A version of this story first appeared in the official website of the Business Times. Click here to read it.

“… humanity’s best chance of success is open and honest debate..”

STUART Kirk said this in a detailed LinkedIn post in July that announced his resignation as HSBC Asset Management’s global head of responsible investing. In the post, he also spoke about the perils of cancelling voices that run counter to the current zeitgeist surrounding climate change and ESG investing.

Kirk’s resignation hardly came as any surprise, given that he was effectively “put on ice” by his then employer for nearly two months. This followed his controversial speech at a Financial Times conference pouring scorn over the financial risks brought about by climate change.

Unpacking the controversy – was the reaction warranted?

Factually, there was nothing inherently wrong with Kirk’s speech. What he did was counter the established narrative of how organisations should invest in ESG movers and shakers. In his view, the risks of climate change are overhyped; people can adapt to a changing climate; and “unsustainable companies” (think those in the oil & gas sector) don’t necessarily make bad investments.

Understandably, this didn’t go over well with many, and Kirk was branded a climate change denier, with pressure mounting for him to be fired.

Yet, from Kirk’s perspective, competition for ESG investing is now more rife than ever. So central bankers are attempting to “out-hyperbole” the next guy by raising ominous warnings to financial institutions and investors about climate change risks. For him, many of these apocalyptic warnings are unsubstantiated and self-serving. If and when the world indeed faces a critical environmental juncture, he believes in the human spirit to weather the adversities and adapt accordingly via innovation.

The difference’s in the delivery

In a sense, topics like climate change may be particularly prone to hyperbole, and commentators would seize upon targets who can spark a cancel culture movement. Everyone is looking for a fall guy to paint as the villain. For those in need of constant catharsis, it may just be to show off how righteous they are. However, others just want to find a visible reason for why things are going wrong in our world, as the trifecta of a global pandemic, recession and geopolitical conflicts is making many feel more powerless than ever, and we want more ways to channel our grievances.

And to be fair, Kirk didn’t exactly do himself any favours. In his speech, he used combative language, calling out alleged hyperbole hustlers as nutjobs and perhaps glossing over climate calamities with flawed analogies. For instance, he likened the voices of climate change doomsayers to those behind the escalation of the Y2K bug hysteria. However, the difference is that the efforts to deal with the latter happened somewhat invisibly to the public, often opaquely between computer screens and IT systems.

Yet, for many, climate change is real, especially for the developing world that bears the brunt of environmental change but also has fewer avenues to access the funding and innovation to mitigate the risks. It’s easy to downplay climate change from ivory towers; the risks look totally different when your country’s sinking and you’re knee-deep in seawater.

“Topics like climate change may be particularly prone to hyperbole, and commentators would seize upon targets who can spark a cancel culture movement.”

So, instead of engendering fierce but constructive debate around the current state of ESG financing, Kirk put his former employers in a quagmire. I maintain that Kirk’s superiors at the bank must have known of, if not approved, his speech; I can’t imagine that an organisation such as HSBC didn’t vet his content thoroughly to catch out any potential risks.

Perhaps there was a disparity between his prepared speech and what he actually delivered (though this seems unlikely, given that one of Kirk’s slides said : “Unsubstantiated, shrill, partisan, self-serving, apocalyptic warnings are ALWAYS wrong”.) Thus, it does appear that what probably happened was that the public outcry over the speech became too unbearable for HSBC and it caved in and suspended him.

In Communications 101, we must always read the room and speak the language the audience would most resonate with. Going in with guns blazing is never advisable unless you know your audience really well.

When in doubt, try humour instead; though, granted, the person using it must have enough charm and charisma. Kirk shot and failed, but rather than throwing him under the bus, his employers could have done better standing by their employee and advising him on the do’s and don’ts.

Ugly side of cancel culture

Cancel culture, for the most part, emerged from inherently good intentions. It was to provide a voice to marginalised people and make those who may often escape accountability face the consequences for their ill intentions and actions .

