In his essay, Orwell takes aim at the abuse of political language, which he says consists “largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness” and is “designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”

But Orwell doesn’t just whine about the state of ‘modern English.’ He also offers a series of writing tips that have become so well-known that 80 years later many British journalists can quote them by heart.

Orwell suggests that in every sentence he writes, a scrupulous writer should ask himself four questions:

• What am I trying to say?
• What words will express it?
• What image or idiom will make it clearer?
• Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?

And he’ll probably ask himself two more:

• Could I put it more shortly?
• Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?

Orwell’s first question is probably the most pertinent, because the cardinal sin of many writers, politicians and communicators is failing to think clearly about what they want to say – or what their ‘core message’ is in modern-day parlance.

“This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing,” writes Orwell. “As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.”

When I read a quote from the CEO of a well-known PR agency pledging to “double down on our growth imperatives for major markets and clusters while positioning key functions, sectors, and capabilities to drive our progress,” I think of Orwell’s prefabricated henhouse. Ditto when I get a message from a major tech firm inviting me to a ‘Driving New Value Together with Ubiquitous Cloud and Intelligence keynote.”

The second question – what words will best express what I’m trying to say? – was something of an obsession for Orwell, who argued in his essay, and in ‘1984,’ that just as thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity,” wrote Orwell, who died four years after writing the article. “When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”

If you listen to speeches by some senior EU officials, who spout meaningless meta-concepts like ‘making Europe smart, strategic and sustainable,” you’ll see why Orwell’s critique stands the test of time. Likewise, when you hear politicians and journalists trot out words like ‘epoch-making,’ ‘epic’ and ‘historic,’ bear in mind these are often used to “dignify the sordid process of international politics,” in Orwell’s opinion. And when businesses like Space X use euphemisms like “rapid unscheduled disassembly” for one of their rockets blowing up or the Kremlin describes its attack on Ukraine as a “special military operation,” you’re not far from Orwell’s parody of ‘pacification’ as meaning “defenceless buildings bombed from the air.”

Having posed six questions writers should ask, Orwell ends by offering six rules writers should stick to. I’ve added a few examples in italics to underline his timeless tips:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

If you boast about ‘thinking outside the box’ you are definitely thinking inside the box. In the same vein, spare ‘low-hanging fruit’ for plucking bananas in Costa Rica. “Like a cuttlefish spurting out ink,’ on the other hand, is an image that’s fresh enough to have effect.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

Prefer ‘end’ to ‘terminate,’ ‘is’ to ‘constitutes’ and ‘use’ to ‘utilise.’ Not only are they shorter, they are clearer and less pretentious.

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

When it comes to writing, less is more. And more is less. So reduce pompous phrases like ‘on account of the fact that’ to ‘because’. And be ruthless in your editing, getting rid of all repetitive, superfluous or unnecessary words. ‘Learn to kill your darlings,’ as writers say.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

Using the passive voice is weasly as it avoids naming who is doing the action. For example: ‘It has been decided that smoking in our company offices is banned’. It can also sound downright weird, as in: ‘The baby was kissed on the forehead by the Pope.’

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

Instead of ‘align’ use ‘agree.’ If you’re going to write about the European Council, explain that it’s a meeting of EU leaders. And try not to use foreign words like ‘mutatis mutandis’ and ‘weltanschauung’, which Orwell says “are used to give an air of culture and elegance” to writers but are often unintelligible to readers.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

You have to try pretty hard to write in a ‘barbarous’ manner. But so much writing, especially policy and corporate writing, is “avoidably ugly.” Following these six simple rules will make it clearer, more concise and more convincing.

In the past decade, tens of thousands of reporters have lost their jobs. And many more will in coming years as advertising revenues slump, newspapers shut up shop and journalism becomes more automated.

This may be bad news for journalism, but it’s good news for many other professions, which will benefit from the wealth of skills and experience reporters bring to the workplace.

Here are some:

They get to the point

In a world drowning in data and flooded with information, journalists have an almost unique ability to cut through the crap and get to get to the heart of the issue. Give them a 100-page report and within a few hours they’ll be able to find the most important and interesting information and condense it into a 300-word news story or 30-second piece to camera. Enemies of pomposity and long-windedness, they also favour concision to verbosity – making them masters of soundbites and social media posts.

They make the complex clear

Journalists hate ugly jargon, turgid technocratic texts, impenetrable legalese, academic posturing and all forms of writing designed to obfuscate rather than inform. They can explain complicated issues quickly, clearly and succinctly because they know that the only way to overcome the ‘curse of knowledge’ is to “explain, simplify, clarify,” in the immortal words of Daily Mail founder Alfred Harmsworth.

They’re adaptable

Journalists are used to switching beats. One day they’ll be reporting on terrorist attacks in Paris; the next day they’re writing a feature on plummeting foie gras sales. This makes them quick to adapt to new roles in an organisation – whether swapping ministerial briefs in government or switching from speechwriter to spokesman for a big business.

They can handle pressure

Journalists are used to deadlines – and always hit them. They don’t prevaricate and postpone because they know they’d be out of a job if they did.

