Concerning Partisan Communications from Non-Partisan Government Officials #nlpoli

Keith Hutchings issued a news release on Tuesday to respond to”inaccuracies on CETA negotiations.” That’s what the headline on the release said it was about.

He did so in his capacity as a cabinet minister, a non-partisan provincial government official, not as a Conservative.  The media contact name listed is for the departmental communications director.  If this person didn’t write the release, then she approved it, as did the minister and at least one senior official in Cabinet Secretariat.

If you want to understand the communications problem facing the provincial government, then you have a tidy example in this release.

Any similarity is purely coincidental #nlpoli

Two announcements.

The one in February consisted of three paragraphs, 10 lines, and 111 words.

The obligatory quote from the minister:

“Ms. Goulding and Ms. Mennie have a wealth of legal expertise which has made them well-suited to the duties of a Provincial Court judge,” said Minister Collins. “They join the bench with a great deal of legal experience and knowledge. I welcome and congratulate them on their new positions.”

The one from August consisted of three paragraphs, 10 lines and 107 words.

The obligatory quote from the minister:

“Ms. Marshall and Mr. Walsh bring a great deal of legal expertise as they begin their new careers as Provincial Court judges,” said Minister Collins. “Their experience will serve them well in their new roles and I welcome and congratulate them on their new positions.”

-srbp-

Baby Torque

Perceptions can sometimes be influenced by how information is presented.

Prices are an easy example.  Saying that something is $9.99 somehow gets interpreted by people as being closer to nine dollars than to $10.  Sure we understand the concept, but for some reason, people tend to round numbers down sometimes.

Some bullshit artists passing themselves off as media trainers have been known to suggest using kilometres than miles for measurement if you want things to appear farther away.  Like say a potential environmental hazard from a sensitive spot.

In a news conference on Thursday, the province’s largest health authority passed out some information on how many pregnant women and how many newborns wound up being sent to hospitals on the mainland because of an overload in the neonatal intensive care unit at Eastern Health.

The Telegram reported on the newser.  It’s a straight-up account of the information presented by Eastern Health. In one part of the report, there is some information about statistics on what they seem to call “diverts”:

…from June 2008 to July 2010 the health authority transferred 15 mothers and nine babies out of the province…

Over a two year period, Eastern sent a total of 15 women and nine infants to other hospitals. The CBC online version of the story gives the same information at the end of the piece.  They just broke it down into two periods of 12 months each.

But now we get to the curious bit.  That’s where we find out how many infants and pregnant women are now outside the province since July 2010.

Here’s the way the Telegram put it:

From July 31 to Sept. 1, 12 mothers and three babies have been transferred to health care facilities in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec.

CBC gave the information by talking about what happened “since July 31.”

So here’s the thing:  how many months are covered by that period in Eastern sent 12 pregnant women for care at hospitals outside the province?

Quick scan and you might say three.

Then it might dawn on you that there is something in between July 31 and September 1.

It’s called the month of August.

In a single month, Eastern shipped almost as many women and babies out of the province for care as in the
two years prior.

The specific time frame the Telegram used is actually taken, almost word for word, from the Eastern Health news release:

Since implementing divert on July 31, up to September 1, Eastern Health has transferred 12 moms and 3 babies to facilities outside of the province.

The release itself is a curious mixture of sterile jargon on the one hand – calling the practice “being on divert” – and the rather folksy and familiar practice of calling the pregnant women involved “moms” on the other.  It also follows a fairly standard provincial government formula of not putting substantive information in the first few paragraphs.  News releases, you may recall, should follow the convention of putting the big idea right there at the beginning, usually in the first sentence.

Rather, the most important information in this bit of writing  - according to Eastern Health  - is that Eastern provided an update. That’s not only the first sentence, it’s also the headline.  Double whammy to reinforce their main point.

The second sentence has some potentially relevant detail, namely why they are shipping people out of the province.

Then there’s a quote from Vickie Kaminski.  But it isn’t until you get to the third paragraph that you start to get any sense of exactly how significant this whole issue is.

Then there is more background, detail and filler until you get to the end of the things more than two pages later.  That’s a gigantic news release by any standards.  Government and its agencies apparently have no shortage of words when they need them.

In thinking about this news release and news conference you might also be interested in thinking about what the key idea was that Eastern wanted to convey.  What was it about this whole situation that Vickie and her team wanted you to remember?

According to the news release, it was that they gave an update.  That’s the main idea because that’s the first sentence.

According to the Telegram, the big news was this:

The president and CEO of Eastern Health says it will likely be December before pressure eases up on the Janeway Children’s Hospital neonatal intensive-care unit (NICU).

