Whatever Happened to the Politics of Credibility?

Just read John Robert Kelley's article, "Between 'Take-Offs' and 'Crash Landings'" about the threats and opportunities that international actors are constantly making use of--either in proactive or reactive ways--to try to promote their interests through public diplomacy. Kelley gives three approaches to public diplomacy: information, influence, and engagement, all of which are legitimate, and can be used effectively depending upon the particular situation and rhetorical context.

That's all fine and good, but in the end, the effectiveness, and the view of the credibility that a messenger and the message have with a particular audience depends upon effective policy that backs it up--that's what gives our messages legitimacy. As with the striking example that Kelley uses of Edward R. Murrow, director of the USIA from 1961-64, who had no idea the the Bay of Pigs invasion was going to take place and so famously said, "If they want me in on the crash landings, I'd better damn well be in on the take-offs," it was obvious that Murrow had to deal with the fallout from a political event that was by all accounts poorly planned and executed, and that he obviously knew nothing about it beforehand.

How could anyone, even a seasoned journalist like Murrow, make the Kennedy administration's bumbled attempt at deposing Castro look good to the outside world?

In Bruce Gregory's article "Public Diplomacy: Sunrise of an Academic Field," Gregory reminds us that technology now allows us to put out information faster than you can blink; if the message put out in the name of public diplomacy is off the mark, or too far removed from the reality of a situation or the decisions made by certain political actors, then when the veil is abruptly removed (because ya know, someone standing there certainly took a photo with their iphone, or shot off a text), it will immediately be identified by the term "propaganda," or "disinformation," and either get virulently criticized or completely dismissed.

Gregory quotes Joesph Nye, who echoes the importance of the "politics of credibility," especially in a world where information is quickly exchanged, and state actors compete with non-state actors in attracting people's attention and having credible voices. Because information spreads so quickly, the messages, even if they "reframe" the situation, had better line up with the reality on the ground or they simply won't be palatable to the outside world. Otherwise (think Wikileaks) we maybe shouldn't say anything. Cuz as John Brown suggests in his public diplomacy blog, just ask Barry Zorthian how much positive press he was able to spin in Saigon during the Vietnam War.

I know I'm workin myself out of a job (it wouldn't be the first time), but forget all of the soul searching and the public diplomacy identity crisis. Better, as Zorthian himself suggests, that as Americans we do a little less public diplomacy and simply try to live up to our own proclaimed values. Wouldn't that get us a lot more mileage with regard to our country's standing in the world?