The Art of Explanation, with Ros Atkins and Servane Mouazan
In this episode of Be & Think in the House of Trust, Servane is listening to Ros Atkins, journalist and BBC News Analysis Editor, known for his ability to distil complex news stories into crisp, accessible formats.
With a mix of wisdom and humility, Ros shares his insights from his book “The Art of Explanation: How to Communicate with Clarity and Confidence,” offering a masterclass on conveying information with care to diverse audiences.
We discuss the role of precision and curiosity to build and deliver a powerful message.
Ros stresses how crucial it is to understand different stakeholders’ perspectives to ensure clarity and resonance. Sometimes it is about accepting we don’t know, especially when concepts can mean different things in different contexts.
He also recounts the journey of the BBC’s 50:50 campaign. As the founder of 50:50, Ros guided the project from a month-long experiment in early 2017 to the global initiative it has become. This story highlights the significance of empathy, voluntary participation, and the power of proof in driving successful advocacy.
Tune in for an episode full of pragmatic and actionable examples!
The Art of Explanation (Book) https://geni.us/TAOEBOOK
Ros Atkins on Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins
Ros Atkins https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=ros+atkins
The Media Show on BBC Radio Four https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001t9j
50 50 Campaign https://www.bbc.co.uk/5050
>> Servane Mouazan: So welcome to be and think in the House of Trust. My name is Servane Mouazan from Conscious Innovation. This podcast is a thinking environment for people who ignite social and environmental impacts through their actions and investments. We look at the conditions that generate more trust, more effective and kind collaborations. Sometimes we look at how to embrace complexity and how to explain it with more ease. This is why today I have the pleasure of welcoming Ros Atkins, journalist, BBC News analysis editor, who crunches the biggest news stories for a global, diverse audience. You may have seen his crisp, viral, short explainer videos on tv and various platforms and he helps us make sense of current affairs. Ros also presents the Media Show on BBC Radio Four, and he's also a drum and bass lover and dj. He recently wrote a book, the Art of Explanation, How to Communicate with Clarity and Confidence. I put it into practice and it works. mhm.
>> Ros Atkins: Welcome, Ros Servane, thank you very much for that kind introduction. Thanks for having me.
>> Servane Mouazan: This is lovely to have you. So for context, so we know a little bit more about you, you seem to enjoy grappling with challenging news that looks overwhelming and big. Where does that passion and joy come from?
>> Ros Atkins: Well, I think every story has within it lots of complexities, and every story that you cover as a journalist, whether you're a local journalist, national journalist, international journalist, always has more information than you could include. And so you're having to make decisions about what complexities to include and not include, what details to include and not include. So for me, grappling with complexities, communicating about events or issues to your audience as effectively as you can, is right at the heart of all the work that journalists do, because it's not just enough to think about what information do I want to pass on to our audience, though, of course, that's a really important question. You also have to think about, well, how can I pass that on in a way that works best for the people I'm hoping this information will reach. And so for me, being a journalist has to involve that grappling, that process of handling the information and arranging it. And of course, depending on the types of journalism you do, whether you're a digital journalist or a tv journalist or an audio journalist, whatever the case may be I do a lot of videos at the moment. You'll come up with different answers because you, um, are dealing in different communication forms, but the fundamental purpose at the heart of it is the same for all journalists, which is what's the information I need to pass on? And how do I put that in a form that works best for the people that I'm trying to reach. And as I've gone through my career as a journalist, it's become more and more apparent to me that, uh, the skills and calculations that I've needed to use to try and do my job effectively as a news journalist are massively relevant to other areas of my work and indeed relevant to some parts of my life outside of my work as well.
>> Servane Mouazan: So sharing, passing information, curiosity, I'm trying to get to the seed of that joy.
