The Foreign Service Journal, November 2016

18 NOVEMBER 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL themselves. Getting the “content” right is small consolation if our readers don’t understand what we’re trying to say or lose interest before we get to the point. As The Economist style guide advises, “Readers are primarily interested in what you have to say. By the way in which you say it you may encourage them either to read on or to give up.” A case in point is the annual Human Rights Report, which is one of the State Department’s oldest and best-known publications. When the 2014 report was released in June of that year, Secretary of State John Kerry said he hoped the HRR will “inspire us—people here and around the world—between this year and next to take more steps, hopefully giant steps, in the direction of greater justice, wider decency and peace.” This is a noble hope, yet one poorly served by the HRR’s dull format and style. Instead of a passionate defense of human rights, the HRR has become a drab laundry list of “human rights practices” from around the world, presented in formulaic prose. Even the most shocking human rights abuses are discussed in a clinical style more befit- ting an instruction manual. A report documenting such atroci- ties should shock, or at least stir, the senses. Instead, the HRR dulls and then paralyzes our senses with its rigid, coma-inducing style. The end result is a report that has the opposite of its intended effect. After reading the coun- try reports on even the most egregious human rights violators, my reaction is always the same—“It’s not as bad there as I thought.” What to Do Some will argue that a more conver- sational style doesn’t fit well with the complex issues we often write about. Critics will say that “weighty” subjects like trafficking in persons or prolifera- tion of WMD don’t lend themselves to plain English. The critics are wrong. Read Kathryn Schulz’s July 2015 New Yorker piece, “The Really Big One: An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest. The question is when” (now that’s a subject line!). Read a piece on ForeignPolicy.com by Harvard profes- sor Stephen Walt, or something in The Atlantic by Ta-Nehisi Coates, and you’ll see that serious subjects can be written about in a way that’s engaging, even engrossing. Studies have also shown that using simpler language can make you look smarter, while larding your prose with big words and pompous jargon will do the opposite. So what might be the basis for a more readable State Department style? First, I’d ditch the “State Department” or “government” qualifier. Good writing is good writing, whether it’s in a maga- zine, newspaper or talking points—the same rules apply everywhere. As the author of The Book on Writing , Paula LaRocque, writes, “simplicity, clar- ity and brevity are the most important criteria for all writing.” To this I would add the advice of author William Zinsser: “Good writing has an aliveness that keeps the reader reading from one paragraph to the next. . . . It’s a question of using the English language in a way that will achieve the greatest clarity and strength.” A final, and very simple—but usually ignored—rule is: never put in writing what you would never say in conversa- tion. As one Secretariat line staffer told us last fall as we drafted talking points for the Secretary, “imagine the Sec- retary actually saying this to a foreign leader.” So how do we get from here to a more effective style? A few suggestions: • Every new State Department employee should be given two books: The Book on Writing: The Ultimate Guide to Writing Well by Paula LaRocque; and On Writing Well by William Zinsser. Both are quick, entertaining reads, and their advice applies well to department writing. • The State Department and AFSA should recognize in some way those Foreign Service and Civil Service writers who write with “aliveness, human- ity, brevity, clarity and simplicity.” The department could also ask people on the Sounding Board to highlight examples of good department writing and announce a monthly winner on the iNet homepage. • Supervisors need to do a better job of working with newer employees on drafting skills. Make a point of sharing good writing with your subordinates, and explain what separates really effec- tive writing from empty fluff. • The department should recognize offices and bureaus that best promote “plain language,” as required by the Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-274). Although most department writing is exempt from the act, the prin- ciples outlined in the law are still a good idea. Simply following the guidelines outlined on Plainlanguage.gov would dramatically improve a lot of our writ- ing. • All bureaus that issue public reports like the Human Rights Report and Trafficking in Persons Report should overhaul their format and style requirements to make the reports easier to read and require plain English. Doing this will make our reports read like the compelling human stories they are. • Have some fun! Diplomacy is seri-