Objectives
The objectives of the policy aim to ensure the following:
- Government of Canada communications are non-partisan, effectively managed, well-coordinated, clear, and meet the diverse information needs of the public.
- The Government of Canada considers the views and interests of the public in the development of its policies, programs, services, and initiatives.
- The Government of Canada is visible and recognizable to the public both domestically and internationally, equally in both official languages.
- Government of Canada communications and the administration of its brand image are financially sound and generate savings through standardization.
Expected Outcomes
The expected outcomes of this policy are as follows:
- Communications within and between departments are well-coordinated and integrated into all government activities.
- Government communication activities and products are clear, objective, non-partisan, economical, presented in both official languages, accurate, timely, and meet the diverse information needs of the public.
- The government communicates with the Canadian public and uses innovative methods in the development of its policies, programs, services, and initiatives.
- The Government of Canada's brand image is used uniformly, displayed equally in both official languages, takes precedence over departmental visual identities, and is not overshadowed by other logos.
Requirements
Deputy heads have the following responsibilities:
- Provide impartial advice and support their minister, who is the primary spokesperson for the department, in communicating to the public the government's policies, programs, priorities, and decisions;
- Designate a senior official as the head of communications to ensure the management of communications and brand image;
- Facilitate communication with the public regarding policies, programs, services, and initiatives by ensuring their department fulfills the following obligations:
- Provide timely, clear, objective, factual, and non-partisan information;
- Provide information in both official languages in compliance with the relevant sections of the Official Languages Act;
- Consider the needs of official language minority communities in Canada;
- Use a variety of media and platforms to maximize the reach of communications, including seeking innovative ways to use technology;
- Comply with the requirements of the Web Accessibility Standard and provide, upon request, substantially equivalent content for persons with disabilities;
- Consider the views and interests of the public in the development of policies, programs, services, and initiatives;
- Respond promptly to public requests for information or inquiries without unnecessary recourse to the Access to Information Act;
- Integrate communications into emergency planning and crisis management for their department;
- Collaborate with other departments on government communication activities and initiatives;
- Ensure that all communication activities of their department support the Government of Canada's open government principles and related practices;
- Approve annual advertising and public opinion research plans;
- Approve advertising during federal general elections: that is required by law or regulation for legal purposes; to inform the public of a threat to health, safety, or the environment; to post a job or staffing notice; or to conduct specific advertising considered urgent;
- Promote open, transparent, and collaborative communications within their department to increase employees' knowledge and awareness of departmental and government priorities.
Intention
We communicate with intentions: Describe, Explain, Convince, Please, Encourage, Persuade, Denounce, Advise, Mobilize.
Effective Thinking
If one of these steps were missing, the result of the action would likely be invalidated.
-
-
- Activism:
Observe > ___ > Act
- Activism:
-
-
-
- Technocracy:
___ > Understand > Act - Contemplation:
Observe > Understand > ___
- Technocracy:
-
Rhetoric
The art of speaking well; alternately criticized and celebrated for over 2500 years, this pragmatics of speech is based on the observation of language facts and their influence on the relationship between a speaker and an audience.
It remains an incomparable pedagogical tool for anyone who must perform professional communication tasks oriented towards specific objectives.
We can summarize the rhetorical approach as follows:
-
- Inventio: finding what to say.
- Dispositio: Organizing what has been found.
- Elocutio: Finding the words, images, arguments, and style of the message to be expressed.
- Actio: Presenting; animating the discourse with voice and body.
- Inventio: finding what to say.
Rhetoric is neither good nor bad in itself; it obeys no morality. It is simply a tool at the service of an intention.
Explanation
According to a study by the Harris Institute, the average knowledge age of Western inhabitants is 12/13 years. At this age, one is very intelligent but knowledge is superficial. If you are an expert in a particular field, speak to those who seek you out in simple and concrete language.
Any information, however technically accurate, is null if it is not immediately usable by the recipient.
« Thanks to this scholar who speaks to me as a brother » Alain (and not as a colleague).
Active Listening
Active listening is a difficult communication technique to integrate because it goes against our daily habits. Active listening is essential in interview situations and in any group or team management activity. It implies a real availability to the other's speech.
The tools of active listening are the art of questioning, reformulation, and synthesis.
Rosine – Do you know that it is very bad to listen?
Figaro – Yet it is the best way to hear well.
Beaumarchais. The Barber of Seville.
Argumentation
Argumentation develops towards a given audience that recognizes itself in values, interests, or feelings.