>> Ros Atkins: Well, it just seems to me that the end goal and the process are wrapped up here in that if you are a journalist, you have to be curious about the world around you. Curiosity is central to being a journalist. You have to see that something's happened and want to go, well, why did it happen? And why did the people within this event do the things they're doing? Or why did they say what they said? Or how does this fit into broader events? That curiosity is driving all the questions that underpin our, uh, journalistic work. So you have to be curious about that. But of course, there's a parallel curiosity, which is, what's the best way of passing this on? Because there's not a fixed answer. The answer, if you'd asked me as a journalist starting out in my 20s, what's the best way of passing this information on? Would not necessarily be the same that I'd give you as a journalist in my late 40s grappling with this. Because, of course, the way we all consume information, the way we all want information, changes. And for me, this kind of cuts to something quite fundamental, which isn't just about journalism, it's about all acts of communication, which is if we spend all of our time focused on what we want to say and not very much time at all on how we're going to say it. There's a risk that all that hard and important work that we've done on working out what's the best information on this particular subject doesn't get wasted, but perhaps doesn't reach its potential because we haven't also thought about the second part of the equation. And so I always say, explanation for me is about style and substance. You've got to have the substance. You've got to have the information that really matters. But you do also need to think about the form, the style that that information takes.
>> Servane Mouazan: Oh, so let's talk about style. I saw an old BBC interview, uh, with singer songwriter Joni Mitchell, and she was saying, to make an ideal communication, to get close to the truth, you have to address yourself to at least four spirits. There has to be something for the heart, something for the intellect, something for the sensuality and sensation. And it has to be some wit. Direct hits, brief and clear. And she says, when you get the right amount of these vegetables into the broth, literally, she said that, then it's satisfying to me personally. So, Ros how do you connect to Joni Mitchell's recipe? And what pinches of salt would you add to that based on your evolution around communication?
>> Ros Atkins: Well, I'm a big fan of Joni Mitchell, as you'll know, because I mentioned her in the book, and she is, of course, a brilliant artist who is achieving things that very few people have managed to do, armed just with a guitar and a piano and an incredible voice. I think clearly Joni Mitchell is working to artistic purposes and artistic outcomes. Um, I think what she highlights is interesting. The only thing I would say is that for me, the range of things that I would look to deploy, to hopefully communicate successfully, would in part depend on what I was trying to pass on and the environment in which I was doing it. Now, Joni Mitchell is always an artist. Whether she's painting, whether she's creating music. She has a deep artistic purpose. For me, my purpose, I think is different in that. Well, obviously it's different to Joni Mitchell. That's a statement of the office. But what I meant was that in different things that I'm doing, my purpose is different. So if I'm sending you a simple email about the practicalities of this podcast, well, some of those things that Joni Mitchell is describing aren't necessarily things that I need to follow, because I just need to give you the information about my availability, or you need to give me the information about what link I need to click on and so on. So there are times when communication can be more functional than what Joni Mitchell is suggesting. However, there is an important lesson in what she tells us, which is that you first of all, do need that discipline about what you want to say and how you want to get it across. A lot of people, and I put this in the book, describe Joni Mitchell's work on, say, her album Blue as precise. She's using precision, and there is a precision about her playing, about her singing, about the language that she chooses, and us being precise when we communicate. I always think that is a useful thing. There are also other important lessons there, such as narrative. Joni Mitchell uses narrative incredibly effectively to make the emotional points that she's trying to make. Now, clearly, the kind of information I'm communicating is very different to her. But there were also important lessons for me there, because for me, the storytelling techniques, the narrative devices that I use as I try and pass on information can be really the thing that may make or break whether people stay with me or not. And so you mentioned my explainer videos at the beginning. Of course, my first job is to make sure they're full of the most important information for you on the subject that I'm telling you about. But actually, if I want you to stay with me for 4567 minutes, it's going to be really helpful if I find a way of telling a story with that information that makes you want to, once you want to hear the end. And so the use of narrative in that situation can be very, you know, the comparisons between the work that I'm doing and the incredible work that Joni Mitchell is doing is definitely limited, and I wouldn't want to overstretch it. But what I find fascinating about her is that she has clearly thought very carefully about what it requires to do what she does so well. M and in a very different way. And I should keep emphasizing that the comparison is limited in a very different way. I have found it useful to stop and think in lots of different scenarios when I'm communicating. What is the combination of devices, of techniques, of approaches that I can use to give myself the best chance of communicating in that moment? And, of course, what I need to do when I'm sending you an email about the practicalities of this podcast is not the same as talking to a big meeting of colleagues about an idea I'm trying to get off the ground. So we have to use different devices, different techniques in different situations.