They ask the hard questions

“They have a great BS detector system so when something is drowned in hyperbole and adjectives (‘This innovative, step-change holistic product will revolutionise…’) they can see straight to the heart of the matter,” says Adrian Hiel, a communication advisor who was previously a journalist. So if you want someone who’s made a career out of asking awkward questions, hire a journalist.

They’re quick learners

Many journalists begin their days like the ones in the cartoon above – not knowing what they’ll report on but knowing they’ll have to bone up on the issue quickly. They do this by being champion speed readers, expert copy-and-pasters and genius Google searchers. But they also know what type of questions to ask – what’s new, why does this matter, what will it change, how much will it cost – that will tease out the most important information as quickly as possible.

They’re natural salespeople

You want someone who can sell? Journalists do it every day. If they are employed, they’re constantly pitching potential stories to editors. And if they’re freelancers, they’re flogging stories for a living in the same way others sell double-glazing or pension plans. Either way, they’re busy building their own journalist ‘brand’ through blogs, tweets and TV appearances.

They’re great storytellers

Is it any coincidence that George Orwell, Ernest Hemingway, Albert Camus and Gabriel García Márquez were all former reporters? Journalists may not realise it but they are natural storytellers. So if your organisation is looking to tell its story in a more engaging way, hire a hack.

They’re persistent

Journalists don’t take no for an answer. If they don’t get the information they need they’ll keep asking. “You can never come back from an assignment empty-handed,” says Jo Gill, deputy Brussels bureau chief for Euronews. “Or in business speak we’re ‘results driven.’”

They’re natural communicators

You can’t do a live 20-second piece to camera unless you can think on your feet. You can’t ask a question to a president in front of unsparing colleagues if you’re a shrinking violet. And you can’t tease out answers from hard-nosed interviewees unless you’re a natural people-person. Little wonder then that many former hacks become spokespeople and spin-doctors.

They can write fluently, quickly and accurately

Not all reporters are great writers, but most are. They don’t try to show off by using the longest words and sentences possible, they loathe off-putting jargon and awkward acronyms and rarely make mistakes. “They don’t make stupid typos. They can write a header that people want to read. They proofread like no one else,” says Kathryn Sheridan, a former journalist-turned-entrepreneur.

They’re good fun to be around

It’s easy to hire people with multiple degrees and bags of experience. But do you really want to spend eight hours a day with them? If you’re looking for a colleague who is curious, gossipy and self-deprecating, has oodles of anecdotes and is usually up for an after-work pint, a journalist is unlikely to disappoint.

Of course, journalists aren’t perfect. “They are statistically more likely to run off with your married daughter, drink too much and smoke when everyone else has given up,” writes BBC Foreign Editor John Simpson in ‘News from No Man’s Land.’ They are itchy, impatient and tend to have inflated egos. They are often highly opinionated, take a perverse pride in being irresponsible and sometimes play hard and fast with the truth. No wonder they languish near the bottom of most league tables of trusted professions along with politicians and second-hand car salesmen.

Journalists know they’re not angels and are often the first to disparage the trade they practice. British broadcaster Andrew Marr called it a “strange apology for a proper job,” while former Sunday Times correspondent Nicholas Tomalin once said the only qualities needed to be a successful journalist are “ratlike cunning, a plausible manner and a little literary ability.”

Both were being far too modest. In reality, most journalists are highly educated, are great storytellers and communicators and have the sort of skills that are essential in the 21st century workplace.

So the next time you see a headline about journalists getting laid off, don’t feel too sorry for them. Instead, make them a job offer they can’t refuse.

If you want to know what happens when you talk to a journalist unprepared, listen to this car-crash interview with former Green Party leader Nathalie Bennett.

Painful, right?

To avoid this happening to you, always ask: Am I ready to do this interview? Is it in my interests? And am I fully prepared for the questions.

If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no,’ don’t do the interview.

If the answer is ‘yes’ the next thing to do is to prepare your messages. That may sound obvious, but when I asked several high-placed UN officials to prepare their messages for a media training, several asked: “What are messages?”

Messaging 101

Your messages are the key points you want to make. And they should be:

• Few: Three is the magic number
• Clear: Know exactly what you want to say and say it as simply as possible
• Strong: If you’ve got something to say, say it directly
• Distinctive: What makes your message stand out?
• Relevant: Why should people care or listen?
• Sticky: What’s memorable about your message?

If you are not sure what your position is or what your key messages on an issue are, you will get eaten alive by journalists – like Labour’s mayoral candidate for North Tyne Jamie Driscoll last week when asked to explain Labour’s Brexit position.

Where’s the proof?

Once you’ve worked out your key messages, your job is half done. But you still need to be able to back them up. This is where your proof points come in.

Journalists are wary of your agenda and audiences wary of your spin. You can’t just make assertions and expect people to believe them. You have to substantiate with proof points, which are more persuasive than hype or hyperbole.

Proof points are the evidence needed to back up your messages. It can be hard evidence – facts, figures and statistics. Or it can be soft evidence – anecdotes, stories and examples.

