You know what I'm talking about. Osama. Usama. However you spell it in your culture.
But the spelling is not the important part. Nor was his death, in a sense.
It was the way various parts of the world reacted to that news. In Washington, DC, there were thousands of people celebrating in the streets. Other areas were more muted in their acceptance of the information. Nearly as fast, blogs and other writers began commenting on the morality of celebrating a death, even if that person were responsible for the death and suffering of so many.
But that morality question is not the point of this post.
It all comes down to the fact that different people, from a variety of cultures, respond to the same information in sometimes completely opposite ways.
And we sometimes forget that in the environmental field.
"A big, bad company is destroying an important place! You should care and do something about it!" we say. Who responds? Only those we already had "on our side". So how do we generate the response we want (action, activism, passion) in a group that is not receptive to the general message as written?
Make it fit them. Learn what drives these varying groups of people. What are their concerns? When we can scale and frame an issue into the world view they possess, then support will simply follow. It is suddenly in their best interest to speak out.
One size message does not fit all. For some, that previous example is all you need. Another community may respond better with, "Jobs, health impacts likely from specific damaging action. Work with others in your town hall to send a message supporting your children's future."
Dancing in the streets. A solemn, candlelit talk. Two ways of expressing the same emotion.