Generic Criticism
Does generic criticism impose limitations to or boundaries on creativity and therefore expansion, refinement, and improvement to particular types of public discourse? Certainly, evolution of public discourse can be noted by comparing, anticipating and expecting certain parts or elements of content in an artifact, but does the diagnostic analysis of generic criticism paralyze if not delay progress in the evolution of types of discourse? In an increasingly rapid evolution of the communication communication mediums, does taking time to limit areas of creative expansion?
In attempt to answer this question, take into account the cannon of a press conference. Break down the parts of a press conference to expected components: welcome audience and members of the press, introduction of press conference topic, introduction of spokesperson and experts/notables in attendance, statement by spokesperson, supportive statements by experts, questions from senior press by invitation, opening for questions from press at large, spokesperson conclusion of press conference, instructions for next steps for information updates, closure and exit.
Strategies common to a press conference include keeping to a formal schedule or format for the purpose of maintaining a controlled information environment, establishing hierarchy among speakers and experts participating in the dissemination of information at the press conference as well as among members of the press, sticking to specific key messages (typically no more than four) and reiteration of those messages by key experts, a question and answer session with the press moderated and controlled by the spokesperson(s), and conclusion followed by controlled departure of press spokesperson and experts. Standard time for a press conference is between 15 minutes and 45. Key messages are few and are prepared as succinct sound bites that can be delivered to the press and clearly conveyed in attempt to reduce margin of error.
The purpose of a press conference is to provide controlled delivery of critical or sensitive information to the public at large through a trusted format that provides one-on-one interaction with media representatives, spokesperson(s) and key experts. The press conference is a form of agenda setting common to the practice of public relations. It allows for clear and concise delivery and offers a controlled news making opportunity and environment.
Supportive measures to a press conference include press releases, bullet point lists outlining key messages, supportive testimonies, supportive visuals (photos, graphics, branded backdrops, videos), and easy access for media (parking, satellite feed, high-speed internet access, power access, proper sound and lighting for media production, printers, etc.). The setting is typically formal and invitation is typically made via press release to a relevant press corps/media list.
Having described much of chromosomal makeup of a press conference including form, strategies, types and methods, let’s return to the question of generic criticism. Indeed, patterns in discourse can be prescribed around the cannon of a press conference. Yes, there are patterns, similarities, generalizations, parts and types of speech typical to the press conference.
Should focus be limited to the chromosomal makeup of the press conference, the critic runs the risk of both missing and delaying the creative evolution of the press conference. So focusing on patterns, a critic runs the risk of missing creative function. For example, a press conference location does typically embody certain characteristics previously mentioned, yet creative variances regarding location may include the ability technology has provided to offer amenities to the press in outdoor locations like a baseball field, hiking trail, a laboratory in space. Creative variations regarding use of video to support key messages can take forms of live stream delivery, inbound and outbound video technologies, animated simulation, direct download, and more.
If the critic focuses on a checklist of common parts when analyzing the cannon of the press conference, my argument is that such an approach has the potential to limit and delay the evolution of the tool so common and critical to public relations. Rather than spending time analyzing sameness, consider a diagnosis of difference. Within a cannon, discourse or text, what is new and different is just as important as what is repetitive and identifiable. If the organizing principle is clearly identified, a more productive technique for critique would be to analyze what is unique to the cannon. For example, in the case of a press conference, the organizing principle is to provide controlled delivery of critical or sensitive information to the public at large through a trustworthy format that provides one-on-one interaction with media representatives, spokesperson(s) and key experts. If, in critique, one focuses on the unique forms and methods associated with providing controlled delivery of critical or sensitive information to the public through trustworthy formats that provide one-on-one interaction with media representatives, the idea of a press conference becomes less nebulous and more open to free and rapid evolution.
By nature, unnecessary or outdated components of a cannon will by natural selection drop off allowing for methods more effectively aligned with technology and modern media. For example, inviting members of the press to a press conference through formal announcement and invitation by press release may very well be outdated. Press conference invitations once delivered by mail, then fax, then email and confirmed by telephone or reply are now commonly delivered and confirmed via instant messaging to hand-held devices. If success of the objectives of the press conference are met with new methods, old methods of tradition can naturally shed and allow the cannon to move forward in best accomplishing its purpose allowing for more rapid evolution unburdened by autopsies of the critic determined to break down the cannon into identifiable and traditional parts.
The significance of analyzing what is different about a cannon of discourse is equally as important to diagnosing what is the same. Also, that by doing so, we allow for more rapid and natural evolution of discourse and rhetoric.