However, just like with many movements, it’s often hard to control fires, even those that started with just a spark. While there are instances where someone is just so egregiously bad that ending their careers is justified, the situation gets murkier when they’re being cancelled just for having different views. While a person may indeed be loathsome, it would still be unfair to risk or destroy their future. There’s a clear line between shunning someone for opposing viewpoints and ruining their lives.

In this day and age, we have access to a variety of platforms to communicate our views and thoughts. It’s easier than ever to find like-minded people to share our ideas with, but if left unchecked, this can also lead to people forming tribal echo chambers. This makes it harder for opposing viewpoints to enter the realms of discussion; contradictions to the cemented groupthink narrative will be fiercely countered, as many dislike having their established, subjective truth challenged.

Critical culture instead of cancel culture

So, what does this mean for Kirk? As I said, the issue was not so much the facts he presented as how he delivered them. While he had a salient point in his LinkedIn post on the perils of cancel culture, he did little to try to mitigate the situation from the beginning. We can’t control how others react to what we do or say, but we do have control over ourselves.

No one gains from cancel culture. Reiterating the line from Kirk’s LinkedIn post about open and honest debate, if communications are to be a tool for creating a better society, there must be room for constructive feedback and discourse, and letting people acknowledge their mistakes, and rehabilitate.

Cancel culture – if used brazenly – leads to silos and a divided society, not understanding and learning. With so many things happening in the world today that require real change, we can no longer bury our heads in the sand.

The post Cancel culture – when to know enough’s enough appeared first on Redhill | Global Communications Agency.

Press conferences and on-field interviews have long been accepted as part of the ecosystem of top-tier sports. Broadcasters, tournaments and associations require players to make themselves available for pre- and post-match conferences. The media’s role is to provide direct commentary from sportspeople to the public, and as a by-product, increase fan engagement with the sportspersons and the brands they represent, which ultimately raises the sport’s profile.

This may have been a win-win in the past. However, with the advent of social media, the role of press conferences has become increasingly obsolete. Why, then, do we still insist on making press conferences mandatory for players?

Players and mandatory PR engagements

This debate is usually split into two camps.

The first believes that speaking to media is just ‘part of the job’ for sportspeople. Given how influential publicity is in increasing viewer interest, there’s a prevailing expectation that players talk to the press. A common sentiment: “Well they’re earning thirty million dollars, so they should be able to handle the media.”

The second camp believes that players are players first and foremost. Their job is to play, and not to have to worry about answering bland and seemingly inconsequential questions from the media ( “So, tell us about the game”, “What are your thoughts on the game?” or “How did it feel out there?”)

This isn’t a new discussion. In 2014, NFL running back Marshawn Lynch created a stir by refusing to participate in media conferences and paid a hefty US$100,000 fine. Lynch subsequently showed up for media appearances, but only gave monosyllabic answers or repeated phrases such as “Thank you for asking”, “Y’all know why I’m here” and the iconic “I’m just here so I won’t get fined.”

That was perhaps one of the most controversial incidents of its time, but it was far from isolated. In 2018, NBA star LeBron James walked out of a press conference after being repeatedly questioned about teammate JR Smith’s mental health, who had earlier committed a crucial last-minute rebounding blunder. James said only: “Be better tomorrow” to the media as he left.

Fast forward to May 2021. Tennis star Naomi Osaka, a four-time Grand Slam singles winner at just 24 years old, was fined US$15,000 after refusing to do press conferences at the French Open to protect her mental health. Ultimately, she pulled out of the tournament. Osaka was accused of setting a “dangerous precedent”; apparently, if she doesn’t attend a press conference, the world would be less interested in tennis.

To be fair, it isn’t always doom and gloom. Press conferences have brought us some incredible moments — my favourite being Rafa Benitez’s ‘Facts’ rant and the subsequent polite chants sung by football fans across England. But the recent intense scrutiny over mental health among athletes and their press commitments clearly shows that there’s a lot that needs fixing.