Argumentation aims to show, by proving, what according to you should be considered preferable, or conversely, what should be considered undesirable.
To convince, you must value the adherence of your audience.
One never argues for oneself, but always in relation to the "reception context" of the other.
Expression
« An established form of expression is also a form of oppression. » Eugène Ionesco.
Ready-to-think and ready-to-speak constitute a real obstacle to the expression of knowledge and ideas.
The fear of saying stupid things leads us to utter platitudes. We use ready-made phrases and often remain ignorant of the true richness of our personal expression. It's a matter of confidence. Let's beware of models and stereotypes.
« Whatever the thing you want to say, there is only one word to express it, one verb to animate it, one adjective to qualify it. » Guy de Maupassant
Behavior
« I don't know what to do with my hands, » said a young actor to his master, Louis Jouvet. « Well, leave them at the end of your arms, my young friend, » he replied.
Gestures accompany speech naturally. There is no particular gesture to execute. It's a matter of confidence and active availability.
« What to do with my hands? » is a bad question.
Speaking, in public or in an interview, requires engagement; a tension that engages the whole body.
Nothing to do with tension. But also nothing to do with relaxation.
Diction
As with the voice, people who have real difficulties with diction are rare. On the other hand, those who have bad habits are quite numerous.
Working on diction involves restoring correct articulatory behavior by gradually erasing bad habits. It's a simple gymnastics, but the gain is considerable.
Rely on consonants; vowels will always follow.
Vocal Amplitude
It is surprising to verify how much the use of the voice is altered in daily habits: monotony, atony, congestion... and it is wonderful to see how its blossoming illuminates the thought of those who accept to use it fully.
Without forcing, without shouting, learn to place your voice and work on its amplitude.
« The voice is a second face. » Gérard Bauër
Eye Contact
« When the mouth says yes, the eyes say maybe. » Victor Hugo. Ruy Blas.
The gaze, but also the whole body can hold a discourse quite different from that expressed by words. Someone who claims to express a deep conviction may cast a dull gaze on their audience, while their whole body expresses only one thing: « I don't want to be here! ».
We speak with our body, with our gestures, as much as with our words. That is why it is so important to achieve this mastery that consists in putting the whole body at the service of the spoken word.
Stage Fright
Aristotle said that a speaker who would not be afraid should be considered irresponsible, and as such, forbidden to speak.
What seems so easy in everyday life suddenly becomes a trying act when it comes to speaking in front of an audience, during an interview, or at a meeting. This is understandable because in this case, speech is an act determined by a necessity or an objective.
Stage fright is a natural phenomenon: We find ourselves facing our responsibility like an animal facing danger:
- Do I attack?
- Do I defend myself?
- Do I flee?
The remedies for stage fright: preparation, relaxation, and the engagement of your whole being, physical and mental, in the act of communicating.
Pleasure
« Our true pleasures consist in the free use of ourselves. » Buffon.
If there is a beautiful moment above all, it is this instant when, after having worked hard and sometimes suffered, a speaker suddenly discovers the ineffable pleasure of speaking and feeling fully received and welcomed by those who listen to them.
A moment when body, voice, and words are in perfect harmony.
This audience or interlocutor to whom you must speak is so impressive. If only you knew how much this listener is your main support, your best ally. They will always be grateful if they see that you treat them as a partner and not as an adversary.
« We are more often deceived by distrust than by trust. » Cardinal de Retz.
Rhetoric - Argumentation - Debate
« The proper function of rhetoric is not to persuade, but to see the means of persuasion that each subject contains » Aristotle.
Aristotle considers that rhetoric teaches the means of persuasion without prejudging success.
Unlike a consensus, an agreement concluded demagogically on the weak points of opposition, controversy forces negotiation on the strong points and consideration of opposing arguments.
Gilles Declercq, La rhétorique et sa méthode, Sciences Humaines n° 38, April 1994.
The Tools of Argumentation
Metaphor: « Whether we make the world a house, a station serving this house, a testing ground, a workshop of potential instruments, a quarry exploitable by human labor, a foreign country, an enemy camp, a prison... and our way of life will be fundamentally transformed. »
Helmut Kuhn, Encounter with Nothingness, London, Melthuen, 1951.
Analogy allows the transfer of agreement obtained on the reframed situation to a term or opinion in the name of a resemblance. The example given by Aristotle in his Rhetoric is very clear. It stages a philosopher who wants to convince the assembly that the magistrates of the city should be chosen according to their skills and not drawn by lot. The speaker recalls that the players of the sports teams representing the city are chosen according to their skills and not drawn by lot among its inhabitants (prior framing). Then (analogical argument), he is surprised that it is not the same for the magistrates.
