<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>WHWG &#124; White House Writers Group &#187; Allan Golombek</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.whwg.com/author/agolombek/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.whwg.com</link>
	<description>Effective Messages. Clear Results.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:43:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Tony Awards need to get beyond the street where they live</title>
		<link>http://www.whwg.com/2010/06/tony-awards-need-to-get-beyond-the-street-where-they-live/</link>
		<comments>http://www.whwg.com/2010/06/tony-awards-need-to-get-beyond-the-street-where-they-live/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:47:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allan Golombek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acceptance speeches]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broadway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speeches]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tony Awards]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whwg.com/?p=1282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m a big fan of Broadway shows. So I should enjoy the Tony Awards show. And I do &#8212; last night&#8217;s show had particularly good performances from La Cage, Memphis and Million-Dollar Quartet. But something always bothers me about the Tonys. More than any of the other award ceremonies &#8211; the Oscar, the Emmy, the Grammy, even the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a big fan of Broadway shows. So I should enjoy the Tony Awards show. And I do &#8212; last night&#8217;s show had particularly good performances from La Cage, Memphis and Million-Dollar Quartet. But something always bothers me about the Tonys. More than any of the other award ceremonies &#8211; the Oscar, the Emmy, the Grammy, even the MTV Awards  &#8211; the Tony is an &#8220;insider&#8221; occasion. The speeches of presenters and award winners both are laced with inside references, and even more with insider &#8220;emotions&#8221; &#8212; a frequent assumption that everyone listening to them understands their cultural references, and maybe even that those who don&#8217;t understand don&#8217;t count.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s easy to understand the homogeneous nature of the Broadway community. They work hard to get to the top &#8212; usually a lot harder than in the other popular entertainment forms &#8212; and the financial rewards and recognition generally don&#8217;t match movies, TV etc.<span id="more-1282"></span></p>
<p>But a speech isn&#8217;t just an opportunity to connect with people who share your perspectives. More importantly, it is an opportunity to build bridges to people who don&#8217;t share them. In fact, it is more important to communicate with people who don&#8217;t immediately or intuitively understand us than those who do. It is to them that &#8216;attention must be paid&#8217;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.whwg.com/2010/06/tony-awards-need-to-get-beyond-the-street-where-they-live/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Family values&#8217; triumph at Cannes</title>
		<link>http://www.whwg.com/2010/05/family-values-triumph-at-cannes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.whwg.com/2010/05/family-values-triumph-at-cannes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 13:34:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allan Golombek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cannes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family films]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whwg.com/?p=1254</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Thai man dying of kidney failure is visited by his late wife and lost son in ghostly form (Uncle Boonmee Who Can recall His Past Lives.) Two Italian men struggle with the challenges of single fatherhood in La Nostra Vita (Our Life.) A man and a woman are either complete strangers or husband and wife [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Thai man dying of kidney failure is visited by his late wife and lost son in ghostly form (Uncle Boonmee Who Can recall His Past Lives.) Two Italian men struggle with the challenges of single fatherhood in La Nostra Vita (Our Life.) A man and a woman are either complete strangers or husband and wife &#8212; or both &#8212; in Certified Copy. These were three of the big winners at this year&#8217;s Cannes Festival, where the jury seemed to be taken by films with some kind of family theme.</p>
<p>In a sense, family themes were also popular at last year&#8217;s festival.  The winner of the 2009 Regards Jeunes prize went to Quebecer Xavier Dolan for J&#8217;ai tue ma mere (I Killed My Mother.) It isn&#8217;t a spoiler to tell you the lead character didn&#8217;t literally kill his mother.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.whwg.com/2010/05/family-values-triumph-at-cannes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Waltz&#8217; Oscar win like a voyage to a new continent &#8212; in more ways than one</title>
		<link>http://www.whwg.com/2010/03/waltz-oscar-win-like-a-voyage-to-a-new-continent-in-more-ways-than-one/</link>