If you have no evidence to shore up the claims you’re making, you’ll end up looking as foolish as the former candidate for the Mayor of London Zac Goldsmith. Having expressed his love of all things Bollywood, the journalist asks him a simple and obvious question: “Do you have a favourite Bollywood actor or film?” There is a very awkward silence while Goldsmith attempts to remember one, followed by the arrogant “I’m not going to give you one.”

Zooming in and out

So how do you wriggle out of trouble when you’re put on the spot by journalists?

Honesty is the best policy, of course. In an ideal world, former Green leader Nathalie Bennett should have known the cost of her party’s house-building programme. But as she didn’t, the best reply would have been “I don’t have the exact figure at hand, but what I do know is that Britain’s housing policy is a shambles. What we propose is…”

This technique is called ‘zooming out’ – when you’re asked a specific question, go general. You can also ‘zoom in’ – when asked a general question go specific. So when mayoral candidate Jamie Driscoll was called to explain Labour’s Brexit policy he could have honed in on the effects of Brexit on the people of the north of Tyne rather than flail around looking for the party’s fudged position.

Of course, there’s a danger that this ‘bridging’ technique can sound evasive and annoy both journalists and listeners. So it should only be used when you really want to avoid answering a question or appearing foolish – both of which can be averted by doing your homework beforehand.

This means deciding whether the interview is really in your interest, preparing thoroughly by researching your audience, working out your key messages and backing them up with proof points and then rehearsing with colleagues. Follow these steps and you won’t go viral for all the wrong reasons.

To avoid falling into the pitfalls above, sign up for a media training course with us. Practicing in a safe environment with plenty of constructive feedback is the only way to get better at interviews.

Powered by StoryChief

The unquotable quotes above were cobbled together for European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and tweeted within minutes of each other at a summit of EU leaders in Gothenburg on November 17.

So why are these soundbites so terrible? Because:

• They are crammed with incomprehensible EU jargon – #EuropeanSemester sounds like a study abroad programme, while #PillarOfSocialRights has to be one of the weirdest, wonkiest hashtags in history.
• They are obsessed with the tedious process of EU decision-making – #EURoad2Sibiu sounds like an EU-sponsored Romanian motorway rather than the latest plan for reforming the Union.
• They are full of stuffy technocratic language like ‘social dimension’ and ‘country specific recommendations.’

So how do you craft a cracking quote? Here are a few tips:

• Use colourful, vivid language that paints a picture. “I have a dream” is more memorable than “We have agreed on a roadmap towards a white paper.”
• Voice strong opinions rather than bore people with facts, context and process. “It is a stain on Europe that so many children live in poverty” is punchier than vague guff about the ‘European social model.’
• Rhetorical devices like contrast and repetition work. For example JFK’s: “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”
• Cut all jargon, process and acronyms. #EURoad2Sibiu is meaningless enough as a hashtag. In a soundbite it is deadly.
• Above all, sound like a human being rather than a robot programmed with a random word generator. This means being personal and using clear, simple language.

If you’re interested in learning how to write sticky soundbites, sign up for our courses on How to Write Clearly, Perfecting Press Releases and Mastering Media Interviews. Or come to our open course on Working with Journalists on December 12.

But just because writing is tough doesn’t make it impossible. Nothing is too complex to write clearly about if you follow these tried and tested rules:

Know your audience

Tailor the style and content of your writing to suit your audience. An article stuffed with technical jargon may be suitable for an academic journal but unintelligible to readers of a popular newspaper.

When writing for a general audience, assume ignorance. Don’t fall into what linguist Steven Pinker calls the ‘curse of knowledge’ trap – presuming your readers know or care as much about the topic you’re writing about as you do.

Plan your writing

What information or ideas do you want to get across? Decide what is essential and cut out anything unimportant or uninteresting. You may want to write down five words, facts or ideas your story cannot do without. Writing your headline before you draft your piece also helps focus the mind.

Some other tips before putting fingers to keyboard:

·     Research thoroughly before writing. Speak to experts, think hard about the issue and discuss with colleagues.

·     Add a peg to your story. Why is this relevant to your readers now?

·     What are you adding to the topic that’s new or original? Pick an angle and run with it.

·     Know your limits. How much space and time do you have? Give yourself a word count and set a deadline for hitting it.

·     What style will you adopt? Folksy? Formal? Factual? Whichever you choose, involve the reader, try to tell a story and don’t be dull.

Structure your writing

Different forms of writing – speeches, blogs, press releases etc – have different structures. But most have these common ingredients:

·     Headlines should grab the attention of the reader. They should be short – no more than 10 words – and use pithy, evocative words that make you want to read more. For example: “Headless Body in Topless Bar” (New York Post). Use Subheads to flesh out the headline.

·     Lead paragraph – Most readers get no further than the opening sentences. So when writing a news article or press releases this is where your most essential information needs to be. Normally this includes a who (name), what (event), where (place) and when (date). Whys and hows are also important. If you’re writing a speech, blog or feature article feel free to start with a story or anecdote that seizes the reader by the lapels. Then move on to your message or key info.

