Every so often, one hears that local government – the city, our public school district, the university – needs to get the word out. There’s a message to be sent. That’s good and right, of course, as the alternative would be concealment of policies or other public acts. Government should communicate more, not less, often.
Those who run the chief public bodies of the city do not lack for the required intellect or education to do so. All around the city are thousands of residents similarly talented and capable – this city does not have a few clever people, but instead has many.
Although it’s good to spread public announcements so far as one can, government’s obligation is not simply a message, but a message as thoroughly detailed and explanatory as the occasion requires. I’ve written along these lines before: officials have a duty to speak and write, on their own, to the full measure of their abilities.
Why do I say this? Because if officials will not offer their best analyses in their own words, then they will have not have met the standards this city should expect of all leaders. Many thousands in the city could do this – her officials can easily meet that same standard.
(Obvious side note: like all libertarians, I’ve a commitment to open government, but no interest in serving as government’s herald. Independent is better than dependent. It’s Adams, after all, not Mercury.)
But a message requires a medium. Some things don’t mix well. Most people believe in God, and most people like Disney characters, yet the clergy wisely don’t deliver sermons in mouse ears.
The initial medium for government’s intended message should be one of its own responsibility, with a style and composition equal to the occasion. If that’s not the foundation of a message, then too much is lost for too little gained. Relying on others’ stunted composition and shoddy reasoning only undermines a message. Someday, that’s a message that local government will, itself, receive.