		<comments>http://www.whwg.com/2010/03/waltz-oscar-win-like-a-voyage-to-a-new-continent-in-more-ways-than-one/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allan Golombek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Academy Awards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christoph Waltz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inglorious Basterds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whwg.com/?p=1096</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s a lot easier to think of bad Oscar acceptance speeches than good ones.  That is why the acceptance speech of best supporting actor Christoph Waltz at last night&#8217;s 2009 Oscars was such a delight. Waltz started off with a great scene-setter, an opening sentence that reminded us of his already-classic line from Inglorious Basterds, referring to the combination [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a lot easier to think of bad Oscar acceptance speeches than good ones.  That is why the acceptance speech of best supporting actor Christoph Waltz at last night&#8217;s 2009 Oscars was such a delight. Waltz started off with a great scene-setter, an opening sentence that reminded us of his already-classic line from <em>Inglorious Basterds, </em>referring to the combination of the Oscar and presenter Penelope Cruz as an &#8220;uber bingo.&#8221;  He then wrapped the usual recognition of his colleagues into a metaphor about discovering a new continent &#8212; thanking Quentin Tarantino (&#8221;this fearless explorer&#8221;) for &#8220;putting together an expedition&#8221; and producers Harvey Weinstein et al for equipping it, and then again praising Tarantino for his &#8220;unorthodox methods of navigation.&#8221;   Waltz ended on a gracious note, saying to Academy members &#8221;there&#8217;s no way I can ever thank you enough, but I can start right now. Thank you.&#8221;<span id="more-1096"></span></p>
<p>But it was the voyage of discovery metaphor that was key to the speech, and it worked because it summed up the movie, Waltz&#8217; career, and movie-goers&#8217; reaction to his extraordinary performance. Waltz may have discovered a new continent, but a new continent also discovered him. Until a few months ago, few if any North Americans had heard of him. <em>Basterds </em>was his first American film, and it opened him to a U.S. audience by taking him back into German history, to a period he would rather not be associated with &#8212; a different kind of voyage. But the counterfactual account was enthusiatically embraced by both the German cast members and many Nazi victims. Or in the words of Tarantino (quoted or paraphrased by Waltz): &#8221;This is where we&#8217;re going, but we&#8217;re going the other way.&#8221;</p>
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" />
<input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" />
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.whwg.com/2010/03/waltz-oscar-win-like-a-voyage-to-a-new-continent-in-more-ways-than-one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Services grow in importance in world trade</title>
		<link>http://www.whwg.com/2010/02/services-grow-in-importance-in-world-trade/</link>
		<comments>http://www.whwg.com/2010/02/services-grow-in-importance-in-world-trade/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:01:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allan Golombek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Services]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whwg.com/?p=1079</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When we think of exports, we tend to visualize container ships, trains or planes carrying large, heavy cargo. But former Federal Reserve economist W. Michael Cox tries to correct that impression in today&#8217;s New York Times (Feb. 17). While praising President Obama&#8217;s State of the Union speech call for the United States to &#8220;export more of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When we think of exports, we tend to visualize container ships, trains or planes carrying large, heavy cargo. But former Federal Reserve economist W. Michael Cox tries to correct that impression in today&#8217;s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/opinion/17cox.html?ref=opinion"><em>New York Times</em> </a>(Feb. 17). While praising President Obama&#8217;s State of the Union speech call for the United States to &#8220;export more of our goods&#8221;, Cox says it would have been much better to have said &#8220;goods and <em>services</em>.&#8221; As Cox points out, the United States has a $144 billion surplus in services, including an 8-1 edge in operational leasing &#8212; handling short-term deals on planes, vehicles and other equipment &#8212; a 6-1 margin in movie and television program distribution, and a 4-1 advantage in architectural, construction and engineering services. In total, the United States is competitive in 21 of 22 services categories, with significant surpluses in 12 of them.<span id="more-1079"></span></p>
<p>It would be interesting to see numbers on our industry. The White House Writers Group, of course, has provided considerable client services outside the United States, even outside this hemisphere. Ours is more of an export industry than ever, and we can expect it to become even more of one in the future. Just as technologies have made it possible to compete in communications services beyond one&#8217;s own shores, it will become an even more global market, as improvements in telecommunciations make it easier to communicate with clients and keep up-to-date on developments in international markets.</p>
