Jun 16, 2026 · 49 min · 13 segments
If you've ever used "narrative," "messaging," and "communication strategy" as if they meant the same thing, this episode sorts that out fast. Host Pete Altman sits down with Francesca Koe — a…
No entities detected.
Francesca KoeGuest
Pete AltmanHost
And I would say that the story of that was the story of health and the fact that, you know, this was about pollution, pollution impacting our families and our neighborhoods.
And, you know, maybe not all of us know or care about a polar bear, but we all probably know the people in our neighborhoods or if we're living in an area where there's a refinery and we know that it is creating problems for people, especially the most vulnerable populations, which could be the youngest or the oldest or the people that we're taking care of.
But the material benefit of stopping that pollution is what made sense to people.
there's often a real strong compulsion to be precise in the terminology we use, particularly the more sort of insidery you are to the policy world and the legal world and understanding the science and the terms like, I think it's hard to judge at what point can you just use more generalized language that regular people are going to understand versus when you have to be, like, very specific and use the terms... that probably more just experts are familiar with.
And I think that what is so important, especially now, is rigor, having rigor.
having, I welcome and value and appreciate the experts, but we still need to then translate what they're providing us in a way that, you know, I had mentioned to you this idea of shared language.
So if the rigor is the foundation, the shared language of, well, what are the impacts? What does that mean to you? As opposed to arguing, should we call it global warming or climate change or whatever the argument might have been at the time.
You know, it's really about an and, right? We need that rigor and we need to understand what those implications are and how that impacts us.
And we need to communicate it in a way that that we're meeting people where they are and hearing what's important to them and hearing what matters to them.
And it probably always has been an and, but it's sort of we got stuck in the tension of, you know, we need to convince people and describe what's happening versus we need to engage and bring people along.
And I would say that the story of that was the story of health and the fact that, you know, this was about pollution, pollution impacting our families and our neighborhoods.
And, you know, maybe not all of us know or care about a polar bear, but we all probably know the people in our neighborhoods or if we're living in an area where there's a refinery and we know that it is creating problems for people, especially the most vulnerable populations, which could be the youngest or the oldest or the people that we're taking care of.
But the material benefit of stopping that pollution is what made sense to people.
there's often a real strong compulsion to be precise in the terminology we use, particularly the more sort of insidery you are to the policy world and the legal world and understanding the science and the terms like, I think it's hard to judge at what point can you just use more generalized language that regular people are going to understand versus when you have to be, like, very specific and use the terms... that probably more just experts are familiar with.
And I think that what is so important, especially now, is rigor, having rigor.
having, I welcome and value and appreciate the experts, but we still need to then translate what they're providing us in a way that, you know, I had mentioned to you this idea of shared language.
So if the rigor is the foundation, the shared language of, well, what are the impacts? What does that mean to you? As opposed to arguing, should we call it global warming or climate change or whatever the argument might have been at the time.
You know, it's really about an and, right? We need that rigor and we need to understand what those implications are and how that impacts us.
And we need to communicate it in a way that that we're meeting people where they are and hearing what's important to them and hearing what matters to them.
And it probably always has been an and, but it's sort of we got stuck in the tension of, you know, we need to convince people and describe what's happening versus we need to engage and bring people along.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.