>> Servane Mouazan: So you have to find your poetry in the precision of your words. You have to find poetry in whatever you can find.
>> Ros Atkins: Well, look, I think what is definitely true, and I talk about this in the book, is I talk about high impact phrases, and I think if you can find forms of words or types of language or turns of phrase that you can feel is really working to convey an idea or an aspiration or an ambition, or whatever it may be or a request, hold on to them. They're very, very powerful. And one of the things, um, that I try and do when I'm communicating is, first of all, in advance of communicating, think about what phrases could I use that would capture what I'm trying to get across. But then sometimes I'll use a phrase in the moment, and I can kind of feel that it's resonated with whoever I'm communicating with. And I always try and spot those moments and think okay, that worked. I'm going to use that again. Equally, I should say, I may have a phrase I think is really going to work, and I try it out a couple of times and I can see it just not resonating with the people I'm trying to reach, in which case I think okay, I thought that worked, but it doesn't. So that goes. But, uh, looking for turns of phrase, looking for high impact phrases that capture whatever it is you're trying to communicate is incredibly valuable because when you find one, you can just use it again and again and again when talking about that particular ambition. And of course, because you're in lots of different meetings and dealing with lots of different people, you won't sound like a stuck record because unless, uh, someone's very unlucky, they won't hear you using the same phrases again and again. And even if they do, no matter. Um, but certainly, if I look at my endeavours to get ideas off the ground at the BBC, the ones that have done where I've had the most success have all had high-impact phrases attached to them. And the ones where I've struggled a bit more have been where I haven't managed to find forms of word words that give impact and clarity to the ideas I'm trying to convey.
>> Servane Mouazan: So there is the phrases, the high impact phrases, the resonance. And that leads me to the next question. There are some words that we think resonate and that we think people understand. Just to give you an example, our audience in the house of trust are mainly people who invest in social and environmental change, and they speak to many stakeholders. And these stakeholders are different locations, countries, sectors, et, mhm. And they often, what you find is they often have different definition for what you thought was the same concept. So there we have a problem. So what is your principle? And maybe an example in the book, maybe that you can share with us or elsewhere, but to calibrate communications for different stakeholders and ensure they are all on the same wavelength.
>> Ros Atkins: Well, the first thing roots in my own experience of consuming the news, because, of course, I'm a news consumer as well as a journalist. And that's that there's loads of things on every story that I'm interested in that I don't understand.
>> Servane Mouazan: Oh, wow.