Looking at both sides of the game

Objectively speaking, sportspeople and the media can have a symbiotic relationship. Interesting matches create content that people want to read about or learn more about — the media can capitalise on this to drive viewership numbers. Meanwhile, publicity provided by the media helps increase fan engagement for the players and brand reach for sponsors, which contributes financially to the sport. However, problems arise when all parties involved fail to consider and respect each other’s ways of communication.

For instance, the refrain that emerged over Lynch’s case was that he was ‘selfish’ and ‘attention seeking’. A sports editor even said, “If he really didn’t want to talk and not be the centre of attention, he would fall back into the majority of players and give simplistic and trite answers to every question.” To me, that statement only reinforces Lynch’s unspoken point: if the ‘majority of players’ are giving ‘trite’ answers to questions at press conferences, then what value remains of holding press conferences in the first place?

It’s said that there are no stupid questions, but according to Osaka, that isn’t always true.

“I’ve often felt that people have no regard for athletes’ mental health and this rings true whenever I see a press conference or partake in one. We’re often sat there and asked questions that we’ve been asked multiple times before or asked questions that bring doubt into our minds and I’m just not going to subject myself to people that doubt me.” — Naomi Osaka

She makes a fair point. I know that it can be frustrating for journalists when players aren’t forthcoming with answers. However, the onus is on them to ask intelligent and meaningful questions that are directly relevant to the sport in question and focus on giving people insight into the game and match play. After all, that’s why people follow sportspeople — to better understand the games that they love and follow.

If press conferences are filled with questions about players’ personal lives or are purposefully controversial, is it any wonder sportspeople are resorting to ‘trite’ answers or refusing to engage?

The power of perspective

Let’s put things into a little perspective.

A player has just spent the last couple of hours giving their best in a match. They’re mentally and physically exhausted, likely somewhat emotional (especially if the game they played didn’t go well). On top of this, they must now go out and face a barrage of questions that may or may not be relevant to the game they just played — not ideal conditions when they’re already emotionally and physically worn out from the match.

I’ve seen a strong sense of entitlement expressed by non-players, ranging from spectators to the media to sports organisations. Iterations of “The media made her what she is, if she can’t handle it, she should stop playing” are plastered all over social media and veiled within chiding official statements. This argument is the same as that used in celebrity culture: “You wouldn’t exist without publicity and the media”. Consequently, there’s a mismatch of expectations where the public believes that sportspeople ‘owe’ their success to them.

Objectively speaking, sportspersons and the media can have a symbiotic relationship. However, problems arise when all parties involved fail to consider and respect each other’s ways of communication.

There has to be an assessment of celebrity culture in sports, which is the basis for these mismatched expectations. It does seem like we are asking a lot from people whose primary job is to play sports well. We forget that it isn’t their responsibility to navigate PR waters, especially in a vulnerable state. But the reality is that this tension of mismatched expectations isn’t going away any time soon, so we need to find a way to balance the scales.

What can be done better

One of the biggest issues in the current scenario is that press conferences don’t allow for much depth in their current format.

Journalists are usually limited to just one or two questions, forcing them to either stick to high-level and generic questions, or to focus on those that will get them the most sensationalist quotes and serve as clickbait for their online articles. Understandably, this leads to an unpleasant experience for sportspeople, who then object to press engagements because they feel targeted and vilified by the media.

This is an unfortunate development as ultimately, both parties are working towards the same goal: to provide insight into the match and to share their experience with the audience.

It’s important that sports journalists remember their true role: to help the general public understand sports and players. With the right questions and their own experience in the field, journalists can provide insights, break down the technicalities of the sport and provide a more nuanced human element to the sport and the players involved. Additionally, the more that sportspeople feel that journalists are genuinely interested in their opinions and experiences, and are actively helping them tell their stories, the more forthcoming the sportspersons will be.

