Media Watch: Almost Everything That's Wrong with Progressive Communications in One Place

Want to see a news article that proves the serious need national progressives – and especially “anti-poverty” advocates - have for a new communications model? Check out the new issue of National Journal magazine. It's all about “Wish Lists”, that is,“demands by traditional liberal interest groups as Democrats begin to map their long-term agenda for the 110th Congress."

There are so many problems with the way this article will likely be perceived by readers, it’s hard to know where to start.

Some of these problems aren't found in the article's direct quotes or statements from advocates. For example, the editors chose to organize the magazine with a series of articles about a bunch of issue silos which the magazine identifies on the web as environment, education, labor, gun control, abortion, minorities, gay rights, trial lawyers – and the subject of this posting: “entitlements”. Why did the magazine leadership take this approach? Because this is how progressives describe themselves. But this is the worst possible kind of frame for public consumption – a bunch of self-interested advocates working to pass legislation on a series of controversial issues. And describing the category of employment benefits for low-wage jobs as “entitlements” is as close to a “welfare” category as I can imagine, not to mention it’s just plain inaccurate since so many of the benefits are not guaranteed to all low-wage households at all.

Take a close look at the article about “interest groups” for entitlements, which the reporter unfortunately describes as a “variety of anti-poverty groups”. Here are a just a few examples of evidence that a year and a half after Hurricane Katrina, DC groups still need a new approach.

• Listing the programs The reporter says: “A variety of anti-poverty groups are appealing to the new Democratic-controlled Congress. They want lawmakers to expand government health insurance and access to food stamps during debate this year on several federal program reauthorizations. They also want Congress, through the budget and appropriations process, to increase funding for housing, child care, child-support enforcement, and other federal "safety-net" programs for the poor.” This is a list of programs. We don’t want to communicate our goals as a list of programs that may be associated with welfare in the minds of readers, a list of new spending priorities for people readers may well assume are just not working hard enough to make it. Our goal is opportunity, not program expansion, and we should say so. Otherwise, readers who don’t agree with our policy solutions may stop reading before they ever hear about the outcomes we expect from the program policy.
• Health care Apparently, this is how proponents of health coverage expansion are choosing to state the case: "It's morally intolerable to have 9 million uninsured kids in this country, and 90 percent in working households…. As the SCHIP bill comes up, it would be a tragically missed opportunity to not cover all children.” For the second time this week, I’ve heard or seen almost these exact same words describing the campaign for health coverage. Hello? Everything we know about communications designed to build the public will for the policy results we seek tells us not to throw data as our opening move, and not to go directly to program acronyms. We have to start way up high with the big ideas and values we all agree on – opportunity, economic mobility, then go to issues, health coverage in this case, and finally talk about the specific program. And don’t say “SCHIP”. How many voters know what that means? it sounds like you want a computer in every kitchen or you're fronting for Microsoft and Bill Gates!
• Child care Oh my. We are now caught in the conservative corner; advocates sound like they agree with the fiction created by conservatives that child care benefits are exclusively for welfare recipients, current and former. Why do conservatives do this? They know that adequately funding child care for low-wage workers, who don’t get the same tax breaks to pay for care as everyone else, is expensive. And they don’t want to pay for it. Their effort to taint child care benefits with welfare stigma is still alive – and now we’re caught in that frame too. That's apparent when the reporter notes that the advocates “seek more money for child care subsidies that make work possible for welfare families.” Most people who get these child care benefits are stuck in the low-wage economy, and that's all we should say about that.
• Temporary Assistance The reporter writes “anti-poverty groups are hoping to do some damage control from last year's reauthorization of TANF. Congress increased the number of hours that welfare recipients must work to receive cash assistance, and the Health and Human Services Department subsequently issued regulations that advocates say make it harder for people to get education and training and still qualify for cash assistance. It might take legislation to force HHS to change the regulations, the groups say.” Why would anyone even say this out loud? Does anyone think that the election was about reducing work requirements for welfare? Seriously, whatever the underlying merits of this issue (and I happen to know there are some) this article should be the clearest evidence possible that there’s no way to effectively put it under the media spotlight. Just stop it already!

I have no doubt about the good intentions of the advocates interviewed for this article. Our goals are shared. And I understand that the audience for an article like this is not so much the general public or all voters, but policymakers in Washington DC. Yet, why would anyone think that we can have a conversation with elected and appointed policymakers about these issues, when they will surely read the article (if they are at all inclined to read an article about anti-poverty interest groups’ wish list for entitlements) and understand that since their constituents aren’t clamoring for an “expansion of entitlements” for “welfare recipients”, these issues can be ignored? If we ask for better jobs, more opportunity, and economic inclusion, decision makers might be more interested in acting. Sadly, other media outlets—those more often seen by the wider public—are now likely to pick up the essential narrative in this issue of National Journal for reporting on the new Congress. This all the evidence anyone needs that we have to change our communications strategy.