>> Ros Atkins: So it's important for me to acknowledge the limits of what I understand so that I can hunt out more useful information on this. And as such, whenever I'm starting a story or an explanation of any form, I try not to assume very much knowledge at all. Not because I'm passing judgment on the people I'm communicating with, just because I wouldn't want people to assume too much of what I know either. And so I always think there are terms of phrase that we can use that will acknowledge that some people we're communicating with may not know something, while also acknowledging that some people do. So a very simple example would be um, let's imagine there's a story in Manchester, and I'm broadcasting in the UK and around the world. I might say, well, this event has happened in Manchester, which those of you in the UK will know is in the north of England. So you both give the information that the people outside of the UK may need, while acknowledging that the people in the UK don't need it. And so that can be quite an inclusive way of both providing the necessary information for those who need it and also not alienating the people who don't need. So that's one thing that I would do all the time. The second thing is I would check, I can't do this with an explainer video, but if I were in a meeting with colleagues where we were talking about an idea we were interested in, or we were developing a, uh, strategy or whatever it might be I might stop and say, okay, so we're talking about doing this when I'm talking about this, I mean, this, is that what you understand it to be? So I would just thrash it out. And then the other thing is that I don't tend to just refer to concepts or strategies. Um, or what. I wouldn't use jargon without adding some extra words with it to explain what it was. So I wouldn't just say, we're going to do this, and then assume everyone knows what I'm talking about. I would say, we're going to do this, which to me means this and this and this. So constantly talking in plain English so people can understand precisely what you mean, that can be helpful, too. And this is an old, I'm not the only person to have suggested this. At the end of discussions, I always find it useful to go, okay, so we've talked through all this, just so we're already clear. We're going to be doing this, and that means this, we're going to be doing that, and that means that there's this, which we're not yet agreed on, but we need this information. So you just try and round up what you've said and double check with the people that you've understood it correctly. Because of course, it's possible that the problem is mine, that I haven't understood it correctly. So all of those things could be useful.
>> Servane Mouazan: Well, uh, this is for the people who grapple with the term social enterprise that is understood differently in different countries and different, uh, places or social business.
>> Ros Atkins: But do you ever think about just not using the phrase, I think it's.
>> Servane Mouazan: Interesting because it's coming back all the time. But now what I'm learning from you now is that we have an allowance of extra words we can add, we don't have to trim everything. But then adding social enterprise, which means in the UK, this and this, or in France, that and that and that things, is helping you.
>> Ros Atkins: But that's an interesting example, because when we provide extra information, if it's interesting and relevant information, it's got a much better chance of being engaging, of course, and what you're describing, I'm just listening and thinking, well, I'm interested in that. You're saying that here's one phrase that's quite commonly used, but it means something different in the UK and in France. And so I would imagine if you were addressing a group of people, that information would be interesting. So the fact that you're taking a few seconds to pass it on, well, no matter, because I would imagine they'd want to know that.
>> Servane Mouazan: What I'm learning as well, we assume that because we are people from the same kind of work category or job like investors or whatever, that we all assume that this word means this and that. And in fact it doesn't. So I think I'm learning from you as well. So never assume that people understand exactly what you mean all the time because they might have different kind of.
>> Ros Atkins: But again, if we unpack this example, I would imagine that if you go into a meeting talking about social enterprise, you need to have a high impact phrase that will very quickly summarize what you understand it to be And so often in situations like that, I would try and do the work before I go into the situation where I'm going to be discussing it. Because coming up with a very brief but comprehensive and accurate phrase to describe a, uh, complicated concept, uh, I mean, I can't speak for others, but I find that quite difficult doing that in the moment. So it's going to be much better for me to do it in advance. So that when I'm in the meeting and I'm saying, well, I'm here to talk about social enterprise, which to me means, here's my high impact phrase, you've front loaded that work, and really that connects to a broader lesson, which I'm sure you noticed as you went through the book, which is essentially, I met a friend of mine who's very senior at a PR firm, um, ah, a few months ago, and he kind of waved the book at me and he said, this is the case for preparation, isn't it? And I said, yes, it is. And really that's my overall message, which is that if we prepare for those moments, such as the fact that there might be a misunderstanding as to what social enterprise means, we're going to be in a much better position to speak engagingly and with precision about what it means in that moment.
>> Servane Mouazan: Yeah, fantastic. What a call to action. And there is not just social enterprise, there's a, uh, lot of terms. So people prepare the conversation with these phrases in advance. So, moving on with stories. Again, I'm not assuming that you know the story or that people in the audience know the story, so I'm going to tell the story of the elephant. It's a story of actually a blind man who've never come across an elephant before, and they learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. And then they're asked to describe the elephant. And of course, they all describe it differently because they only grasp some parts of the animal and all descriptions put together make up the elephant. But as everyone insists on their description being the elephant, the whole doesn't make sense at all. No one really understands it and it's probably an allegory for what's happening now. Uh, every time in current affair, we sure come across that kind of situation. So, Ros what tips do you have to help people who are based in different parts of a complex system to communicate and to come to a common understanding and cooperate?