Some other potential solutions that spring to mind include:

1. Giving players the option to do press conferences within a certain timeframe after a game instead of immediately after it. Players then have time to emotionally prepare themselves and hopefully be in a better place to give more thoughtful and authentic responses.
2. Changing press conferences to five-minute one-on-one interview slots. Interviews are more familiar to players and are less daunting. Interviews also allow journalists to ask more questions for a more insightful article.
3. Changing media engagements to include the option of social media instead of restricting them to just traditional press conferences. This gives players more flexibility and time to engage with a wider audience, while journalists have more content creation options.

This is not an easy problem to solve, but the point is that press conferences need to evolve with the times to better serve all parties — especially with the rise of social media, which allows players to engage fans at an unprecedented level through posts, pictures and videos. The media is no longer the sole conduit, so it must change its approach to continue to provide value and stay relevant to both sides. The “you’re nothing without me” argument goes both ways, after all.

Ultimately, we need to remember what press conferences are for: to help players get their stories told, for journalists to deliver news of real value, and for the public to get a better understanding of the sport. It’s in everyone’s interests to make the experience valuable for all involved — and that starts with a little more empathy from everyone.

And maybe, if everyone approaches their press conferences as Louis van Gaal does, we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place. Something to think about!

The post Are press conferences still relevant in sports? appeared first on Redhill | Global Communications Agency.

This year, Singapore celebrates its 56th National Day. While an important milestone to highlight how far the country has come since independence over half a century ago, it may have appeared somewhat innocuous just a couple of years ago — before COVID-19 happened.

National Day celebrations in 2021 will understandably be more muted than what we are used to. But there remain many reasons to celebrate the nation’s strength through one of the most trying times in its history and to look towards a brighter future ahead.

While times are indeed tough, if there is one thing I have learned over the many years of having the privilege to live and work here, Singapore’s resilience always shines through. That’s why this year’s National Day theme aptly focuses on the Singapore Spirit.

But such a spirit is not monolithic; it comprises many aspects that make it truly unique on the world stage.

Perhaps what resonated with me the most — as someone who has worked with Singapore’s media for a great many years — is the opening line in the above video for the National Day Parade festivities.

Our Singapore spirit. We hear it in speeches, read about it in the news, but what, exactly, is it? — NDPeeps

The spirit of a country and its people shines through in its voice. Singapore’s leaders and media institutions have a unique voice in the way they speak to the nation and the world. With this voice comes the opportunity to build a truly distinct global identity.

A transformative time for Singaporean media

A new normal has dawned upon all Singaporeans, even for its media institutions. Earlier this year, Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) restructured from a publicly listed company to a company limited guarantee (CLG), a move that has been aligning with current global media trends.

Whilst the intention to utilise this structure for digital transformation has been clearly expressed, there is the greater opportunity to harness and guide this towards a direction that crafts a uniquely Singaporean voice, with the potential to create global impact.

Structural reinvention is not new to the media industry, as other media organisations have successfully created those paths — not just in terms of profit, but in leveraging their unique advantages to enhance their content. Some have done so to ensure their unique voices and legacy are preserved to focus on journalistic integrity.

These organisations have maintained or increased reader or viewership with compelling content. Applying those learnings in crafting a distinctively unique Singaporean voice that is consistent through media outlets could concurrently fulfil editorial and financial goals, as well as preserve — and perhaps even extend and pay homage to — the legacy of the prized China bowl.

Harnessing and honing Singapore’s voice

Firstly, it is worth reminding ourselves of the ethos of media as the Fourth Estate: good, informative, and credible journalism. During a time where trust in the media is under the microscope even more, journalism that is accurate, ethical, independent, critical, and of public interest is sorely needed. This, whilst capitalising on the new structure, can build the foundation from which a unique voice is crafted and honed.