·     Context  – Don’t assume readers know the ‘back story.’ Explain how we got to where we are – especially when the issue is complicated. Use proof points such as dates and statistics, and experts who can explain the issue better than you can.

·     Quotes add colour, depth and authority to a piece. They can be eyewitness accounts or experts voicing opinions. They should be short, full of lively language and involve contrast or repetition. For example, JFK’s “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Quotes should not contain facts, jargon or abbreviations.

·     The Conclusion should wrap things up quickly and efficiently, while asking: ‘What next?’

Keep it brief

“The best way to be boring is to leave nothing out,” wrote Voltaire. Contrary to what some academics will tell you, being brief does not equal being shallow. So keep your written pieces as short and snappy as possible by cutting out everything that is not necessary.

One way to reduce your word count is to replace cumbersome phrases like in the event of with short words like if. Another is to turn nouns back into verbs. So instead of carry out an evaluation of, use evaluate.

Keep paragraphs short – around 3-4 sentences – and use subheads, bullet points and numbered lists to make texts more readable. Same rule for sentences: two short ones are usually better than a long one with lots of clauses. They are also easier to digest and make snappier soundbites. Finally, short words are usually better than long ones. They take less space, are easier to understand and avoid you sounding like an egghead. So prefer about to approximately, buy to purchase and make to manufacture.

Be Crystal Clear

“Clarity of writing usually follows clarity of thought. So think what you want to say, then say it as simply as possible,” advises the Economist Style Guide.

So:

·     Don’t leave readers guessing or confused. If you don’t understand what you are writing about, your readers certainly won’t.

·     Don’t try to be too clever. Over-complicated sentences and rarely used words will confound readers.

·     Write as simply as possible. Prefer concrete words (rain, fog) to abstract ones (bad weather) and avoid non-measurable words like quite, somewhat, rather.

Axe the jargon

Jargon is a form of insiders’ language that is intelligible to those in a certain bubble but unintelligible to those outside. If you want to avoid alienating your readers, get rid of tired, technocratic words like stakeholder and framework, clichés like win-win, euphemisms like social exclusion, throwaway terms like holistic and inclusive and a host of other foggy phrases that cloud clear communication. You can find my full list of banned words here.

Also, remember to axe uncommon abbreviations and acronyms and references to obscure procedures and unknown institutions. Drafting a personalised jargon-buster helps. Just list jargon words you commonly use in the left-hand column and clear explanations for lay readers in the right.

Edit thoroughly

Your credibility depends on you being accurate with the language you use. So edit your writing carefully before publishing – whether it’s a tweet, email or brochure. Here are some ways to avoid making mistakes:

·     Reread. After you have written your first draft put it aside and think about it. Then reread.

·     Revise. Look at the big picture stuff: the lead, order of paragraphs, transitions between paragraphs. Does the writing flow? If it doesn’t, rewrite.

·     Cut any repetition, superfluous content, unnecessary words.

·     Spellcheck. But remember this tool doesn’t tell the difference between their and there, your and you’re and god and good.

·    Ask colleagues to comment. Is there anything you’d add/take away? Are there any mistakes? If you’re not a native speaker, ask for help.

·     Repeat. Preferably by printing and reading your piece out loud.

Following these tips won’t make you a great writer but it will make you a better one. If you want to keep improving your writing, learn from the best. Read sharp journalism – for example The Economist or The Guardian, fine writers like Ernest Hemingway, George Orwell and Graham Greene and writing manuals like William Zinsser’s On Writing Well.

But above all, write. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a blog, facebook posts, poems, tweets, short stories, speeches or articles. The more you write the better you’ll write.

Gareth Harding has been a professional reporter, speechwriter, editor, journalism lecturer and media trainer for over 25 years. If you want more tips on how to write clearly, he will be running a one-day masterclass in Brussels on October 5. There’s more info here: https://cleareurope.eu/our-courses/clear-writing-training/

Unfortunately, in my line of work – managing a small communication company and finding internships for American students in Brussels – I am exposed to more CVs than most would consider healthy.

This is not a dig at the quality of the candidates, who are often more skilled, more educated and more motivated than I am with their double masters, four to five languages and experience working in nine countries. It stems more from an honest desire to help talented people get the jobs they want without making basic mistakes. So here are 15 tips for writing a better CV, with apologies to all those anonymously quoted:

1. Don’t exaggerate too much

Everyone inflates themselves on job applications – but try not to pump too much hot air into your cover letter or CV. If you’ve flipped burgers at Mc Donalds for a few weeks, don’t turn that experience into one where you “cultivated a mutually respectful working environment among peers and customers by demonstrating leadership qualities such as multi-tasking, initiative-taking and thriving in a fast-paced environment.” Likewise, if your ‘management skills’ extend to being the lead singer of an unknown rock group and your ‘leadership positions’ were vice-president for fundraising at your sorority or spending a week on a church mission to help poor kids in Guatemala, you clearly don’t know much about management or leadership. Finally, if one of your skills really is the “ability to provide resolutions to conflicts,” send a letter to the Nobel Peace Prize award committee.