>> Ros Atkins: Well, I'm just thinking through that story as you describe it, and I'm thinking, well, if I were one of those people in the room, I don't know if I would assume that I knew what this animal was like because I would be thinking, well, I'm only getting one experience of trying to describe mean. I always start from the perspective that I don't understand lots of aspects of how my own organization, the BBC, works. And as my dear and long suffering colleagues will tell you, I will quite often email when a big change is announced at the BBC or a new department's created or a new initiative started, I'll quite often email the people involved in it, not because I'm going to be working with them immediately on this, but because I'm just keen to understand, well, how does this fit into the department that I'm in, or how does that initiative fit in with work that I'm doing? And I just want to understand. And so I think a starting point of my perspective, uh, is a valid one, but it's not the only one. Uh, is a useful place to begin, in part because the more you talk to other people and get those different perspectives, you understand your organisation so much better, and that's going to serve the organisation and you a lot better. It also, for me is, uh, it's also practical in that if you want to make the case for something, in my case, it's often an idea. I'm trying to get an idea going. If I want to make the case for an idea. There may be a, uh, long list of perfectly valid reasons why people in other parts of the BBC are not so sure about the idea as I am. And I need to understand why they're not so sure. And I need to understand the experience of their section of the BBC, uh, to be able to empathise with their concerns and try and adapt my idea to meet their concerns. Now, it won't always work, and sometimes what I'm suggesting just won't be a good enough idea, which is absolutely fine. But the more that I try and empathise and understand with people in different sections of the organisation, it's not just the right thing to do because, uh, it's right thing to do to try and understand your colleagues' experience. But actually it's also in my interest because my idea is going to be better if I can understand their perspective on it. And so one of the things, and I think I mentioned this in the book, um, I remember reading somewhere I wasn't able to find where I found it originally, but I remember hearing this advice about job interviews, which is, you need to go into a job interview not just focused on all the brilliant things that you've done, which you want to talk about, you need to focus on the reason they probably won't give you the job. So you need to anticipate the concerns they'll have and then try and have answers to them. And that really resonated with me as I've thought about how to get ideas off the ground. Sometimes it is about saying, hey, I've got this really exciting thing and I think it's going to be great. But for me, it's equally important to be respectful of the fact that people may have completely valid concerns or doubts about what you're suggesting and to try and really understand them and understand them in good faith, not bad faith. To understand that those concerns may well be correct, or if they're not correct, to find ways of making the case that actually these concerns can be allayed. And so trying to understand different people's perspectives in your organisation and being empathetic about that, it feels to me the right thing to do, but also pretty much essential to getting anything going.
>> Servane Mouazan: You made a case for a campaign a few years ago, which was the 50-50 campaign. Can you tell us about how you made it happen, how you approached that and linking up to that previous explanation you just gave?
