Please find pasted below Econnect Communication's July 2002 newsletter. Sorry we missed June but Jenni was on assignment in Alaska and the rest of us were too busy working and doing end of financial year stuff!  The theme of this edition is 'Dealing with conflict/controversy or negative messages'. Your feedback is welcome. If you've missed previous newsletters, you can check them out on our website.
With regards
The team at Econnect Communication (Jenni Metcalfe, Lin Martin, Louise Ralph, Michelle Riedlinger)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CONTACT ECONNECT COMMUNICATION - phone +61 7 3846 7111; EMAIL admin@econnect.com.au; website: http://www.econnect.com.au. Econnect is committed to planning and delivering innovative and effective communication in the natural resource and environmental fields to ensure a sustainable future. We work with clients and their partners in an open, respectful and cooperative manner fulfilling our commitment to conservation and social justice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEWSLETTER 12, 15 July 2002
Feel free to reproduce any of the following articles as long as you acknowledge Econnect as the source; and feel free to send this newsletter to anyone else who might be interested and/or put onto our newsletter contact list. Past copies of newsletters can be found on our website.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DEALING WITH CONFLICT By Lin Martin, with input from Louise Ralph
A rock and a hard place... is how most of us feel when in the midst of conflict
Conflict is uncomfortable and most of us do our best to avoid it at all costs.  But conflict is inevitable - it is part of life. Hang in there, it can be useful (rather than merely endured). On a personal level (if we are willing) it can be a testing ground for how we act with others. In the midst of the storm:
* can we listen with dignity and respect, without being steam-rolled?
* can we really hear what is being said (there is often truth there) and acknowledge their concerns?
* can we make a stand on what we know is right (unless you are skilled this often flies out the window at the time) or on reflection does the experience helps us clarify what is right, fair, or what solutions may be appropriate?

There are many levels of conflict, from simple dissent to extreme anger, even violence. And of course we all know that effective communication built on mutual trust and respect is the way to work so that conflict does not escalate. But that takes a lot of time and a strong commitment (both personally and professionally) and a willingness for self reflection (never easy).

Community conflict
On a community level, conflict on an issue (if well managed by the agency handling the issue) can be a positive. It is a way of clarifying what is really important, not just for individuals but for the whole community, thus building ownership in the outcomes. But again - the trick is to not let it escalate until differing views become a wildfire. With ongoing communication, the need for intervention may not arise, or is more readily negotiated.

We all know that ongoing communication takes a huge commitment in time and resources (consultation budgets never seem enough) and that consultation can't simply end when the planning is done. People can feel betrayed if they are not kept informed.

Recently we were conducing a consultation session on a planning issue for a client agency, where the session was hijacked by a group of extremely angry residents - angry with how the agency had dealt with a past issue (only slightly related to our project).  They told me later "sorry to upset your session but this was the only way we felt the agency would hear us".

It was known that this disruption might be a possibility, and a senior agency manager was present to respond to the heated exchanges. I was able to sit on the side and watch closely. I felt sad for the residents carrying this anger for all this time and imagined the sleepless nights and angry conversations with their neighbours. I noticed:
* how irrational people become when they are very angry - all logic goes out the window, dialogue becomes impossible
* how a long term feeling of being ignored had blown up into volcanic proportions
* how underneath what they were saying was simply the need to have their concerns acknowledged (i.e. petitions responded to, not just silence)
* how skilfully - that is how fairly but how firmly the senior manager handled the furore - by acknowledging their concerns, admitting that communication could have been better and would be in future, and that further consultation would take place.

This further consultation was done promptly and the agency told me that a lot of the tension was gone - that with both pro and against parties being able to hear each other, a positive solution was now in sight. And that it had been unfortunate the lack of communication had lead to this. 

