For example, a communications consultant paid $ 20,000 a month will now help Dr. Arruda “get his message across better.”
There are two ways of looking at this.
One: we added a “communications expert” to the director of public health to help him explain his decisions better to the people, to be clearer, less confused – in short, more efficient.
Or two: we have added a “communications expert” to the director of public health to ensure that the “message” that he will communicate to citizens at the next press briefings will not differ from the official “message” that the government wants to pass.
That we want to help Doctor Arruda to communicate better, why not?
If that can make things less confusing, great!
But if he has been put in a communications advisor to make sure he doesn’t stray from “the line” of government, and say no more than he is supposed to? say (or whatever the government wants them to say), sorry, but me, that makes me wince.
The director of public health is supposed to be independent.
Its role is not to reassure the population and, thus, to help the government to stay ahead of the polls and to win the next elections, it is not the puppet of power.
Its role is to look us straight in the eye and tell us the truth.
It is not the interest of the CAQ that should govern its message, but our interest.
Physical and mental.
WHO IS TALKING?
Besides, this is Dr. Arruda’s main problem.
He is the national director of public health, but he is also the assistant deputy minister of health – therefore, a member of the government apparatus.
When Doctor Arruda speaks to us, who speaks?
The director of public health, or the assistant deputy minister, who is located below the minister in the organizational chart of the Ministry of Health?
What is its real room for maneuver?
Can he say whatever he thinks?
Or should he comply with the demands, demands and interests of the “political”?
Who gives the “the”?
The director of public health, the Minister of Health or the Prime Minister?
Is that why we assigned him a “communications expert”?
To teach him to communicate like a good politician?
That is to say: to use the language of wood, to hide compromising information, and to disguise bad news as good?
WHAT IT IS
We are going through an extremely difficult period.
The role of the director of public health, it seems to me, is not to learn to “spin” a message, to brown the pill, or to skilfully deflect the questions journalists ask him.
It is not to master “all the tricks of the trade” in order to act as a good “professional” in communication.
It is to tell us, in the simplest and clearest words possible, what it is.
Without eye powder or bullshit.
Usually, the communications experts are there to help politicians to step aside and talk to say nothing.
Is that what we want?