Writing about internal communications

For free. 

I sort of don’t mind LinkedIn even if it is full of people madly patting each other on the back. So much PATTING it’s incredible. You see one person retweet an achievement. You see another person commenting “Congratulations” it’s one thing and the next. 

A virtual schmoozefest.

But it has been around for a while and is based on the idea that people have to declare their identity. So props for being sensible. Recently I’d seen things appearing in my feed asking me to contribute to stories. Today I saw an inmail regarding the same thing. I’ll include it below.

Inmail is a tool LinkedIn gives people letting them message each other. With a subscription you can send messages to people you’re not connected to.

As you can see from the above the company disabled replies. I wanted to ask them if they’d be paying me for my expertise. It was disappointing that the only thing I wanted from LinkedIn that they hadn’t already provided wasn’t mentioned. It’s like AI, the big companies want to get the content but they don’t want to have to pay any money for it. Big tech likes to get rich but sharing some of that bounty with struggling writers isn’t part of the getting-rich plan.

Now, I’ve been in business since 1985 and have written countless emails, messages, letters, postcards, you name it even end-of-year cards that they use in Japan. So it’s only right that to get the benefit of that expertise LinkedIn should pay me something that I can actually use: some cash. 

Hoo!

On the other hand maybe I should get involved just to get my name out there. Presumably LinkedIn has a mechanism with these stories to publicise the names of the people who are involved in their capacity as writers. With this insight ringing in my head I visited the post again and added comments to two parts of one article about writing. To minimise the effort involved in this task I reused some text I’d written some years before for my daughter who, at that time, had writing plans of her own. In the end she ditched them but I kept the MS-Word file on my computer which I found. I did some more of these posts later on, I mean on subsequent days because I felt like I knew something about internal communications. After all I’d worked in PR – both internal and external – for a decade. No, more than a decade, because my work with the change manager at Sydney University was also internal communications. So that’s 9 years in Japan plus sic years in Sydney: a total of 15 years in IC. Then there was my work with Eastern Suburbs Art Group from 2022 to the present. Total: 17 years.

I felt I had something to contribute. The money could wait. I needed to get a few things off my chest. I wrote for free and it felt GOOD.

Peter Greste talk on a media freedom law sponsored by Macquarie Uni

Last week I went along to a talk and discussion in the centre of town on one high floor of 123 Pitt Street above Martin Place, where I waited the view over the skyline and the harbour was very scenic, the sound of glasses clinking in the background accompaniment to the spectacle I took in from a comfortable seat. I felt privileged to be so high up I was able to see the water. A helicopter flew from left to right and the grey water rippled.

Greste has ideas about a media freedom law and it would take the form of a system in order to address the problem of complacency in a community where the reputation of journalists is low. How to get support from government and people when journos are sort of like pornographers in the reputation stakes? Greste’s response to this issue is a certification process where instead of accrediting specified individuals on the basis of their place of work, or on the basis of the number of hours a week they practice the craft, you get a panel of experts to certify the process they use. This would allow bloggers and random tweeters to have the same access to protection under a potential media freedom law.

Greste also talked about the “grey zone” where meaningful conversations occur, and he says it is diminishing. He pointed out that ISIS had quoted George Bush admiringly where he says, “You’re either with us or against us,” in the aftermath of 9/11, and noted for the record (two cameras were operating at the back of the room, aimed above attendees’ heads) that most laws in Australia that restrict media freedom had been introduced since 2001.

It's in the interest of everybody to have a free press, and Greste described how public costs invariably go up where there is no media oversight. The relationship between the media and politicians is inextricable, he said, the two sets of people being intimately bound together so that the role of either one is unimaginable without the other.

Fran Kelly was on the panel after Greste’s talk and she highlighted the difficulty of getting support for such a certification board. I sort of agree with her, the way the public sphere operates today the nuance and subtlety of Greste’s ideas would be erased by flame wars and people would merely object to another faceless institution having power over their destinies. Politicians would have a key role to play in furthering the public interest in the face of such debates.

The man who invited me to the event arrived almost at start time and the university’s VC was there to give moral support to Greste, whom he praised. A range of people were in attendance, men and women, and there were a number of questions from the audience to lend variety to the evening. I left to get the train home without staying for refreshments, saying goodbye to my friend in the foyer, but thought about how journalists might improve their standing in the community by being more intelligent as to how they go about their business. Instead of following the herd they might be more selective and ignore party platforms. Instead they might look to the future taking the long view, and be more transparent.