CDC Ownership of Communication Challenges Discussed

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — the CDC — has expressed it knows it needs to change its culture and restore public trust. Its comments, at least on the surface, appear self aware and responsible. Is there depth being communicated in the organization’s recent public statement?

A story about it was reported by Brenda Goodman at CNN.

CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky has said she intends to help the agency move faster when it responds to a public health crisis, wants to make collaboration simpler and is committed to creating a more clear and user-friendly website. She also did some public relations work by commenting directly to public concerns.

“My goal is a new, public health action-oriented culture at CDC that emphasizes accountability, collaboration, communication, and timelines,” Walensky said. She later added, “For 75 years, CDC and public health have been preparing for Covid-19, and in our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations.”

As to whether these statements soothed criticisms and the language used was effective, is a worthy conversation.

The CDC’s communication was examined and analyzed in January of this year in the article — The CDC Has a Communications Problem, How Should Director Walensky Deal with the 24/7 News Cycle? — by Gil Bashe, the chair of Global Health and Purpose at Finn Partners and also editor in chief at Medika Life.

“CDC Issues management and crisis communicators should keep in mind that audiences’ patience with government experts and noted scientists has worn thin. When the gurus of virology, biology, infectious disease and other medical disciplines don’t provide consistent answers, the media taps perfectly polished and ready-to-go TV pundits waiting in the wings,” he wrote.

“Some of them offer suppositions as though they were facts; these appeal to consumers’ urgent need for information, junk or otherwise. Others are ‘pundits with a cause’ spouting ideologies aimed at satisfying their ‘heels-dug-in’ followers in red or blue tribes.”

An important questioned needs to be asked, and Bashe did. He also answered it.

Gil Bashe is the chair of Global Health and Purpose at Finn Partners and also editor in chief at Medika Life.

“Can we live with ambiguity? The short answer may be ‘no.’ We have become a nation of consumers that expect, if not demand, resolution now. Deferring gratification is becoming an unknown concept, and our desire for immediate resolution works against CDC ability to help the public understand open-ended situations — and COVID is a very big unresolved situation,” he wrote.

“When ‘now’ is all that matters, people look to fill the information gap like a hungry teenager gobbling bags of junk food.”

In short, he concluded, again, back in January, that the, “CDC’s current communications approach serves no one’s interests and continues to lead to fear, confusion and mistrust. Leaning on inside-the-beltway political communications consultants is not the answer.”

As for the organization’s latest communication, Bashe approves of the approach yet sees the missed opportunity as an error.

CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky

“Director Walensky is transparent, but not timely. For decades we have been sowing fields of scientific doubt and global health disparities,” he says. “The 24/7 news cycle gives equal voice to naysayers of ‘possibilities,’ and hypotheses to keep many wondering.

“Social media feeds on placing clinical experts on an even par with skeptics and anti-vaxxers. We are stuck — a paralysis that contributed to some more than one million COVID-related deaths in the United States alone. Science is about applying learning. Director Walensky is spot on to move forward.” 

Walensky talked about the CDC’s “big moment” and said “our performance did not reliably meet expectations.” This strong admittance by a leader is rare. Yet maybe not impressive to everyone.

“Crisis communications is like jazz,” says Matt Weaver, senior vice president at Actual Agency, a Millwright Agency. “Sometimes it's the notes you don't play that make all the difference. That's exactly what we're witnessing with the CDC. The language used may seem powerful at first blush, but in reality they are just vague terms intended to show empathy. They want to enjoy the optics of being transparent.”

He explains this analysis by adding, “Walensky highlighted a few changes for the CDC that include hiring more staff for a team that responds to public health emergencies, releasing data and scientific findings more quickly, and to ensure the CDC’s messaging is in plain language. But there is no actionable plan on how and when these measures will be put into place. And that is very intentional.”

Bashe sees it differently.

“The ‘big moment’ is part of a series of big moments that go back to the polio, AIDs and other epidemic panics,” he says.

“But the communication playbook changed. CDC was competing for voice time with social media influencers – even sports celebrities – who blurred and added their own points of view.

“We live under a steady drip of unknown threats, and our access to constant information — pushed via phone alerts and constant social and traditional media updates — transforms what we hear into what we fear. (The) CDC will need to reboot how it engages in a world where everyone has voice.”