Skip to main content

Messaging, Recycling, Headlines

Being involved in an activist group, being (I think) highly rational, and being somewhat resistant to becoming part of social collectives, messaging is something that comes up often.  So reading On Left Straussianism from the Point did stoke up thoughts.

I'll disagree with one part right off.  This isn't all about elitism.  Talking about messaging doesn't only have to involve elites.  It's small group/large group, but it's not always about level of education, it's often about intensity of connection.  When "messaging" in public, the bandwidth is limited, especially in terms of feedback loops.  If someone misunderstands your message, it's hard to correct.  Attention wavers, so key distinctions can be lost.  And then there's the telephone game.  Those dynamics are true no matter what level of education your public has.

A second distinction, before you even start to talk about withholding or twisting the truth, we should think first about caution.  Broadcasting a message without considering the audience, how it will be interpreted, how it might be misinterpreted, is foolish.  Taking some caution here isn't a lie at all, it's respect for the audience's time, and a simple recognition that in general the public will not have the capacity to engage on an issue you've committed yourself to in the same way you have.  That's not elitism, it's specialization.  Specialization might lead to elitism, this is true, but that risk does not merit abandoning the idea of specialization.  There are other ways to keep elitism in check that are better.

How does this relate to me personally?  Here's an example that hopefully brings this closer to the ground.  In Chicago, we have a very poor overall recycling rate.  9% of what houses/businesses dispose of is recycled.  For comparison, close by Naperville reaches 30%.  A recent report by the Better Government Association messaged this in a way I disagreed with.  Why?

The reason is that while the report was looking at a real problem, it suggested this problem was the cause of Chicago's poor recycling rate.  But it's not.  It does not come even close to explaining this.  The problem they looked at was that one of the three providers was tagging bins as contaminated at a rate 20 times higher than their competitors.  But this was only 2.5% of all recycling bins, meaning it explained a difference between 9% and 9.215%.

The real reason Chicago has a poor recycling rate is what people choose to put in their bins.  Most recycling bins in Chicago are empty.  The cities recycling system, without any changes, if utilized by the public, has the potential to recycle 30-40% like Naperville.  The best way to change this is to incentive the public using a Pay-as-you-Throw system, where residents are charged for the volume of waste sent to the landfill, and charged less for recycling.  This incentivizes not only use of recycling bins by efforts to reduce waste overall.

BGA's report however got a lot of press, and I saw numerous misinterpretations of the data.  Several people I had discussions with wondered if it was even worth putting items in the blue bins as they had gotten the completely untrue impression that 90% of what they put in the blue bins was being sent to a landfill.  I'll repeat, that is completely untrue.  This message then had the exact opposite of the effect intended.  How did they get this impression?  From a callout in the article "accounting for nearly 90 percent of all recycling bins diverted to garbage dumps.", taken out of context leads to the untrue assumption.

This is the kind of caution I think is reasonable.  Avoiding messaging of this nature is hard.  Me discussing this seems like I'm defending the city (which everyone loves to hate).  I may have what (I think) are more balanced opinions of the city, but my motivation is not to defend them, but to avoid mistaken interpretations.

Another similar issue in the same vein is Chinese changes to recycling.  These have not significantly changed that what you can recycle in the US.  There are some changes, but it's a quite common belief that nothing is recycled anymore as a result.  This is also completely untrue.  The Chineses haven't even stopped accepting recycling materials, they've only required less contamination.  This does mean some extra costs for sorting facilities, and it does mean some rejection, but overall, if you're concerned about recycling, the place to start is by putting it in the bin.

Instead the public has used these two sets of information, to come to the completely wrong conclusion?  Should this information have been withheld?  I wouldn't favor that.  But I would have thought more about how to avoid the confusion that has emerged.  And many headlines, quotations, etc. have not done this.

I'll add one last point here to stay true to what I'm saying.  BGA is a good organization.  I don't write this to harm their reputation.  The problems of messaging of this issue run a lot deeper.  A lesser form of the Straussianism view could repair some of those problems.  Discuss the issue within your private group first.  Realize the limitations of the public (time and attention more than education).

I don't know what to do about headlines, as it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.  The public does not unlimited capacity for attention, and there is lots of competition for that capacity.  But using misleading attention grabbing headlines merely wastes that time, and does harm in the process.


Popular posts from this blog

How to create a resilient Oil & Gas industry

Use Less As part of the current crisis, oil usage is down, and storage around the world is filling up, to the point that oil has traded at negative prices.  As a reaction, many Republican lawmakers want to bailout the oil industry, by providing free access to storage or no-collateral loans.  While it would make sense to ensure oil doesn't get dumped in the ocean, the right way to do that is by producing less oil. These proposals from the Republicans undermine the motivation for the industry to do so.  Workers are important, but they have the same access to unemployment as the other 25 million Americans who are out of work. What this crisis should illustrate is something that has been illustrated many times before, the oil industry is a fragile thing.  In the past this fragility has been demonstrated by massive spikes in prices and fears of shortage, in this case it's the inverse.  Why the fragility?  The simplest explanation is, we use too much.   In a world where oi

Commit to Long Term Testing

Expanding testing is very important now.  It's also clearly an area we were unprepared.  We should commit to having testing capacity long term, to both provide more certainty to anyone expanding testing capacity today, and to be prepared in the future. I had some thoughts about how this testing would be best structured.  It's not possible to test for an contagious disease you're not aware of, but much of the infrastructure for doing so can already be in place, ready to be adapted.  That infrastructure would roughly boil down to a) sample collection b) sample handling c) sample preparation d) sample analysis e) materials: reagents, etc. Scaling these up from scratch is quite a bit more work than adapting to a new contagion.  A commitment to having that infrastructure would have helped a lot with the current crisis. Right now, the focus is rightfully on health care workers, suspected cases and essential workers.  In terms of preparation though, in the early stages

Finding your way: Public Transit and Uber

Uber has been disruptive in many ways.  One way, which has been a great disappointment, is the effect on public transit systems.  It was once hoped that ride hailing would provide an assist to public transit, as a gateway to abandoning car ownership.  There have also been hopes that suburban commuters would use ride-hailing as their connection to public-transit which is not accessible by walking in these areas.   Multiple studies have confirmed these hopes have largely not materialized, and public-transit has been weakened . Cities have reacted, mostly by putting barriers to ride-hailing growth.  Sometimes they are collecting extra fees, sometimes placing new requirements.  But mostly these efforts don't do much to change the relationship between ride-hailing and public-transit. I work with a local group that spends time thinking about automated car policy, how to get the most good and the least bad.  We've discussed a proposal that fits ride-hailing, in the here and now,