We’re all too familiar with the “give me the bad news first” scenario.

Kathy Kerchner’s post about Wells Fargo is worth looking at from a communications standpoint. As Kerchner observed, “never underestimate the media’s desire to focus on ‘what’s wrong,’ not on ‘what’s right.’ ” Wells Fargo essentially had a good news story that got upstaged by a bad news scenario framed by a loaded reference (to the Great Depression.) We communicators always push people in the organization to use colorful examples –stripped of insider jargon– when speaking to the media. But how they use the quote is never within our control.

If I am to switch hats for a moment, as a writer I always look for those colorful quotes because they tell me something about the problem of opportunity, often the back story. A metaphor sometimes humanizes a very complex topic. (For an example of this, see my weekly roundup of quotes for the week, that I pick because they succinctly describe in a few words the issue.) It is very tempting to lead with a negative statement, and follow it up with a positive one. This does not necessarily mean the writer is obsessed with bad news, just that he/she is seeing the story in a problem/solution format.

Here’s a story from NPR yesterday about “dozens of bald eagles” that died when they dove into a truck loaded with fish guts, and got into a feeding frenzy. Terrible story, but guess what? Although 20 eagles died in the mishap, 30 were rescued. Was this a good news or a bad news story? The headline was “20 eagles die, 30 recovering after feeding frenzy.” It could have been worse, in the Wells Fargo story approach: “Alaska cannery blamed for death of 20 bald eagles.”