My sincerest apologies to Marsha.  I didn't mean to make it look like my post was directed at her.  I realize her name was in one of the quotes from the article, I should have tried to edit it better so that it was removed.  I am aware, and I assumed after so many discussions on Lactnet, that most others readers would also understand that the reporters put that label on her, and that no one interviewed for the story would have been able to control or proof what the reporter chose to write.

The article was only the catalyst for my post, I have been thinking about this since I began thinking and reading about breastfeeding issues 5 years ago.  It is on the top on my mind now, as we launch the new "pr4bf" group to work on Public Relations for breastfeeding.  When placing messages in the media, it is very important to consider "who" is speaking, the public will recieve information differently if it is seen to have come from a gov't agency, individual health professional, advocacy group, mom, corporation, etc.  That's why all the formula co's have their "Child Health Institutes" etc (I believe Nestle, Heinz, Johnson & Johnson, all have one - and these run their conferences, issue their publications rather than doing it directly from the company.  And that's why they try to piggyback on their advisory boards's names and credentials, etc).

In a newspaper article like this one in the Tribune, where we are criticizing formula, it would have been much better if "nutritionist" or some other descriptors be used for those persons interviewed.  Because if we are "breastfeeding experts" commenting on formula is outside our area of knowledge.  After all, this situation is of little importance to breastfeeders.  The people who should be concerned are the formula feeders - and will they accept information from a breastfeeding adovcate?  Probably not.  That's why its so hard to put "Weissingerizing" into practice - if we are breastfeeding experts, we are only credible when we talk about breastfeeding, not formula.  So we talk about breastfeeding "benefits", instead of formula "risks".

Locally, I sit on the Breastfeeding Committee for Saskatchewan, and we just incorporated, so we had to decide on our "registered" name.  After much debate, we decided to stick with our name.  In our case, we have decided that our main role is in lobbying the gov't, and acting as a professional resource for breastfeeding information to health professionals.  So the name clearly identifies our purpose and what we have to offer.  But in our province, we have initiation rates of 90%.  However, we still seem to be on the sidelines when it comes to general child health initiatives, whereas I think if we had broadened our mandate to "child health" perhaps some of the $$$ would have come DIRECTLY to us, instead of us trying to fight for $$$ after they have been allocated to other groups that do have that broad mandate.  Cause really, wouldn't we say that Breastfeeding is one of the major determinants of health for children?

I realize that many of you have worked for years to get the word "breastfeeding" used, and by using it as a committee name, breastfeeding gets publicity and profile.  When people (whether gov't hp's or consumers) are specifically looking for breastfeeding information, then they can go directly to you.  When your stated purpose is lobbying, then you might as well call yourself a "breastfeeding lobbyist" or 'breastfeeding advocate".  For people who are already positive towards breastfeeding, they want to find the breastfeeding support group, or breastfeeding task force, or breastfeeding (lactation) consultant.

However, I think the term "breastfeeding" advocate can shut down communication, when used amongst breastfeeding-neutral or breastfeeding-negative persons.

I worked a "Welcome Wagon" baby shower a couple of years ago, helping to man the display for our Breastfeeding Centre.  All the expectant moms lined up to file past all the display tables.  You could see the ones who weren't wanting to breastfeed, as soon as they approached the table - as soon as they saw the big words "breastfeeding", they wouldn't make eye contact with you - most refused the pamphlets we were handing out, and you couldn't engage them in conversation.

But what if our display and handouts had said said "Child Health", or "Child Nutrition"???  They would have accepted them, and they would have looked at them, and we could have talked to them.  The handouts could still have all the good information about breastfeeding.  And at least they would have seen them.

I think we have been "hardselling" that we are breastfeeding advocates, that turns people off and puts them on the defensive, so when we want to now "hardsell" the disadvantages of formula, we look biased and people discredit what we say.  Now faced with a defensive wall, we choose instead to "softsell" breastfeeding by talking about its "benefits".

But what if we "hardsell" the fact that bottomline, we are advocates of child health, child nutrition, whatever?  If people truly believe that our agenda, first and foremost is health and happiness, then we could "hardsell" breastfeeding, by speaking the unvarnished truth.  In our province, we have Public Health Nutritionists - I think they can speak very truthfully - their title says their first priority is nutrition and they can then teach that breastfeeding is the best source for that.  However, the downside of this is, if a mom is having breastfeeding problems, she may not immediately think of or realize that she can probably get good help and information from one of them.

So maybe there is a time to be a "breastfeeding" advocate, and a time to be a "mother's" advocate, and a "child's" advocate, and  "health" advocate, a "women's right's" advocate.

I don't know much about lobbying, but I have learnt some things from being a marketing/sales person.  In both industries I worked in, we sold "solutions", not the product.  Solutions that made your office work better, and made your materials look more professional (selling photocopiers), and solutions that made you a better and more productive teacher (selling textbooks to schools).

Maybe as individuals, and in public media, we need think more about how we can show that we are providing health and happiness solutions, and that breastfeeding is "just" the way to to achieve that.

Janice Reynolds
(again apologizing for length and rambling, but I think this is a new topic and its important to discuss its nuances).



             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html