The STRATFOR Voice

The STRATFOR Voice

The STRATFOR Voice

With apologies to William Strunk, Jr., and E.B. White, authors ofThe Elements of Style, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1979.

Introduction

The “voice” of STRATFOR is the tone, tenor and pitch of the words we arrange and present to our audience. It also involves how we arrange those words, which can determine, among other things,whether we are more active or passive in our delivery. It even reflects our collective perspective, the fact that most of our analyses are peer-reviewed, unsigned and the product of many authors.

It is not easy creating and expressing a common voice using such a process. But our audience is discriminating and expects something more than what it can get from the mainstream media. This means that the STRATFOR voice must be as distinctive as the content it conveys. To achieve this distinction, it helps to think of our written voice as a sound. It is not loud, jarring or strident. Instead it is strong, smooth and composed. Our collective voice is appropriate for a sober and insightful take on world affairs.

The STRATFOR voice is also direct and unadorned. Adjectives and adverbs are used sparingly, only when they will shorten a sentence and make it easier to understand. Every word adds necessary meaning to the whole, as does every sentence and every paragraph. The STRATFOR voice is one of function, not ornament, and the function is communication in the clearest and most concise manner possible.

This does not mean our voice is monotonousor boring. Its vitality comes from its simplicity; we strive to make it less complex because our subject matter can be so complex. This means that the words must be arranged and presented in a way that sounds good to the ear, looks good to the eye and efficiently delivers the message. Clarity, specificity and accuracy are our goals; we avoid cliché, ambiguity and embellishment.Our purpose is not to challenge or amuse our readers but to enlightenthem. Consuming a STRATFOR analysis must be apleasure, not a struggle.

The STRATFOR voice is also a universal one, rendered in a non-colloquial English that can be understood by a well-informed English reader anywhere in the world.

Another aspect of “voice” is the narrative point of view of the writer. Is he or she addressing the reader in the “first person,” “second person” or “third person”? The STRATFOR voice is generally in the third person, but certain bylined pieces, depending on the topic, call for a more personal approach. These are cases (e.g., George Friedman’s geopolitical weekly) in which the author’s experiences and opinions expressed in the first person add to the credibility of the analysis. Whether using third person or first person, we must be consistent throughout a single piece.

Our voice is also slightly adjusted according to the product. STRATFOR diaries as well as weeklies are intended to be more casual and conversational while our analyses are designed to be a bit more formal and direct. For example, contractions, the second person and mild metaphorical flourishes are O.K. in the former but should be avoided in the latter. This is a subtle thing, part of the mystery of “voice” as it relates to the written word, but you should know it when you hear it.

Finally, the STRATFOR voice, regardless of product,does not sermonize. It is axiomatic in journalism for reporters to be objective, but that is impossible. Under the guise of objectivity, even as a reporter presents a narrative only as nuggets of information attributed to someone else, certain subjective leanings can be visible. They are plainly seen on a traditional newspaper’s op-ed page. But STRATFOR is not a newspaper, and its analysts and editorsare not reporters or editorial writers. Our task is to evaluate complex information gathered from around the world, make sense of it and deliver it in palatable form to our readers.

Making sense of it does involve reaching conclusions and presenting opinions, but STRATFOR makesno value judgments about the worthiness of a cause or the morality of a leader. We also keep our hubris in check and refrain from “I told you so!” statements that sound overly boastful.What we are trying to do is share a dispassionateand credible view of the world with our readers. Our medium is a window, not a pulpit.

How We Say It

Summary of the STRATFOR voice:

  • Our task is to evaluate complex information gathered from around the world, make sense of it and deliver it in palatable form to our readers.
  • These readers are discriminating and expect something more than what they can get from the mainstream media.
  • This means that the “voice” of STRATFOR voice must be as distinctive as the content it conveys.
  • To that end, the voice must be direct, dispassionate and credible.
  • It must not be loud, embellished or boastful.
  • This does not mean the STRATFOR voice is monotonous or boring. Its vitality comes from its simplicity; we strive to make it less complex because our subject matter can be so complex.
  • Our goal is to enlighten our readers, not amuse them.

Keep it Tight

Look for every opportunity to eliminate unnecessary words. For example:

  • This phrase: “The question as to whether” should be “The question whether” or (even shorter) just “Whether.”
  • “There is no doubt but that” should be “no doubt” or “doubtless.”
  • “He is a man who” should simply be “He.”

Develop the habit of using the active voice. For example:

  • This sentence: “At dawn the gunfire of the rebels could be heard” should be “Dawn came with the sound of rebel gunfire.”
  • “There were a great number of car parts lying on the street” should be “Carparts littered the street.”
  • “Upon discovery of the raffle and the three upgraded cells, the cells were dismantled by authorities” should be “After discovering the raffle and three upgraded cells, authorities dismantled the cells.”