>> Ros Atkins: Yeah, sure. Um, 50-50 started in early 2017. It, uh, was an experiment on the program I was presenting at the time called Outside Source, and the ambition was to increase the number of female contributors in our journalism. And it used a simple system of self-monitoring to do that. We generated data around the contributors in our program every day. Uh, we shared that data amongst ourselves, and the data both informed us and motivated us in terms of how we were seeking to make sure that we had at least 50% female contributors in our journalism. And we looked at a couple of things around how to give this idea impact. Um, the first one was to be really empathetic about the working environment within a newsroom, which is high pressure. People don't have a lot of time and they've got an awful lot of very important, different things to be doing. And so we designed the whole project to be very easy to take part in. The entire, uh, way that 50 50 worked was designed with those concerns in mind, because we were respectful of the fact that we didn't want to ask colleagues to take part and say, well, you're going to have to give us an hour a day, because we just knew that wasn't realistic. The second thing that I was interested in was making sure that we had, uh, proof to underpin our arguments. And so we started it as an experiment on outside source. And it was only after several months where we had data that clearly showed that it was helping us that we started talking to other people about whether they would like to take part. And so for me being able to say, we've had this idea, we're working towards this goal, which the BBC as a whole shares. We're doing this as an experiment. We're not certain it's going to be the right thing to do, but we're excited to try it. And we've also got this data which suggests that at the moment, it is helping us. That made for a much more, uh, constructive and informed conversation. So we didn't come up with an idea and start having lots of conversations around the BBC on day two. We didn't do that at all. We actually experimented with the idea amongst our team for several months before we then started speaking to other colleagues. And then the other thing that we did, and this was in part because we had to do it, but it was also, we thought, the right thing to do because it began as an informal experiment within one program. None of us were managers, none of us are managers, so we can't tell other people to do anything. Nor, I hasten to add, do I want to. 50, um, 50 was voluntary. So if other teams wanted to take part, they could. If they didn't want to take part, that was fine. If they wanted to start, uh, and then decided they wanted to stop, that was also fine. And so making it voluntary took one big question out of the equation, because quite often and quite reasonably, people would say, do I have to do this? Because I'm not sure it's the right time for us to start this. We haven't quite got the what. They would have a number of reasons which were perfectly valid, or they would say, we're not 100% sure, but could we try it? But we don't want to get locked into this for the next three years, if we start it. And so being able to say, look, you don't have to start it now. And whenever you do want to start it, you can stop it whenever you want, immediately made the conversation, uh, easier. And so that proved to be quite effective, too.
>> Servane Mouazan: So, experiment, bringing empathy, bringing volunteering experience, volunteering, an opportunity to say no and going slowly and not brutally. It just leads me to a question that, uh, someone in the audience, uh, sent, and she's, uh, interested in advocacy campaigns around sensitive topics. And, uh, sometimes these campaigns need to address audiences with deeply entrenched biases or assumed indifference. And I wanted to ask, how can you effectively lead a campaign like that? Or what tip would you give to someone who need to lead a campaign and engage on a single subject with different people may have deep reservations and different level of engagement. I'm aware you gave us some clues already. What would you add?
>> Ros Atkins: Well, I should say that I'm not an activist. I'm a journalist. And when I make the news, my purpose is to better inform those of you who are consuming the stories that we make. I'm not seeking any outcome beyond helping you understand the world that we're living in and the events that are happening around us. But when I'm making stories, one of the things that you need to do if you're to, uh, successfully pass this information on to your audience, is to make the case why it matters. And one phrase that I use a lot in my scripts, but we would also use it in the newsroom, is the reason this matters is. And then you complete that sentence. Now, ah, if an enormous news story happens, let's imagine a, uh, prime minister says that he or she is stepping down. You don't have to work very hard to explain to the audience in the UK that that's a really big moment. To state the obvious, the prime minister saying they're stepping down would be a big moment. But there'll be other stories where, quite reasonably, it's not necessarily as clear to our viewers or readers or listeners why this story is as significant as we believe it is. And so, in those cases, it's our job to say, this has happened and this is relevant to you, our audience. This matters to you, our audience. Or let's imagine there's a story overseas which is hugely important to the country it's happening in. But people in the UK might be thinking, does this necessarily connect, uh, to us? One of our jobs as journalists is to say, if that story