<p>More and more, the most exportable products are ideas, and the ability to communicate them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.whwg.com/2010/02/services-grow-in-importance-in-world-trade/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Long Academy Awards List A Failure to Communicate</title>
		<link>http://www.whwg.com/2010/02/long-academy-awards-list-a-failure-to-communicate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.whwg.com/2010/02/long-academy-awards-list-a-failure-to-communicate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:08:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allan Golombek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Public Affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Academy Awards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Less is More]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oscars]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whwg.com/?p=1065</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m a movie fan. I&#8217;m also an Oscar fan. One of the compensations for cold winters was always waiting with anticipation for the Oscar nominations to come out, when I could compare the various nominees, agree or disagree with the picks, and try to guess which nominated movies were in serious contention. This year&#8217;s nominations [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a movie fan. I&#8217;m also an Oscar fan. One of the compensations for cold winters was always waiting with anticipation for the Oscar nominations to come out, when I could compare the various nominees, agree or disagree with the picks, and try to guess which nominated movies were in serious contention. This year&#8217;s nominations came out last week, and I still can&#8217;t name all of the nominees for best film. There are simply too many of them. Trying to recognize the achievments of more films, the Academy has doubled the number of Best Film nominees, from five to 10 &#8212; thereby diminshing the attention paid to each of them.</p>
<p>Who can focus on 10 movies? Who can take seriously that long a list of &#8220;excellence&#8221; in one year? And who can look forward to an Academy Awards show that will be even longer than usual? The Academy&#8217;s decision to double the number of Best Film nominees is a classic mistake in messaging &#8212; a failure to recognize that less is more.</p>
<p>What we have here, as Strother Martin might have pointed out in <em>Cool Hand Luke</em>, is a failure to communicate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.whwg.com/2010/02/long-academy-awards-list-a-failure-to-communicate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kraft-Cadbury Deal Shows Value of Athletic Background</title>
		<link>http://www.whwg.com/2010/02/kraft-cadbury-deal-shows-value-of-athletic-background/</link>
		<comments>http://www.whwg.com/2010/02/kraft-cadbury-deal-shows-value-of-athletic-background/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:36:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allan Golombek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jock CEOs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kraft Cadbury]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whwg.com/?p=1062</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kraft&#8217;s four-month battle for control of Cadbury was one of the leading Transatlantic business news stories of 2009. It was fiecely fought. It may be no coincidence that it was a battle of jock CEOs. In one corner was Kraft CEO Irene Rosenfeld, a former varsity star of four high school sports who decided to attend Cornell partly because of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kraft&#8217;s four-month battle for control of Cadbury was one of the leading Transatlantic business news stories of 2009. It was fiecely fought. It may be no coincidence that it was a battle of jock CEOs. In one corner was Kraft CEO Irene Rosenfeld, a former varsity star of four high school sports who decided to attend Cornell partly because of their athletic program. In the other corner was Cadbury CEO Todd Stitzer, a former professional tennis player.</p>
<p>It may be that the competitive spirit one learns on in competitive sports translates into a significant advantage in business. Neither CEO gave up easily: Rosenfeld has turned Kraft into the world&#8217;s biggest confectionary company, replacing Mars. Stitzer managed to get for his shareholders a 50 percent increase over Kraft&#8217;s original offer last September.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.whwg.com/2010/02/kraft-cadbury-deal-shows-value-of-athletic-background/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unemployment data: Beware of what&#8217;s inside the stats</title>
		<link>http://www.whwg.com/2010/01/unemployment-data-beware-of-whats-inside-the-stats/</link>