2. Apply for the right job

I recently got a cover letter for a job with my company from someone who was applying for work at an Italian telecoms firm. Another had valuable experience in delivering frozen bakery products in the far east of Russia but precious little in the media training field. One applicant even applied for my own job as managing director! Your skills should also bear some relation to the job you’re applying for. So even an experienced attorney is unlikely to get an interview for a junior communication post. Ditto if your only experience is running a student granola baking company or volunteering on an ostrich farm.

3. Apply to the right person

If no name is mentioned on the job ad, feel free to address your cover letter to Dear Sir/Madam. But if it is, please don’t write: ‘To Mr/Mrs Human Resources Manager’ or ‘To whom it may concern.’ Hirers are people and prefer to be addressed as people, not as job titles.

4. Don’t be pretentious 

You may think you are a thought leader, changemaker, transformation catalyst, political trendspotter or chief awesomeness officer but please keep this ego-inflating drivel to LinkedIn. On a CV it’s better if you can prove your amazingness by listing the things you’ve done that make you so amazing. Usually these are concrete skills rather than puffed up abstract nouns. Personally, I’d much prefer someone who speaks Dutch or knows InDesign than someone claiming to be an ideas architect.

5. No boastful marketing bullshit 

If you are “result-oriented, proactive self-starter” or an “analytical, insightful, and highly-disciplined problem solver” you are not unique. You are like every other candidate. And if you claim to think outside the box you’ve just proved you don’t.

6. Axe the jargon

Jargon is a form of linguistic cancer that needs to be surgically removed from any non-specialist text. So even if you can “leverage existing networks to expand reach and impact,” add value with your “strategic inputs, proven business skills and C-level network” or have a “proven track record in providing an exemplary level of service to a broad range of stakeholders,” it’s unlikely to find you a job.

7. Avoid vague, meaningless guff

Anyone can claim they will bring creativity, imagination, perseverance, discipline, honesty and ethical spirit to the job, have “natural negotiation and persuasion abilities” and be “committed to the ideals of excellence.” But few are – and even fewer can back these extravagant claims up with proof. Also, avoid vapid motivational quotes like “If someone offers you an amazing opportunity and you’re not sure you can do it, say yes – then learn how to do it later.” Not much use when you’re expected to hit the ground running in your new job. Finally, don’t boast about having attributes that not everybody will admire. “Pugnacious” is probably best avoided – unless you’re applying for a job as a boxing instructor.

8. Be confident, but not over-confident 

Having assured me she was the right candidate I was looking for, one recent applicant suggested a time slot she could squeeze me in for an interview. “30 minutes should do the trick.” It didn’t because the delete button got there first.

9. Show me you’re different…

If you list your ‘computer skills’ as “knowledge of Microsoft Office, Outlook, Firefox, Safari, Excel and Power Point,” I’ll assume you also know how to tie your shoelaces and boil a pan of water. And if you’re a student who boasts about knowing how to use “social media such as Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram” I’ll lump you together with the other two billion people who also know how to use at least one of these platforms.

10. …But be aware of cultural differences

In Belgium, where I live, it is important to mention your marital status on your CV – so don’t be surprised to see ‘single’ under a flattering photo of the applicant, their date of birth and the fact that they have a clean driving licence. All would be complete taboos in the United States, where what Europeans know as CVs are called resumes.

11. Edit thoroughly

If the application asks for native level English, don’t write “My English in on a native level” or “I speak fluently English, French is my mother tong.” And even if English is not your native tongue – or tong – there are no excuses for writing “I postulate in your company.” That just sounds rude. Finally, don’t leave track change on so prospective employees can see you changed ‘intermediate’ French to ‘fluent’.

12. Keep it short 

Unless you’re an award-winning polymath whose career has spanned decades and bridged continents, your CV should fit on two pages – or one page if you’re a student or recent graduate. Don’t test people’s patience by churning out 25 pages listing every conference and course ever attended – like one applicant did recently.

13. Be creative…

On standardised European CVs, applicants grade their written and spoken linguistic abilities as C2, B1 etc. If you’re like me, you can never remember if C is good or bad. So I was impressed when a recent applicant put “German: cup of tea and cake.” I can picture that level of German because it’s about the same as mine. I also chuckled when another applicant wrote: “90.000 HOURS – That’s the average amount of hours spent at work during a lifetime. I want to make these hours as worthwhile, challenging and fun as possible.”

14. …But not too much

Being creative is great – within limits. If a job ad asks for a cover letter but you reply that you didn’t write one because “all candidates usually write typical phrases about their motivation” you may be right. But you’re also missing an opportunity to show how you’re really different, as opposed to really superior.  Also, playing around with the format of CVs is fine, as long as this creates clarity rather than confusion. So that stop motion video CV with flow charts and funky music may win full marks for creativity but not such a good grade for clear communication. Likewise, too many pie charts, timelines, barcodes, infographics and design gizmos can end up looking messier than a toddler’s scribblings.