Be Concrete

Deal in particulars and include the details that matter. For example:

  • This sentence: “A period of unfavorable weather set in” should be “It rained every day for a week.”
  • “He showed satisfaction as he took possession of his well-earned reward” should be “He grinned when he accepted the captured sword and slipped it under his belt.”
  • “The person kidnapped, a wealthy businessman from Monterrey, was found unharmed the next day” should be “Police found the abductee, vice president of the Monterrey-based steel company Hylsamex, unharmed in the trunk of an abandoned car the next day.”

Listen to the Rhythm of the Writing

Vary syntax and avoid strict symmetry. For example:

  • This is clunky and longer than it needs to be: “MacBeth was very ambitious. This led him to wish to become king of Scotland. The witches told him that this wish of his would come true. The king of Scotland at this time was Duncan. Encouraged by his wife, MacBeth murdered Duncan. He was thus enabled to succeed Duncan as king.”
  • This is not: “Encouraged by his wife, MacBeth achieved his ambition and realized the prediction of the witches by murdering Duncan and becoming king of Scotland in his place.”

Mix “loose” sentences and “periodic” sentencesand avoid a monotonous succession of either type in one paragraph. For example:

  • A loose sentence begins with the main clause (or point) and continues with subordinate elements, as in: “I found a large hall, obviously a former garage, dimly lit, and packed with cots.”
  • In a periodic sentence, subordinate elements precede the main clause or split it in two, as in: “Democracy is that system of government under which people, having 60,000,000 native-born adults to choose from, including thousands who are handsome and many who are wise, pick out a Coolidge to be head of state.”

Keep related words together. For example:

  • This sentence: “He only found two mistakes” should be “He found only two mistakes.”
  • “He noticed a large stain in the rug that was right in the center” should be “He noticed a large stain right in the center of the rug.”
  • “Either you must grant his request or incur his ill will” should be “You must either grant his request or incur his ill will.”

Strive for parallel construction. For example:

  • This phrase: “A time not for words but action” should be “A time not for words but for action.”
  • “The French, the Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese” should be “the French, the Italians, the Spanish and the Portuguese.”
  • “His speech was marked by disagreement and scorn for his opponent’s position” should be “His speech was marked by disagreement with and scorn for his opponent’s position.”

Don’t Be Insistent or Let Your Hubris Show

All it takes is a slight tweak. For example:

  • This sentence: “If existing ethnic policies prove counterproductive, in the buffer regions and elsewhere, Beijingmust take a different approach” should be “If existing ethnic policies prove counterproductive, in the buffer regions and elsewhere, Beijing may have to take a different approach.”
  • “As the only truly global power in the modern age, STRATFOR could write a book on the potential threats to American power (in fact, our founder, Dr. Friedman, has done just that).” This is an excellent example of a dangling participle, but I believe it has Freudian undertones.
  • And referring to George on first reference as “Dr. Friedman” is pretentious. In fact, I would lose the “Dr.” (sounds like we’re trying to market a brand like “Dr. Phil”) and simply refer to him as “our founder, George Friedman.”James Traub, writing for Foreign Policymagazine (Aug. 19, 2011),actually makes fun of this affectation in his “shout out” to George and STRATFOR:

“Friedman is the armchair Metternich of Stratfor, a ‘global intelligence’ firm whose highly informed analyses of world events -- often by former intelligence officials -- have been arriving, uninvited but very welcome, in my e-mail inbox for the last few years. Friedman -- sorry, ‘Dr. George Friedman’
-- is Stratfor's founder and CEO, an international affairs theorist of the old school who views geopolitics as the clash of state interests.” Traub refers to George in the next sentence as“The good doctor” (and goes on to agree, I might add, with much of what George said in a recent weekly).

  • It is perfectly fine to point out our forecasting hits, when we get something right, but we should refrain from being too self-laudatory. Just keep it short and sweet: “As STRATFOR accurately predicted in its 2009 annual forecast” should simply be: “As STRATFOR predicted in its 2009 annual forecast” (“accurately predicted” would be redundant, in any case).
  • And remind the reader of this only when it is relevant to the discussion and can be linked to a previous piece.

Don’t be Dramatic

The horror of human conflict needs no amplification; just try to be truthful and tell it like it is. Again, it’s often a matter of just a word or two. For example:

  • “Gunmen entered the village on the night of April 3 and slaughtered more than 50 if its inhabitants with small-arms fire” should be “Gunmen entered the village on the night of April 3 and killed more than 50 of its inhabitants with small-arms fire.”
  • Avoid “police blotter” style: “At approximately 3:02 a.m. local time on the night of April 3, three individuals armed with assault rifles entered the village.” This is better: “Three gunmen with assault rifles entered the village shortly after 3 a.m. on April 3.”

Tell a Story

•Begin at the beginning.

•Allude to your thesis early on and make it clear why the reader should continue reading.

•Make it easy for him or her to do that.

•Pull the reader further in with specificity, clarity and well-chosen words.