		<comments>http://www.whwg.com/2010/01/unemployment-data-beware-of-whats-inside-the-stats/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:27:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allan Golombek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unemployment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whwg.com/?p=1011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Statistics are like a birthday gift. You never know what you&#8217;ve really got until you unwrap them. Take today&#8217;s unemployment data (for December). It shows the unemployment rate at 10 percent. That&#8217;s still lower than the rate at the peak of the 1982 recession &#8212; 10.8 percent in December of that year. But any experienced speechwriter [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Statistics are like a birthday gift. You never know what you&#8217;ve really got until you unwrap them. Take today&#8217;s unemployment data (for December). It shows the unemployment rate at 10 percent. That&#8217;s still lower than the rate at the peak of the 1982 recession &#8212; 10.8 percent in December of that year. But any experienced speechwriter knows that topline numbers are only a starting point, not a finishing line.<span id="more-1011"></span></p>
<p>Yes, the current unemployment stats are higher than 27 years ago. But start digging deeper and a different picture emerges. Take the November 2009 stats, for example, which also showed a 10 percent unemployment rate. Dig deeper, and you find that the unemployment rate for those with four-year college degrees actually was actually just under 5 percent. In other words, the college graduate population pulls down the overall rate. By how much? Obviously, that depends on what proportion of the workforce have four-year degrees. Currently about 30 percent of Americans over the age of 25 do. In 1982, it was less than 20 percent. So the difference in unemployment rates between now and 1982 is  accounted for by the difference in the percentage of college grads.</p>
<p>For young people, the lesson is clear: Get a degree. For speechwriters, the lesson is: Get a calculator, and get your money&#8217;s worth out of it. Fortunately, that&#8217;s something most of us also learn when we&#8217;re young.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.whwg.com/2010/01/unemployment-data-beware-of-whats-inside-the-stats/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Book says globalization will only intensify</title>
		<link>http://www.whwg.com/2009/12/book-says-globalization-will-only-intensify/</link>
		<comments>http://www.whwg.com/2009/12/book-says-globalization-will-only-intensify/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:17:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allan Golombek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[globalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gregg Easterbrook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sonic Boom]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whwg.com/?p=1002</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the current economic environment it takes some courage to talk about a forthcoming, prolonged boom in the global economy. But Gregg Easterbrook (author of The Progress Paradox) has never been known for repeating concentional wisdom. His latest book &#8212; Sonic Boom: Globalization at Mach Speed &#8212; can serve as a primer on how to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the current economic environment it takes some courage to talk about a forthcoming, prolonged boom in the global economy. But Gregg Easterbrook (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sonic-Boom-Globalization-Mach-Speed/dp/1400063957/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1262103078&amp;sr=8-1">author of <em>The Progress Paradox</em></a>) has never been known for repeating concentional wisdom. His latest book &#8212; <em>Sonic Boom: Globalization at Mach Speed</em> &#8212; can serve as a primer on how to describe global economic change (and its likely intensification) in a way that a broad-based audience can relate to. He acknowledges that there is a paradox at the heart of globalization &#8212; more economic growth and opportunity, more stress and insecurity. And he describes both sides of the global economy coin, using both economic data and stories about communities.</p>
<p>This is not just a book about how Shenzhen is thriving. It is also about how Waltham, MA and Camden, S.C. are bouncing back. And it is about the fact that all communities will have to continually reinvent themselves to compete in the heightened, prolonged era of globalzation the author argues is coming. For anyone looking for a deep intellectual explanation of globalization, there might be more apporpriate books to recommend. But <em>Sonic Boom</em> is a valuable resource for anyone whose job includes explaining global economic change.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.whwg.com/2009/12/book-says-globalization-will-only-intensify/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In a Globalized Economy, It&#8217;s Important to Know Your Audience</title>
		<link>http://www.whwg.com/2009/12/in-a-globalized-economy-its-important-to-know-your-audience/</link>