15. Tell me your interests – but not all of them

If someone applies for an internship or job with my company and says their interests are rugby or Czech literature they will get an interview because I happen to like rugby and Czech literature. But if you list one of your interests as pole dancing – yes, this happened – I will probably forward your CV to a local strip club.

Clear Europe runs courses on How To Write Clearly and offers copywriting services. 

Martens, who has covered the EU for 11 years for the German public broadcaster, said TV news was “completely different” to print because of the speed at which it operates. “On TV, time really, really matters,” said the French-German journalist, who previously worked for France Télévisions in Paris and Lille.

Martens was speaking at ‘News and Booze’ – a monthly meeting of NGO communicators hosted by Clear Europe, Conscience Consulting and Julia Ravenscroft from the European Network on Debt and Development. She said reporters needed NGOs to provide expert opinions but offered a number of tips to help then work better with TV journalists:

1. Don’t sell stories

“Journalists don’t like when others tell us which stories to pick,” said Martens, upending conventional PR wisdom about the importance of pitching to reporters. “It’s a waste of time to sell us stories. We do our homework before we reach out to you.”

2. Don’t call

“It’s not because we’re impolite. It’s just that we’re very busy.” Global surveys also stress journalists prefer to be contacted by email rather than phone.

3. Keep it short

“The most important thing is to be short and precise,” said Martens. A classic TV news report is 90 seconds long. So she urged NGO communicators not to waffle, speak in vague generalities or utter meaningless platitudes.

 4. Keep it simple

“How would you explain this to a 5-year old?” is a question all experts should ask before trying to explain a complex issue to the general public.

5. Flag in advance…

State what issues your spokesperson is an expert on and provide background information in FAQs and Q&As.

6…But be prepared to react quickly

“It’s possible you send an email at 6am and you’re on TV at 12,” said Martens. “It’s a very fast business.” During an event, she said journalists will search for key players on Twitter and follow them immediately to get a reaction or do an interview. So spokespeople have to be prepared to speak about issues at very short notice.

7. Be available

“If you don’t call back fast we’ll get someone else,” was the blunt message to experts failing to hit deadlines. If you’re not available or are not an expert on the issue, say so, Martens added. She also said it was essential to provide mobile numbers (“We don’t call landlines”) and SMS (“TV people love text messages.”)

8. Know your audience

Be aware which journalist from which media you’re talking to. “Every TV channel has its own culture. ARD won’t cover Africa stories but Deutsche Welle or BBC World will,” said Martens, who extensively covered the refugee crisis in the Balkans in 2015.

9. Know your subject

“Don’t ask for the questions before the interview,” Martens advised. “You are the experts.”

10. Don’t expect journalists to follow-up

“TV journalists are like doctors – after the operation, they don’t go back to ask how it was.”

11. No conferences, please

“Man getting out of the car walking into a building, a man walking out of building getting into a car,” is how former BBC correspondent Chris Morris described covering the EU for television. The way to avoid making the EU even duller on screen than it is in reality, according to Martens, is to avoid images of men in suits talking around tables. “We do stories where they happen, not where they’re being talked about.”

12. Get training

“It’s very important you train your experts. Some people are brilliant on the phone but put them in front of a camera and we can’t use them.” Martens offered the following on-camera tips:

• It doesn’t matter how you look (except if you’re an anchor)
• Use clear language, not technical jargon
• Be lively

Of course, we couldn’t agree more with tip 12 at Clear Europe – which is why we run a series of tailored one-day courses on mastering media interviews, working with journalists, influencing the EU media and shooting and editing video. Please contact us for more information about our customised coaching.

At our next News and Booze meeting on 24 April, US consultant George Perlov will draw from his recent global study to explain why some campaigns work and some don’t. More details here.

Instead of telling the truth, Trump has lied with such shameless abandon that a whole new lexicon has had to be invented to describe the parallel universe the president lives in. Post-truth has elevated baloney to the level of the possible, alternative facts are wheeled out to disprove demonstrable evidence and fake news is used as an insult against anyone who dares question the president’s policies.

Instead of courting the electorate, as most strategists would advise, Trump has gone out of his way to insult large chunks of it. Women, Mexicans, Muslims, the media, the disabled and even Swedes have all been on the receiving end of his vitriol, upending the belief that you don’t win clients or votes by haranguing your audience.

Finally, instead of currying favour with the press, as most media advisors would counsel, Trump has waged war on it. He has called venerable outlets like the New York Times and CNN ‘failing media’ and railed against the ‘fake news’ churned out by trusted sources like the Washington Post and NBC. Breaking a tradition dating back to Thomas Jefferson – who once declared “were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter” – he has lambasted the very idea of a free press holding truth to power, slamming journalists as ‘the enemy.’

So what do Trump’s tactics mean for media relations practitioners?

It is too early to say with any certitude, but a few things are already clear from his victory and that of the Leave campaign in Britain’s June 2016 referendum.

Firstly, established media hold less sway than they once did. A year after his election as Labour leader in 1994, Tony Blair flew to Sydney to win over Rupert Murdoch, publisher of the Sun, Britain’s best-selling daily. It is difficult to imagine that happening today with newspaper circulation in freefall and social media providing politicians like Trump with a powerful publishing platform. Indeed, November’s election in the United States proved that the opinions of newspapers are almost completely irrelevant, with only a dozen out of over 600 newspapers backing electoral college winner Trump.