•Make absolutely no attempt to be cute.

Do it Like This

Good examples of goodSTRATFOR writing:

  • The lead-in paragraphs of Stick’s June 30, 2011, security weekly “The Seattle Plot: Jihadists Shifting Away From Civilian Targets?”

“On June 22 in a Seattle warehouse, Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif pulled an unloaded M16 rifle to his shoulder, aimed it and pulled the trigger repeatedly as he imagined himself gunning down young U.S. military recruits. His longtime friend,WalliMujahidh, did likewise with an identical rifle, assuming a kneeling position as he engaged his notional targets. The two men had come to the warehouse with another man to inspect the firearms the latter had purchased with money Abdul-Latif had provided him. The rifles and a small number of hand grenades were to be used in an upcoming mission: an attack on a U.S. Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in an industrial area south of downtown Seattle….”

After a second paragraph elaborating on the two would-be jihadists’ apprehension is this concise third paragraph, which clearly explains to the reader why this case is worth writing about:

“While the behavior of Abdul-Latif and Mujahidh in this plot demonstrates that they were amateur “wannabe” jihadists rather than seasoned terrorist operatives, their plot could have ended very differently if they had found a kindred spirit in the man they approached for help instead of someone who turned them into the authorities. This case also illustrates some important trends in jihadist terrorism that we have been watching for the past few years as well as a possible shift in mindset within the jihadist movement.”

  • The lead paragraph and concluding paragraph from George’s Aug. 5, 2008,geopolitical weekly “Solzhenitsyn and the Struggle for Russia's Soul”:

“There are many people who write history. There are very few who make history through their writings. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who died this week at the age of 89, was one of them. In many ways, Solzhenitsyn laid the intellectual foundations for the fall of Soviet communism. That is well known. But Solzhenitsyn also laid the intellectual foundation for the Russia that is now emerging. That is less well known, and in some ways more important.”

Then his conclusion:

“Solzhenitsyn was far more prophetic about the future of the Soviet Union than almost all of the Ph.D.s in Russian studies. We should entertain the possibility that the rest of Solzhenitsyn’s vision will come to pass. It is an idea that ought to cause the world to be very thoughtful.”

  • Lead-in and conclusion of the Feb. 24, 2009, geopolitical diary, “Public Divisions Among the Palestinians”:

“Hamas said on Monday that a delegation led by the group’s No. 2 official, Moussa Abu Marzouk, would attend Egyptian-sponsored talks with rival group Fatah in Cairo on Tuesday. In addition to the Hamas-Fatah negotiations, Cairo will be hosting a conference of 13 Palestinian factions who will discuss the future of the Fatah-dominated Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Even as Hamas and Fatah prepared for the talks, relations between the two remained tense, with Hamas accusing the Fatah-dominated Palestinian National Authority of collaborating with Israel during the recent Gaza offensive.

“There has been, in effect, a civil war within the Palestinian community for years, pitting two radically different visions of Palestine against each other. The older tradition represented by Fatah was secular and socialist, and above all, pan-Arab. Islam was incidental to what it believed, and in some ways it was hostile to Islam, and to Islamic states like Saudi Arabia. Fatah derived its existence from Egypt under Gamal Abdul Nasser and was part of his historic alignment with the Soviet Union. Indeed, during the 1970s in particular, Fatah itself was closely aligned with the Soviet Union. It represented a very different Palestine from the one Hamas has in mind.”

Last two paragraphs:

“The current tensions between Fatah and Hamas are not new; the two sides have been at war for years. Though a stalemate of sorts exists between them, Hamas wants to supplant Fatah. It is unlikely that Hamas can do that. Hamas is at home in Gaza. It is far less at home in the West Bank. What Hamas has done, however, is give Israel precisely what it wanted. There is now a very public civil war between the two Palestinian regions and factions. Hamas clearly thinks it has an opening, given the aging leadership of Fatah and the movement’s lack of charisma. But Fatah is a mature and wily entity. It won’t go gentle into that good night — and it has the support, ironically, of Israel and many Arab countries worried about the rise of Muslim Brotherhood-type Islamism.

“Hamas will not defeat Fatah quickly — and the longer the struggle continues the more Israel benefits.”

  • The teaser, summary, lead-in and conclusion from the May 27, 2011, analysis “Yemen’s Tribal Troubles”:

Teaser:

“The Hashid offensive on Sanaa has brought to light the fundamental tension between the modern Yemeni state and its tribal foundation.”
Summary:

“The past six days of heavy fighting in Yemen’s capital between forces loyal to the president and armed tribesmen led by the country’s most influential sheikh are spreading legitimate fears of an impending civil war. With the writ of the Yemeni state eroding, the president’s opponents are falling back on “urf,” or tribal law, which the state has traditionally used to govern the country, in order to find a way out of the political crisis. But the power of urf is not what it used to be in Yemen, and the growing reliance on a weakened tribal code in a state under siege could further divide the country.”

Top View