I am super-appeciative of GLS and Thirteen (Logan) taking the time to "interact with our community" (I said it would be about cliches), and build bridges that ought to be built.  So, this three-part (yowch!) essay is not "aimed" at the folks that GLS mentions in his comment "Analytical vs. Un-Analytical," but is merely "riffing" off the ideas he touches on.

He discusses commonly-expressed frustration, which I completely understand, with decisions based on "veteran grit," "leadership," "playing the game the right way," and the ever-popular "knowing how to win."

My only caution, and what moves me to type, is to distinguish between being frustrated with the depiction of the decision as it comes to the general public and being frustrated with the actual decision process.

And I'm not saying that GLS or anyone from other blogs doesn't make that distinction, only that I thought I'd offer some insight about it from my experience "inside" a different area that also garners media attention, for what it's worth.

Let's start with the "old-school" pre-Internet way of doing things, which hasn't really changed ... as much as it has continued to operate side-by-side with the "new-school."

***

How information gets from "inside" to "outside"

• Most commonly, particularly in "routine" situations, information comes from some media relations person to the media.  These folks have a symbiotic relationship.  The PR people exist to give information, and the media people exist to receive it.
• In addition, certain jobs (such as being CEO or Head Coach or Speaker) have a "PR" component as spokesperson for an organization.  Some people who take on such roles are more gifted at this aspect of the job than others.
• The media relations person (and/or person with a "spokesperson" role):

     (1) may be savvy;

     (2) may be devious;

     (3) may be, with or without the sanction of the employer, a liar;

     (4) may be lazy, or, at least, not particularly interested in doing more than the minimum to keep the job; and

     (5) almost certainly is some combination of all of the above in varying degrees at varying times.

***

How information from the "inside" gets to the "general public"

• Traditionally, the media would decide what was important, and use their outlets to inform "the people."
• The media person:

     (1) may want to "get the real story" and try to;

     (2) may want to "get the real story" and be prevented from doing so for various reasons, good and bad (maybe deviousness, maybe sensitivity to a sympathetic "cause" that could be impacted, maybe budget, maybe just having higher priorities);

     (3) may want to "get the real story" but may be lazy, or, at least, not particularly interested in doing more than the minimum to keep the job;

     (4) may not really care about getting "the real story" at all; and

     (5) almost certainly is some combination of all of the above in varying degrees at varying times.

***

The "general public":

     (1) Isn't invested in any one area to care enough as the "devotees" of that subject do.  Always and everywhere.

     (2) Doesn't live for "serious" news.  There was a time with "good government" types and classical political scientists would "wring their hands" over this.  "Most people can't even name one Supreme Court justice!  The horror! The horror!"  Well, it turns out people learn plenty without scouring the fine print of the New York Times (how much they pay for gas, or milk, or health insurnace; whether their neighbor or their cousin or their son is unemployed, or getting foreclosed upon, or in the military; whether their retirement account is shriveling up or booming).

     (3) Isn't going to comb through the 500-page transcript or the spreadsheet of statistics on its own.

***

Most specific decisions are not inevitable

• "We will defeat Germany" is not "We will hit the beach at Normandy on June 6" and certainly not "This unit will be on this boat and will be on the right flank."
• In other words, every decision is almost always one of dozens of possibilities.
• Sometimes the final outcome is fairly "pre-ordained"; sometimes it "came out of nowhere."  Sometimes everything is set in advance and the whole process is "Kabuki Theatre."  Sometimes it's the opposite: there's a chance encounter; someone doesn't show up for a meeting; someone is in a bad mood; someone spills Diet Coke on the piece of paper that would have mattered.  Usually it's some of both.

***

There is an unavoidable devolution to cliches, platitudes, buzzwords and double-speak!

• There is an inevitable need to "oversimplify" -- most recipients of the information don't care about the complexities.
• There is an inevitable need to be "vague" -- even if the PR people aren't trying to "cover up," they are nonetheless "protective" of their organization, its "trade secrets" or the like, and its reputation.  Again, whether devious, savvy or lazy, they all point in the same direction.
• There is an inveitable need for the "shortcut" -- again, not necessarily out of laziness (although sometimes), but out of time or budget or low priority or whatever.
• All of which lead to cliches and empty buzzwords ... the "fast food" of information!  Cheap, easy, bland!

***

So, that's a long way of saying:

     Cliche/buzzwords offered as pretextual explanation of decision

           [does not necessarily equal]

      Actual basis for decision