does connect well, this is how it connects to you. The reason this is relevant to you is. So, one example I give in the book is, in 2015, I went to Athens to cover the greek debt crisis, um, a huge economic and political crisis for Greece. And of course, needless to say, very relevant to all Greeks. But we were broadcasting all around the world. And so my duty was not just to, uh, I hope, make news that worked for people watching in Greece, but to say, if you're watching in the US, this is why it connects to you. If you're watching in the UK, this is why it connects to you. And so whenever I'm trying to communicate effectively, one of my tasks is to think about how do I make sure this information feels relevant to who I'm addressing. And sometimes, let's imagine I'm sending you details of, uh, when I'm going to join you for this podcast. I'm not going to have to work very hard at that, because you've invited me onto the podcast, you're going to want that information from me. That's an easy one, right? But there are many, many other examples. When we're communicating in a range of different scenarios where it's not at all obvious to the people we're speaking to, that what we're saying is relevant matters, that is something that they would want to engage with. And at that point, we need to start thinking, well, why don't they feel those things? And what information could I provide to make it feel relevant? I, uh, have that in mind every single day when I finish talking to you now, I'm going to go and carry on working on a couple of reports, and front of my mind will be for people who think this isn't really that relevant to me, am I making sure that I'm explaining to them that it is? And so constantly it comes back to that word empathy, which I used, uh, an answer or two ago. For me, it's always about thinking about if someone isn't engaging with what I'm saying, which for me is a completely reasonable position for them to have, how can I say to them, well, actually, what I've got to say to you here, I think is important and is relevant to you. And of course, depending on the subject, and depending on who they are, how you answer that question is going to be different. But for me, communication is, there's two sides to it. It's about what we want to pass on, and it's about who you are passing it on to. And I think it's often easier to focus on the first. I've got all this stuff, I want to get this across, I've got important things to say, and there's nothing wrong with that. But actually it comes right back to where we started, which is the style and the substance in that. If you have got all this information, but you're not thinking about the best way to give it to the people that you're hoping to reach, that's an important second part of the equation. And so I try and be to, uh, use a slightly clunky phrase, audience centric in my communication, in that I am constantly thinking about, am I making this information as consumable as it can be for the people I'm trying to reach, as easy to act on in the case of, uh, when we communicate with colleagues, say, if we're trying to get an idea off the ground, um, is it as easy to understand as possible, and is it feeling as relevant and important as possible? And if you can do all of those things, I think you are in with a good chance. I would only just add one caveat, which is not all information is relevant and important to all people, and it is in the case of journalists. Sometimes we'll look at stories and in the end we'll go, we're not convinced this story, uh, warrants our resources. And I've always been very at uh, ease with the fact that sometimes I'll have an idea or a story or something that I'm trying to get going and actually I'll think about, well, I was going to mention it to this person or these people or this team or this editor. Uh, and I'll think actually, I don't think I'm going to because I actually think if they were to say this isn't quite right for me, I could understand. So being open to that as well is important.
>> Servane Mouazan: That's wonderful. And it just reiterates the importance of taking the time to think
>> Ros Atkins: Yes.
>> Servane Mouazan: We're coming to the end of our time together, Ros and I'd like to share an appreciation. Beyond the fact that you practice what you preach in all your communications, and I've experienced it myself with you, is your sense of connectedness, the power and grace you have to make sure that people take the time to think and also understand each other. You bring people along, you make them feel seen and heard, whether it's in the bookshop, on Twitter, on tv. And it's beautiful to see that in practice. So thank you for being with us today, Ros
>> Ros Atkins: Well, that's very kind and I really appreciate the invitation. Nice to talk.
>> Servane Mouazan: Thank you. Well, that's it for today, so go and quickly explore Ros's book, the Art of Explanation, how to communicate with clarity and confidence. I also wanted to thank Tara, Martina and Hermina, all women in social finance, for, uh, sending your questions. I look forward to welcoming you back to the House of Trust again soon. For insights, provocation and different angles to approach your work as you invest in social and environmental change and ignite a, uh, positive impact, subscribe to the show, share it, review it. It's available anywhere you can find your podcasts. As you know by now, just type in Be and Think in the House of Trust and for opportunities to think independently for yourself and as yourself, head to my website, servanemouazan.co.uk and sign up for my regular conscious innovation updates. Keep thinking, keep connecting. Goodbye.