Clear People not Content

I can see cleared people (not content) having particular importance in times of emergency response (perhaps as a system of nodes distributed across an area) and in addressing myths (perhaps as a team of individuals each with training on specific platforms and audiences).

I’m not arguing that we abandon clearing content. Obviously we have to ensure proper messaging from the top down. But to build the underlying foundation through which these messages get communicated, we should focus on clearing people, not content.

Read Holman is one of the smartest folks in this business that I know. While he’s much more on the geeky side of things (data management and such), he’s also a crafty online communicator. So when he posts something about crisis communications that I’ve been seeing more and more, I take notice.

I’ll be exploring more about this idea of person clearance vs., in addition to, in tandem with, as a complement of, message clearance because it’s such an interesting topic that will only become more relevant as a way to combat the race to be first in communications, but Read’s post is a great way to start thinking about things.


One thought on “Clear People not Content

  1. Here’s a hilaroius/pitiful example of what goes wrong. Ottawa earthquake plans fell apart as city shook: documents…Note that the Privy Council Office had to approve PR stuff. According to their website, “The Privy Council Office (PCO) provides essential advice and support to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.” I have no idea what they have to do with an earthquake other than it happens to be in thier vicinity. This would be like the White House running the media relations for an earthquake in Washington DC.

Comments are closed.