As observed, there is no shortage of talent or ambition in Singapore — it just has to be ‘unleashed’. The breaking news story on Bellagraph Nova, for example, showcased the calibre of Singaporean talent and resources in generating newsworthy content of high public relevance and interest. Focusing on objective and reliable reporting through in-depth, investigative and long-form stories is one very viable option.

There is also an opportunity to close the gap in reporting international affairs. Already, there is great and frequent in-depth reporting on local and regional news; however, there is still a dependence on repurposing international news from other established, reputable organisations. Given the desire to improve quality, the opportunity lies in training existing talent for more on-the-ground, objective yet unique and original Singaporean perspectives on international developments.

During a time where trust in the media is under the microscope even more, journalism that is accurate, ethical, independent, critical, and of public interest is sorely needed.

Another avenue could be to feature more long-form thought leadership and opinion-editorial pieces. From intellectuals and scientists to academics, ex-diplomats and politicians, Singapore has no shortage of thought leaders who can contribute meaningfully to pertinent topics of interest. While quite a few already do, there is scope to expand in terms of variety, volume and form.

For instance, the intention to maximise and target digital engagement to certain demographics was mentioned. This could be further enhanced and expanded to include, for example, hosting events and conferences online that have reach and engagement beyond Singapore’s physical borders, distinguished from other platforms with a Singaporean perspective.

Effectively, such moves can create more platforms where Singaporean voices can be heard, but also spaces that invite, listen to and deliberate global participation and insights. Through hosting discussions with both internationally and locally renowned experts, Singapore’s interlocutory role can be embodied on the international stage.

It is an opportunity to showcase inherent journalistic capabilities by engaging meaningfully with domestic, regional and global audiences.

A unique voice with global impact

A voice makes no sound if there is no one to hear it. Whilst the quality and content of journalism go to the heart of good reporting, its reach is just as important.

This is an opportunity for Singaporean media organisations to leverage Singapore’s global standing as an international economic hub — one which still leads the way in the global financial sphere, prioritises the rule of law and continuously fosters high competitiveness — which lends the nation credibility as a sought-after voice.

English-speaking audiences worldwide would find Singapore’s perspectives relevant and accessible, but as pointed out recently, there is also the opportunity for vernacular media to comment on global and regional affairs with a Singaporean perspective, extending current reach.

The role of the vernacular media in giving a voice to different communities could be maintained and adapted to the needs of the readers whilst at the same time reaching further to present an objective point of view on international affairs. Together, these efforts would preserve the community and national building ethos intrinsic to local media whilst creating international reach and impact.

The Singapore model of diplomacy — whereby the nation has a voice at every table — can therefore be easily transposed to the journalistic approach of its media organisations. Singapore’s reputation for being balanced and objective yet authoritative could be leveraged by providing greater coverage, for example, of crises situations.

On-the-ground first-hand reporting, building on what is currently done, could provide a distinctively Singaporean voice — one that is distinguished from other media voices regionally and internationally.

How honing a unique Singapore voice can translate to good business

Capitalising on the opportunities of the new structure to create a strong Singapore voice and perspective can result in not only a uniquely Singaporean ‘brand’ of journalism — but one that also truly encapsulates the nation’s spirit. By identifying, nurturing, growing and showcasing local talent to create engaging, first-hand content, the dual-pronged effect of maintaining and fostering nation-building goals as well as global reach and impact can be achieved.

While the focus on digitalising infrastructures is a salient move, considering the rapid pace of technological and societal evolution, it is just one part of the transformation process. Amid this change, there is a great opportunity to contribute to the global diversity in voices of editorial and journalistic integrity with the Singaporean perspective.

By focusing on honing this, varied opportunities for generating revenue may also be created, which ultimately leads to doing better business. This might not only preserve the proverbial ‘China bowl’, but also extend its legacy through a uniquely crafted and honed Singaporean voice.

The post Celebrating the spirit of Singapore with a globally distinct voice appeared first on Redhill | Global Communications Agency.