CBC put it this way:

Newfoundland and Labrador's largest health authority is reassuring expectant mothers that everything is being done to protect the health of their babies despite a shortage of equipment and staff that is forcing pregnant women and newborns out of the province for care.

NTV – and the biggest audience in the province – led with a statement in the introduction that the health authority will cover costs.

For good measure, here’s the first sentence of VOCM’s story:

Eastern Health is working to ensure both nurses and mothers are well in light of a situation at the Janeway's Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.

One newser.

Five completely different news ledes.

And the one from the regional health authority itself is – just guessing here – not the takeaway Eastern Health itself had in mind. The Telly one is most likely the one they’d least like to see and NTV’s account – while accurate – focuses on a huge negative aspect of the story rather than carry the message that the authority is concerned primarily with its patients' health and well-being.

Interestingly enough, the CBC online version begins with what is most like Kaminski’s key idea. VOCM got it as well, in a much pithier way.

They found it in the last two sentences of the second paragraph, in the quote from Vicki Kaminski.  But even then it wasn’t the first bit of Kaminski’s quote:

I want to assure all expectant mothers that their safety and the safety of their babies are of utmost concern for us. We are closely monitoring the situation and will arrange a transfer if required, to ensure that the appropriate level of care is provided to mothers and their babies.”

The release should have started with the assurance because Care is Job 1.

Then they should have described the situation that led to the decision to “divert”:

• Almost as many high risk pregnancies and sick newborns in a single month as they had in two whole years before coupled with
• Staff issues

And then there should have been the list of actions taken;

• full cost reimbursement
• recruiting and training
• administrative steps to increase trained staff etc

And then an update on the ones from August.  This shows, among other things, the extent to which the situation is being managed and that people are being cared for appropriately.

Anything more than a page and a half was too much because busy reporters don’t have time to dissect two and bit pages of stuff.

Perception is affected by how information is presented.

- srbp -

Questions in search of answers

Just a few observations on announcements from the province’s health ministry lately.

1.  labradore points out that others – like the local news media -  are noticing the odd but telling similarity between the Lewisporte cuts announcement and the one from Eastern Health about breast cancer back in April.

So much for the story then and now that it was all up to the local health authority.

2.  During Cameron, every senior government witness insisted that all the decisions were made by the people at the health authority because that’s what they do; ministers of health and cabinet did not get involved in operational issues.

Like say, deciding whether to shut down laboratory and x-ray services.

Who decided on an operational issue in the Lewisporte case?

Hint:  it wasn’t the regional health authorities.  They found out about the cut the morning it was announced.

3.  And how many times will a cabinet minister refer to the recommendations of the Cameron Inquiry in trying to justify the operational decision made in Lewisporte?

4.  Then there’s the claim by no less a personage than the Premier that the cuts came from the health authorities and that it was aimed at improving the system.

He claims the health authority made a recommendation “to us” for services that should be cut.

He leaves out the important bit, of course, that the health authority didn’t come up with this idea on their own.   They suggested cuts  only when prompted by a request from the health department to suggest cuts in the first place.

And the cuts had nothing to do with either offsetting the cost of the health centre in Lewisporte (as the Friday release claims) or “improving” the system.

That’s plain from the letters released by government late on Friday.

But don’t take my word for it:  Read them for yourself.

5.  And since we are in the questioning mood:  why would a provincial government that is evidently flush with billions in loose change ask for recommendations on what to cut from health budgets in the first place, especially when the sum finally settled on by  - whom?  cabinet, the Premier, definitely Paul Oram – was such a measly, miserable amount?

And that’s based on nothing more than the general political principle that you just don’t go out and randomly shoot off a body part when you don’t need to. 

Cuts make people upset.

Cuts to health care make lots of people really upset.

Burn ‘em at the stake kinda upset.

And they don’t get un-upset easily.

Un-upsetting them will be costly either in blood and/or treasure:  cash or in political strips taken off someone’s hide.

Therefore, as the political wisdom would suggest:  do NOT cut health care unless it is absolutely necessary.

So why in the name of all that is political and therefore unholy would any cabinet in its right mind ask health regions to recommend a list of slashes, some of them valued at upwards of a million bucks.

6.   When did they make the decisions?  Observers of government will note the date on the letters released on Friday is from early 2009, well into the budget cycle and long after decisions would normally be made.  People will start asking hard questions about when all this was decided. Evidently it wasn’t in August.

7.  There is no plan. And when all that is done, ask yourself why a government department would release letters that show their initial talking points were more composed at the Mad hatter’s tea party?

Usually you release evidence that backs your claim, not further hints that – contrary to the Premier’s claims at the bored of trayed last week - people in the departments of government have no idea what they are doing.

-srbp-