Reference no: EM132152951

It is so easy, often too easy, for a message to be misinterpreted. Consider the following incident. Albert Fernandez, a State Department official, was interviewed on Al-Jazeera television late in 2006. In that interview, he said, in Arabic, ““History will decide what role the United States played. And God willing, we tried to do our best in Iraq. But I think there is a big possibility (inaudible) for extreme criticism and because undoubtedly there was arrogance and stupidity from the United States in Iraq.”[1] The statement caused an uproar in U.S. government circles, where it was perceived as being critical of U.S. foreign policy. However, a CNN interview with Fernandez offered a different interpretation. “Fernandez told CNN he was replying to a question about how people will assess the United States in the future, and he said he thought that was how the country would be judged. He was defending U.S. policy in a region where everyone dislikes the United States, he said, and was doing so in an aggressive way that was faithful to U.S. policy, and trying to put it in the best light. Fernandez said he was “not dissing U.S. policy." “I know what the policy is and what the red lines are, and nothing I said hasn't been said before by senior officials,” the diplomat told CNN. “Nothing I said during this interview broke new ground.”

Question: What went wrong in this communication process? What recommendations would you offer to minimize the likelihood of a recurrence?