CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

May 27, 1969

Page 13922

SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE URGES FEDERAL EDITORS ASSOCIATION TO REDUCE THE COMMUNICATIONS GAP

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, my good friend and colleague Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE recently addressed the Federal Editors Association at its annual publications banquet.

The Senator from Maine made some very important points about the job of communicating the Federal Government's story to the people. One point I particularly want to call attention to is Senator MUSKIE'S statement that Government information is attuned to the written word in an era when oral communications and visual images have gained the ascendency. I think there is much to be said for that point of view. Senator MUSKIE also notes that the volume of information has far exceeded the capacity of our information systems to absorb it. This statement also spotlights one of the problems we face in Federal Government.

The Federal Editors Association, the organization to which Senator MUSKIE delivered this speech, is a 6-year-old group of editors who work for the Federal Government. The organization is dedicated to improving the quality of written matter which comes out of Federal Government agencies. In an effort to stimulate interest in better writing, the Federal Editors Association annually conducts a publications contest. This year over 300 Government publications were entered in the contest and 36 winners were named in 11 different publications categories. This year's president is Grover C. Smith, who, incidentally, is my press secretary.

I submit Senator MUSKIE'S speech for the very important message it carries for all of us in Government who are concerned about the problem of explaining to the people what their Government is doing and how it affects them now and in the future.

There being no objection, the speech, which was delivered to the Federal Editors Association Annual Publications Luncheon in Washington, D.C., on May 6, 1969, was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:

REMARKS BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE

Federal editors are a tolerant lot. They must be to invite a contributor to the Congressional Record to speak on matters of editorial excellence.

As an example of man's capacity to convey the spoken word to the printed page in a short time, with minimum printing errors, the Record is a constant miracle. I can give it an "A" for production, but for reasons of personal privilege, I withhold judgment on its contents.

I recall Lincoln's description of the forensic ability of a colleague at the bar. "He can compress more words into a small idea than anyone I know."

As a communications specialist, I may be comparable to a lobbyist I once knew who called himself an "educational specialist."

In spite of these reservations, I think you and I have a lot in common.

We have much to say, and a limited time in which to say it.

We must deal with a public which is often suspicious of our motives.

And there are limitations on the imagination we can apply in the course of our official pronouncements. Too often there is little relationship between our medium and the message.

Government information is attuned to the written word in an era when oral communications and visual images have gained the ascendancy.

Facts, figures and events spill out at an unprecedented rate -- aided and abetted by the techniques of electronic communications.

As a result, those charged with the responsibility for interpreting public business to the public must face increased competition for attention by reporters and editors and the general public. The volume of information has far exceeded the capacity of our information systems to absorb it.

Your efforts to improve your technical skills are important and heartening. We may be calling on Grover Smith to improve the transfer of skills from your offices to ours.

We all recognize the importance of going beyond the question of communication skills, however.

We live in a period of public skepticism about government. We are plagued by the gap between promise and performance, the confusion of multiple programs and overlapping agencies and the rush of events which outstrip our efforts to meet yesterday's crisis.

There is an underlying suspicion that governments do too much talking and too little working. I once heard that public relations is ten percent doing and ninety percent telling about it. That hits home for politicians and executive branch employees as well.

Young people have shocked us with their challenges to our institutions and our political philosophies. They have insisted that we "tell it like it is." I wince at their grammatical vagaries, but I must concede the accuracy of many of their criticisms.

In too many cases we have substituted rhetoric for action and cliches for substance. We have made nouns into verbs, as if that would give motion and meaning to outmoded practices.

Precision in language is a direct reflection of the state of our minds.

Direct, cogent statements which produce meaningful responses from individual citizens reveal an understanding of the listener as well as a grasp of the writer's material.

In a crowded society, where the techniques of communication are versatile and astonishing, individual citizens are anxious because the words and the images are not addressed to their needs, or undermine their security.

If they cannot grasp the words and the images, if they cannot engage in a meaningful dialogue with the information givers, they will reject the information as irrelevant.

They are not unlike Eliza Doolittle who told her wordy suitor: "Don't talk of love ... show me!"

This is happening in the ghetto, the suburbs and the rural areas.

It is happening because too many of us who are public spokesmen have been doing too much talking and not enough listening.

Last fall I learned that divided Americans could be brought together if they could be encouraged to listen to each other -- not passively, but with understanding and a desire to reach common goals.

I learned that the complicated problems of our society could have meaning for individual citizens, if you took the time to relate them to the everyday concerns of men and women.

That is an advantage a politician can enjoy. His life is one of encounters with his constituencies. If he is responsive and relevant, his constituency responds.

You have a more difficult problem. Your relationship with the American public is through the medium of your words and the design of your publications. But I am convinced that you can reduce the communication gap, you can contribute to a restoration of trust and confidence, you can help make government the hope of its people -- if your writing is readable, responsive and relevant.

Brief as I have been -- for a Senator -- I have taken too many words to make a point which I can make in less than ten: "Say what you mean -- and mean what you say."