		<comments>http://www.whwg.com/2009/12/in-a-globalized-economy-its-important-to-know-your-audience/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:44:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allan Golombek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[idiom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[local culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Netherlands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whwg.com/?p=861</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When communicating with people in The Netherlands, one of the easiest ways to get in dutch is to refer to their country as Holland. North and South Holland are just two of the 12 provinces in The Netherlands. Calling the whole country Holland is like referring to the United Kingdom (or Great Britain) as England. (For that matter, it&#8217;s like [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When communicating with people in The Netherlands, one of the easiest ways to get in dutch is to refer to their country as Holland. North and South Holland are just two of the 12 provinces in The Netherlands. Calling the whole country Holland is like referring to the United Kingdom (or Great Britain) as England. (For that matter, it&#8217;s like referring to the United States as America when you are speaking to Canadians.)</p>
<p>These are just a couple of small examples of the kind of idiomatic and cultural knowledge it is increasingly important to have, whether writing a speech, an article, a report or any other communications tool aimed at reaching a foreign audience.<span id="more-861"></span></p>
<p>A growing number of people around the world speak English. But at the same time they appreciate it when someone trying to communicate with them demonstrates a grasp of national and local idiom. Speechwriters, for example, are best-advised to eschew colloquialisms like &#8217;shake on it&#8217; if they are writing for an Asian audience, for whom the handshake is not a traditional symbol of agreement. There are a lot of linguistic traps out there, which is making speechwriting (and all other kinds of business writing) a more challenging field, demanding more globalized expertise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.whwg.com/2009/12/in-a-globalized-economy-its-important-to-know-your-audience/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Watch Those Acronyms</title>
		<link>http://www.whwg.com/2009/11/watch-those-acronyms/</link>
		<comments>http://www.whwg.com/2009/11/watch-those-acronyms/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:15:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allan Golombek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[acronyms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CREEP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PCABO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William Safire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.whwg.com/?p=810</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As the 1972 election campaignwas approaching, strategists for President Richard Nixon had a problem. They wanted to announce the formation of a re-election committee. But there had been some question raised in the media about whether Vice-President Spiro Agnew would be on the ticket. They couldn&#8217;t call it &#8220;Citizens for Nixon-Agnew&#8221; because that would pre-empt the President&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the 1972 election campaignwas approaching, strategists for President Richard Nixon had a problem. They wanted to announce the formation of a re-election committee. But there had been some question raised in the media about whether Vice-President Spiro Agnew would be on the ticket. They couldn&#8217;t call it &#8220;Citizens for Nixon-Agnew&#8221; because that would pre-empt the President&#8217;s decision. And they couldn&#8217;t call it &#8220;Citizens for Nixon&#8221; because that might appear to be throwing Agnew under the bus. They turned to the resident master of language, William Safire, who was then writing speeches for the President. His suggestion? &#8220;Committee to Re-elect the President.&#8221; <span id="more-810"></span></p>
<p>Safire had been in the business long enough to know that the first thing you check for is the acronym &#8212; what will it spell?As Safire relates in <em>Safire&#8217;s New Political Dictionary</em>, he figured CRP was fine. Even if you threw in an extra &#8220;E&#8221; for &#8221;re-elect&#8221; the worst it would spell is CREP. They announced the Committee to Re-Elect the President and, sure enough, it wasn&#8217;t long before it was dubbed CREEP.</p>
<p>The lesson? Watch out for those unintended acronyms, and don&#8217;t assume people will stick to the exact spelling. Take the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, created in the wake of Enron. It didn&#8217;t take long for a lot of lawyers and accountants to start calling it peek-a-boo, proving you don&#8217;t have to be able to spell to come up with a soundbite.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s even more embarrassing when you serve up a title that can be turned into a negative acronym without playing with the initials. A few years ago the federal government of Canada proposed a new tax that would blend together the federal and provincial sales taxes. Straightforwardly enough, they called it the Blended Sales Tax. Until opponents started calling it the BS Tax. Then the name was changed to the <em>Harmonized</em> Sales Tax.</p>
<p>So it pays to check out the acronym &#8212; and look for any possible way a critic can turn it against you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.whwg.com/2009/11/watch-those-acronyms/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