Hugh Mackays' book, "Why Don't People Listen?" is still one of the best books we've seen on why communication works or doesn't work. He cites Ten Laws of Human Communication. As you reflect on each law you'll surely think of recent examples of these at work:

1. It's not what our message does to the listener, but what the listener does with our message that determines our success as communicators
2. Listeners generally interpret messages in ways that make them feel comfortable and secure
3. When people's attitudes are attacked head-on, they are likely to defend those attitudes and, in the process, to reinforce them
4. People pay most attention to messages which are relevant to their own circumstances and point of view
5. People who are insecure in a relationship are unlikely to be good listeners
6. People are more likely to listen to us if we also listen to them
7. People are more likely to change in response to a combination of new experience and communication, rather than in response to communication alone
8. People are more likely to support a change which affects them if they are consulted before a change is made
9. The message in what is said will be interpreted in the light of how, when, where, and by whom it is said
10. Lack of self-knowledge and an unwillingness to resolve our own internal conflicts makes it harder for us to communicate with other people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COMMUNICATING NEGATIVE HERITAGE by Michelle Riedlinger
As communicators, we often deal with issues that aren't necessarily those that people want to hear or think about - but that we believe are important. Lynne Mescall, an ex-pat anthropologist now living in the US, reminded me of this quite recently during a seminar at The University of Queensland.

Lynne has coined the phrase negative-heritage, to refer to the preservation and communication (or memorialisation) of heritage that may not be pleasant or comfortable for all. A good example of negative-heritage and its communication is the site of the World Trade Centre, now referred to as "Ground Zero".

At the site, visitors are exposed to a wide variety of representations, from pamphlets and maps for sale, a viewing platform, commemorative medals made out of WTC building materials (who wants a piece of history?) and a museum with "artifacts of anguish". Many of the victim's families are horrified that people are making money from their loss but those managing the site believe that for some, visiting the WTC as a heritage site is helpful to their emotional healing.

Who decides in this era of diversity what is represented, and how do we communicate diversity in heritage? We don't have to look far away to find negative-heritage issues in Australia - representations of the clash of hunter-gather and farming cultures, events at Port Arthur, and mine-site rehabilitation at places such as Queenstown are a few examples.

This raises important issues:
1. Communicating about negative heritage can help people with the grieving process, but can also make it easy for some to think that nothing more needs to be done - that the "issue" has been represented.
2. Communication should not benefit some without acknowledging the loss and tragedy of others.
3. Some feel that to "rectify" the loss is to wipe it away - as though it didn't exist. Ensure that these views are acknowledged and are incorporated into any communication.
4. It is often debated who has a stake in representation - communication needs to be inclusive and some form of agreement must be reached on it.
5. Sites that survive can be grounds for breeding resurgence movements or attracting those that revel in the chaos e.g. resurgence of Nazi movement in Germany at sites with cultural significance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10 TOP TIPS FOR DEALING WITH CONTROVERSIAL MEDIA INTERVIEWS By Jenni Metcalfe
1. Try to find out as much as you can about the agenda of the media. Why are they doing the interview? What are the related issues? Who else will they be talking to?
2. Find out the media audience for the interview - this will shape the questions and agenda of the interviewer.
3. For TV: Where will the interview be held? How will the location affect your image and that of your organisation? Take control of this.
4. Do lots of preparation and work out what you want to talk about, and what you DO NOT want to talk about - draw a very clear boundary around your story.
5. Prepare positive explanations of the research that will ensure you stay on the front foot during the interview. Never become defensive.
6. Be careful with analogies and explanation of risk. These can backfire. If you want to use analogies make sure these make sense for the media audience you will be talking to.
7. Rehearse with a freelance or ex-journalists who can ask you the difficult questions.
8. During the interview stick to the key points that you want to get across. Remember, with the media a question equals an opportunity to say what you want. It does not equal an answer.
9. Remain cool, calm and polite during the interview. If the interviewer becomes aggressive they will be the ones who lose out, not you.
10. Don't be afraid of silence. Say what you want in answer to a question then stop. Silence is the interviewers problem, not yours.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT TIPS By Lin Martin and Jenni Metcalfe
*Try hard to understand the other person/s points of view
*Listen reflectively to what they are saying
*Look for common ground or "vision"
*Acknowledge their expertise
*Focus on interests rather than positions
*Separate the people from the problem
*Look for solutions that take into account needs of all parties
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some quotable quotes:

"Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress."  Mahatma Gandhi

"The real art of conversation is not only saying the right thing at the right time, but also leaving unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment..."

For further information on any of the articles provided, please feel free to contact us at Econnect. Any feedback on this newsletter would be gratefully accepted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~