Secondly – and unfortunately – shooting the messenger appears to work. With trust in the media hovering around 20% – the lowest since records began – blaming the press and railing against journalists is the equivalent of battering a boxer punch-drunk on the ropes. Journalists will only be able to defend themselves better if they regain the trust of the public they are supposed to serve.

Thirdly, rebutting lies reinforces them. Despite the fact that Trump is a serial fibber, telling whoppers at the rate of roughly 20 a day between September 15 and election day according to Toronto Star reporter Daniel Dale, the small army of fact-checkers employed to disprove these lies had no discernible influence on public opinion. Instead, the more outrageous Trump’s claims and the more strident his views the more his messages have been amplified by fans and foes on Twitter and the more he has set the daily news agenda.

Trump’s win – and the victory of the Leave camp in Britain – raises some thorny questions for communication advisers, media trainers and political strategists:

• If rebutting lies reinforces them, what is the best way to challenge the fibbers and champion the truth?
• Does fact-checking make any difference when research shows emotion trumps fact and appeals to the heart are more powerful than those to the head?
• In a world of filter bubbles should communicators aim to challenge their audience’s beliefs or reinforce them?
• Does it still make sense to spend so much time courting the media when Trump’s win proves they can be bypassed?
• Is the type of raw, unfiltered communication preferred by Trump’s tweets and Farage’s provocations more effective than the focus group-tested messaging matrixes of slick-suited PR advisers?

As the answers to these questions will determine how politics and communication is conducted in much of the world for the years to come, we’d be interested in your feedback below, on our X or Facebook feeds or via email.

We followed that up with a piece on ‘10 Things You Need to Know About the Brussels Press Corps’ that contained such sparking nuggets of information as: almost half the correspondents based in the EU capital work alone, Chinese news agency Xinhua has 23 accredited correspondents and French reporter Jean Quatremer has the most followers on Twitter (still true.)

Since May 2012 the European Commission has stopped publishing its highly-prized list of accredited journalists to the EU, making reliable figures hard to come by. However, Clear Europe has obtained a treasure trove of up-to-date statistics from well-placed EU sources – who requested anonymity. Here are the highlights:

1.     There has been a spectacular rise in the number of freelance journalists. A decade ago there were just 11 freelancers covering the EU. In 2012 there were 64. Now there are 159 – more than double that of three years ago.

2.     More journalists are accredited to Belgium-based media than any other country – 143. This is largely because of the arrival of POLITICO Europe, which is based in Brussels and is already the largest non-Belgian media outlet in town with 40 accredited reporters. Germany, the biggest in 2012, supplies 110, France 95 and the UK 87. Again, these raw figures are slightly deceptive – the British numbers are skewed by the fact that media such as MLex and Euractiv are registered in London. The figure has also raised eyebrows among French journalists, with the French Permanent Representation to the EU noting a much lower figure. Part of the reason might be a massive jump in the number of journalists working for Euronews, which has its headquarters in Lyon.

3.     The total number of journalists accredited to the EU institutions was 955 as of late October 2015. This is marginally higher than 2012, when there were 931 reporters, and almost the same as after the big-bang enlargement of 2004.

4.     Of these 955 reporters, 599 are men and 356 are women. In percentage terms, 63% are male and 37% female, a slight rise in parity compared to the 2012 figures when 65% were men and 35% women.

5.     In addition to the 955 journalists accredited to the EU, there are 358 technicians – cameramen, photographers, producers etc – bringing the total number of accreditation badges to 1313. Belgium supplies by far the largest share of technicians – 376, with Germany on 143 and France on 105.

6.     The 1313 accredited journalists and technicians represent 487 different media companies. Reporters working for written press make up just over a quarter of the total number, with news agencies and television just under a quarter each.

Finally, a word or two about the figures, which will no doubt be hotly contested by some overworked Brussels correspondents wondering where their phantom colleagues are:

·      They are official numbers from the EU institutions, not ours.

·      They are from 30/10/15. The advantage of figures collected later in the year is that all journalists have picked up their badges by then. The disadvantage is that reporters who have left may not have been struck off the list. The total number of journalists accredited on 01/05/16 was 839.

·      The numbers are inflated by the fact that some journalists based in capitals outside Brussels – often editors and commentators – have permanent accreditation.

·      Some journalists work for several media organisations from different countries.

Despite these caveats, we hope you find the figures useful and that they give you a better understanding of the pressures journalists in Brussels face.

It speaks volumes about the current state of journalism in the United States that it takes a 38-year-old British comedian to draw attention to topics much of the mainstream media has chosen to ignore, using investigative reporting methods many of these organisations have long abandoned.