Philippe Breton, L'argumentation entre information et manipulation, Sciences Humaines Hors Série n° 16, March-April 1997.
Relying on the public's representations is the question of anchoring, a notion due to Grize. When one wants to make a theory understood, one needs to anchor it in things that people understand, and if one wants to gain adherence, one must anchor it in beliefs that are already in the public.
Anchoring Has Different Dimensions
- A cognitive dimension: one must rely on notions that are understood.
- An epistemic dimension that concerns what the individual believes.
- A linguistic dimension: the notions may be present, the beliefs too, but the language I use may not be accessible.
One only succeeds in making something understood by a public that does not yet know it by breaking with certain common sense representations, but by relying on other prior representations. The pedagogical value of examples is precisely to start from things that are known and to build reasoning from there.
The argument from authority consists of relying on the reputation of another to support one's own argumentation. One cannot do without the argument from authority, but it all depends on the use one makes of it. It is legitimate, and even welcome, to refer to previous works, for example at the beginning of a thesis. It is also a way to capture the goodwill of the audience. On the other hand, the argument from authority cannot replace a logically valid argument.
The Traps
Paralogism of composition. It is a reasoning error that consists in believing that what is true of a part of a whole is true of the whole itself. The paralogism of division consists in believing that what is true of the whole is true of each of its parts. Why is this reasoning error frequently made? Because sometimes - indeed quite often - one can validly conclude from the whole to the parts and from the parts to the whole. If I am told that each part of a machine is green, I can say that the machine as a whole is green. Conversely, if I am told that the machine is entirely green, I can deduce that each part is green. But this does not work if you change the predicate and instead of color, you take weight. If I say: "each part of the machine is light," I cannot conclude that the machine is light. This type of reasoning is extremely frequent when dealing with the relationship between individuals and society. What is true at the level of each individual will not necessarily be true at the level of the whole, and vice versa. If a country is considered rich, this does not mean that each of its inhabitants is rich.
According to Alban Bouvier, Conference on Argumentation Theories, Lyon, 1996
Paralogism of generalization. One supports a general proposition with a number of particular cases. The more one has, the more the general proposition is supported. But a generalization proves nothing. The example of swans is well known. At the thousandth white swan I encounter, my general proposition that all swans are white is well supported. Nevertheless, nothing proves that the thousand and first swan is white. If this example is cited, it is because it happened historically. In the 19th century, it was discovered with surprise that there were black swans in Australia, while it had long been believed that there were only white swans.
The essential thing is to clearly define its validity in time and space, the conditions of its existence, and to avoid generalizing.
Hence the importance of seeking counterexamples.
| Induce | Deduce | |
| Approach | Start from facts, then generalize to derive a law, a rule. | Start from exact facts to establish a proposition, a new fact that is its consequence. |
| Role of Examples |
Starting point of induction Verification of the law, the general rule |
Illustration of deduction arguments. Verification of coherence. |
| Traps |
Abusive generalization Poor formulation |
The new proposition is only the addition, the juxtaposition of the initial propositions or facts. Poor formulation |
| To Enrich Argumentation |
Search for other examples reinforcing the generalization Apply the general rule to a few specific cases to show its relevance Search for counterexamples. Are they only exceptions? If so, present them as such, otherwise redo the entire reasoning. |
Search at each step of the deduction, at each implication, for possible flaws, counterexamples, or elements going in the direction of the reasoning, or completing it. |
| CDDP de Valence, Apprentissage des savoir-faire fondamentaux en Sciences économiques et sociales, 1993. | ||
Distinguish Argumentation from Demonstration
|
Demonstration |
Argumentation |
|
Written exercise |
Oral exercise |
|
Solitary |
Interaction with an audience |
|
Relies on proofs |
Relies on arguments |
This distinction is, in part, artificial. Scientific demonstration is also accompanied by argued debates in scientific circles, as can be seen currently around GMOs. What matters here is to mark that the argued debate rests on a social interaction between the participants.
To Argue is to Make Understand and Gain Adherence
-
Do not assert without advancing arguments.
-
Distinguish facts, opinions, value judgments.
-
Work on sources: demystify the printed word. Contrary to the common belief, « If it's in the newspaper, it's true, » one must take a critical look at the printed word and the media in general.
-
Work on sources, their reliability and relevance, by cross-referencing sources and ranking them.
