The Need for Talking Points

Eugene Volokh finds himself in the unpleasant position of being accurately quoted saying things about his former boss Justice O'Conner that he does not mean--things that are uncomplimentary:

---

The Volokh Conspiracy: THE TROUBLE WITH TALKING TO THE MEDIA: Charles Lane, in Friday's Washington Post, quotes me as follows: Legal analysts say O'Connor's vote will probably decide the Michigan cases, too, because of all the justices she appears the least committed to a foreseeable view of the issue of race-conscious admissions in higher education. The administration's briefs cite her rulings on race-conscious policies and embrace an incremental approach similar to her own, but these analysts say her past opinions offer words that both sides could interpret as encouraging.

"When you have so little data, and what she has said is so contradictory, people's predictions depend on their pessimism -- or their wishful thinking," said Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who once served as O'Connor's law clerk.

This is actually wrong -- Justice O'Connor hasn't said anything contradictory as such; rather, she's said things that either side can interpret as favoring them. The statements (race preferences are generally unconstitutional, but on the other hand there needs to be some zone in which they're permitted) are quite consistent with each other, so there's no contradiction there.

     Now I wish I could blame this on the reporter, but I can't. In my experience, Charles Lane has been a careful and accurate journalist, and it's certainly quite possible that I said "contradictory" when talking to him on the phone; perhaps I spoke imprecisely, something that's quite easy to do. When you're writing, you can look closely at what you write, and edit it to make it more accurate. Not so in a telephone conversation, especially a longish one. This sort of subtle inaccuracy -- and sometimes even far less subtle ones -- is inevitable, I've found, when talking to people...

---

There is actually a relatively easy solution to Eugene's problem: talking points. Have two different kinds of conversations with reporters. First, have normal conversations on background that they agree not to quote. In such conversations, you can talk through the issues in a relatively loose way, and accomplish some mutual education.

Second, have abnormal conversations designed to produce quotes in newspaper articles. Before you start such a conversation, have your talking points--the one, two, six, or ten things that you would not mind seeing in print. Then in your abnormal conversation, say nothing that is not one of your talking points. If you are asked a question that cannot be answered with one of your talking points, say "Hmmm. I need to think about that a bit more. Can I get back to you on that later on today?"

Thus you avoid saying that Justice O'Conner's statements are "contradictory," and say instead that "there remains sufficient ambiguity in her statements that the two sides are reading them in radically different ways." You are happier. Justice O'Conner is happier. Chuck Lane is a little bit unhappier--"contradictory" is a hot word, while "ambiguity" is a cool one. But on the whole social welfare is improved and communication is made less imperfect.

Posted by DeLong at January 20, 2003 07:36 PM | Trackback