Take Donald Trump. A lot has been written and aired about the bombastic billionaire Republican presidential candidate. But when John Oliver – the host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight – turned his fire on Trump Sunday, he touched a nerve that even other presidential contenders had failed to. After trashing Trump’s business record and denouncing the property magnate turned reality TV star as a “serial liar,” Oliver launched a campaign for the Donald to be referred to by his ancestral German name ‘Drumpf.’ By March 2, the #MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain campaign was trending on Twitter and the episode had been viewed by more than 50 million people on YouTube.

This is the kind of crowd-pleasing trouble-making that has helped make Oliver one of the hottest tickets on American TV. Since April 2014, the British stand-up has used his satirical show to deal with some of the thorniest issues on the planet. Among the topics tackled: Net neutrality, the rise of Islamic State, Europe’s refugee crisis and corruption at the governing body of world football FIFA. Along the way he has interviewed luminaries and heavyweights such as whistleblower Edward Snowden and scientist Stephen Hawking.

“It is undeniable that the British stand-up is guilty of committing ‘acts of journalism’ in the service of comedy.”

By devoting 15-20 minute chunks of prime TV airtime to complex issues in a thoughtful, provocative manner and digging deeper into stories usually glossed over in 40-second bites by mainstream channels like Fox News and CNN, Oliver has won the plaudits of journalists and media commentators across the globe.

“More and more often, the HBO newcomer looks, sounds, and feels like real news,” wrote Asawin Suwebsae in a profile of Oliver’s show in The Daily Beast. David Carr, the late New York Times media critic, suggested Oliver was pursuing a “kind of new journalism.”

These are accusations Oliver, who cut his comedic chops as a reporter on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, strenuously rejects. In an interview with reporter Jorge Ramos in May 2015, Oliver stressed: “I am not a journalist. I am a comedian. I make jokes about the news.”

Despite Oliver’s protestations, however, it is undeniable that the British stand-up is guilty of committing ‘acts of journalism’ in the service of comedy.

Here’s why:

Firstly, Last Week Tonight focuses on a complex subject and attempts to simplify this for audiences – as journalists have been doing for centuries. The fact that he uses comedy as a tool to grab the attention of viewers does not make the journalism less credible, but keeps the viewer engaged and makes political points without sounding angry or preachy. In this respect, Oliver is firmly in the tradition of the strain of humorous American journalism that started with Mark Twain and James Thurber and has continued with the Daily Show, The Colbert Report, The Onion and even Buzzfeed. It also surfs the current wave of ‘explainer journalism’ by focusing less on the ‘who, what, where, whens’ of the world and more on the ‘whys and hows.’

For example, Oliver’s shows have focused on the privatisation of America’s prison system, the implementation of Shariah law in the sultanate of Brunei and political corruption in Ecuador – which sparked the fury of President Rafael Correa, who took to Twitter to insult him. In so doing, Oliver has upended many of the lazy assumptions made by mainstream American media that today’s hyper-distracted audiences cannot handle complex subjects, have little patience for analysis and no interest in far-flung places that do not affect their lives.

Secondly, Oliver’s assertions are backed up by evidence. “We have very aggressive fact-checkers and researchers, so that we are not wrong. If you make a joke about something that is factually inaccurate, the joke collapses,” he told Ramos. An example of this was the September 2014 segment of the show about Miss America. When the organisation behind the beauty pageant claimed it made $45 million in college scholarships available to contestants every year, Oliver questioned the figure. “That is an unbelievable amount of money—as in, I literally did not believe that,” he said. So his team of researchers, which includes many former journalists, investigated the tax forms of every state in the country and discovered that the Miss America Organisation spent closer to $4 million on scholarships. No wonder Robert Thompson, director of Syracuse University’s Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture, has called the show “investigative comedy.”

Thirdly, Oliver’s show follows the classic journalist tradition of holding power to account by probing authorities, investigating wrongdoings and questioning received wisdom. For example, Last Week Tonight was one of the first to dig into allegations of corruption at FIFA and is widely credited with drawing attention to the empire of sleaze presided over by Sepp Blater.

Finally, in the words of Ramos, the British comedian’s show helps “spark a national dialogue.” In other words, it creates a conversation about important issues in interesting ways – one of journalism’s oft-held claims. A case in point is his segment about net neutrality – “the only two words promising more boredom in the English language are ‘featuring Sting’” as he quipped on his show. The public disagreed, with the clip attracting over 10 million viewers and stoking so much indignation that when Oliver urged fans to flood the Federal Communications Commission with comments about proposed changes to net neutrality, so many did that the FCC website crashed.

So is Oliver an activist? “That’s not the goal,” he told the Financial Times in a recent interview. “That is a completely unintended byproduct. All we are focused on is trying to make really the best comedy show that we can and make it interesting and immediate.”

After Oliver denied being a journalist in his interview with Ramos, the Mexican TV anchor protested that he had “more credibility than most journalists in the United States and many other countries.” Oliver’s reply sums up why it is so difficult to pigeonhole this bespectacled Birmingham native: “But that is more of an insult to the current state of journalism than a compliment to the state of comedy.”

However, you define what he is doing – alternative journalism, investigative comedy, stand-up reporting – it seems Oliver, who was included in Time’s 100 most influential people of the year in 2014, is having the last laugh.