Debate
Two types of debates: The media debate and the scientific debate
Educating through debate is not necessarily about staging face-to-face encounters inspired by television shows. Rather than always mimicking the forms of the most media-friendly opinion debate, it is good to rediscover the scientific debate, which deals with the real and gives itself a method. Of course, democracy also involves the free confrontation of opinions, in a pleasant disorder that leaves everyone the freedom to find their way and build their thought, without constantly having to demonstrate rigor and self-criticism. This form of conversation, essential to the evolution of social representations, should not obscure the importance of another form, the one that leads to the relative consensus that allows democratic and reasoned decisions.
Inspiration: Ph. Perrenoud, « Le débat et la raison », Les cahiers pédagogiques, supplement n° 4, Oct-Nov. 1998
Difference between the two :
|
Scientific Debate |
Media Debate |
|
Confronts theses |
Confronts opinions |
|
Based on hypotheses |
Based on value judgments |
|
Supported by arguments |
Supported by social experiences, intuitions |
|
Prepared by documentary work |
Spontaneous |
|
Organized |
Participates in random listening |
|
Opens to the other's point of view |
Reinforces each one's point of view |
|
Leads to a synthesis |
Has no direct follow-up |
|
Clarifies the issues |
Allows the evolution of social representations |
Source
Jane Méjias, Université d’automne sur l 'ECJS, Paris, 04-05 November 1999
Indicative Bibliography :
- Bautier Elisabeth et Rochaix Jean-Yves, L'expérience scolaire des nouveaux lycéens, Armand Colin, 1998
- Boudon Raymond, Le sens des valeurs, PUF, 1999
- Bouvier Alban, Conférence sur les théories de l'argumentation, Lyon, 1996
- Breton Philippe, L'argumentation entre information et manipulation, Sciences Humaines Hors Série n° 16, March-April 1997.
- CDDP de Valence, Apprentissage des savoir-faire fondamentaux en Sciences économiques et sociales, 1993
- CRDP de Franche-Comté, Argumenter au lycée, 1994
- Perrenoud Philippe, " Le débat et la raison ", Les cahiers pédagogiques, supplement n° 4, Oct-Nov. 1998
- Schnapper Dominique, La relation à l'autre, Gallimard, Coll. Essais, 1998
- Sciences Humaines n°38, April 1994, dossier " L'art de convaincre "
- Taylor Charles, Multiculturalisme. Différence et démocratie, 1992, trad. F. Aubier, 1994
- Thomas J.P., " Pas de formation sans réflexion de fond ", Les cahiers pédagogiques, supplement n°4, October-November 1998
- Be functional early, i.e.:
- Be ready to intervene live, radio or TV in the 6 AM news bulletin, i.e.:
- Have read the morning press (the summaries), determined the possible issues, and see if it is imperative to correct published or broadcast information (including websites).
- If necessary, do research to verify certain information, contact the right people, confirm the correct information, etc. Call back journalists and website editors (you must be very diplomatic!).
- It is very important to correct inaccuracies published on media websites as soon as possible because some media feed on what they find online. We must avoid inaccuracies spreading.
- Some inaccuracies (especially from national media) must be clarified officially by a Letter to the Editor. Discuss with your team. A Letter to the Editor is brief, three paragraphs. It does not accuse, it does not highlight the error (simple reference to the article in question), it presents the verified facts.
- If necessary, do research to verify certain information, contact the right people, confirm the correct information, etc. Call back journalists and website editors (you must be very diplomatic!).
- Have contacted your communications team to be aware of other potential issues.
- Have in mind the key messages of the day and even of the moment.
Note: a journalist who "covers" an event in constant evolution and who must intervene regularly on a continuous news channel, constantly adjusts the "lead" (headline) of his next intervention - built around what he has learned that is newest. The spokesperson must do the same and always set his own communication objective according to the moment with in mind the appropriate key message(s).
- Have read the morning press (the summaries), determined the possible issues, and see if it is imperative to correct published or broadcast information (including websites).
- Have established the priorities of the day, i.e.:
- Respond to incoming calls from journalists, they have tight deadlines (deadlines).
- Follow up on previous calls by doing (if necessary) information gathering to get answers.
- Prepare for scheduled interviews.
- During quieter moments, browse online media (regional) and social media.
- Prepare for team meetings to share information, concisely (as time becomes precious)
- At the end of the day:
- See if it would be appropriate to contact the evening bulletins to pass a message.
- Take stock of the day, calls (keep a log: media, journalist, contact details, subject, type of interaction, result, etc.).
- Be ready to intervene live, radio or TV in the 6 AM news bulletin, i.e.: