home as well as abroad.  Do they do much good?  Well, they try to communicate a government’s policy at a time when “public diplomacy” has never been more important.

How do you make them most effective?  Brevity and relevance is essential, and we don’t know here to what extent these particular letters have been cut back in length.  Generally you need to refute with facts, avoid ad hominem attacks, be honest about weaknesses in your case, and above all you need to consider how the external audiences you care about will react, given what they already know about your country.  On that basis, unfortunately, the democratic government of Bangladesh has only done itself harm internationally.  Spain and Italy’s letters are balanced and effective.  But the letter that probably does most good, given perceptions of the country, is that from the Saudi Ambassador.  It’s well written (presumably benefiting from some external counsel that the People’s Republic of Bangladesh may not as easily afford).  It won’t convince everyone, but it’s honest in putting the best case on Saudi security policy.  Such vigorous “brand defence”, consistently executed, may just contribute to bolstering the country’s reputation and influence with the international audiences that matter most to the country.

Posted by Andrew Marshall