As the 2012 election season draws to an end, everywhere we turn we as viewers of television, listeners of radio and readers of print media and the internet are being mercilessly bombarded with talking heads, spokespersons and advocates of one candidate over another, one issue over another. There is now less than a week to go till election day, so we just have to hang on a little while longer and all the surrogates will go away - at least for a little while. They will not be missed. I say that not because they do not know what they are doing, but because of the way they are doing their so-called job. It has been a disservice to themselves, their clients and to us.
I do not know any one who enjoys being talked at. I sure don't. I find it off-putting, insulting and disrespectful. I much prefer the back and forth that comes with respectful conversation even if the other person and I are not in agreement. Unfortunately, "talking at" is what so many of these surrogates do. Representatives of opposing candidates, for example, appear on a cable talk show and inevitably end up trying to out-shout or talk over the other until what we hear coming out of their mouths is little more than noise. There is no enlightenment or attempt at intellectual dialog. To compound the problem, far too many of the moderators seem to encourage this behavior under the false impression viewers and/or listeners enjoy it.
Any one reading this who actually does enjoy the shout-fest that often occurs on these so-called news shows, would you please let me know and tell me what I missing here? I could use some meaningful enlightenment. It is my impression people tune into these shows to try and gain more information. But maybe I am wrong about that. Maybe they are like the moderators and enjoy watching grown men and women zing each other under the guise of being serious thinkers. I sure hope not.I think we as viewers, readers and listeners deserve better than this. Shame on those who apparently think we do not.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Hurricane Sandy
As I write this, Hurricane Sandy is rapidly working its way up the east coast toward New York, New England and into Canada. In a few hours it is supposed to make its self known here in Virginia. Right now, there is a light rain but, according to projections, there will be nothing "light" about this storm once it arrives. It is expected that many of us will lose power as a result of this storm, which experts are calling a real monster. Some are even saying it will be the worst in U.S. history. That, of course, remains to be seen but I, for one, am hoping that does not turn out to be the case. Massive devistation is never welcomed.
Putting the possible impact and power of the storm aside for a moment, however, from a communication perspective, I am impressed with how this is being handled thus far. The federal government and its state counterparts have been doing a solid job of preparing people of the potential seriousness of this storm. As a result, I feel extremely confident these same entities will respond with equal competence and commitment in helping people recover from Hurricane Sandy should that be necessary. Politics aside, we all want our government to be competent. This build-up to Hurricane Sandy is making me feel as if this is eactly what we have.
Risk communication is not easy. It involves getting people to prepare for a crisis that may or may actually happen. How do you do that without sounding like Chicken Little or turning people off because you are coming across like an alarmist? More and more, storms like Sandy are becoming a regular part of the American landscape. In a twisted way, this helps. We have seen the great harm and damage storms can do, particularly when people are not prepared and those in-charge are not as competent as they should be. One thing that will get us through this current challenge is ongoing communication. So far so good.
Putting the possible impact and power of the storm aside for a moment, however, from a communication perspective, I am impressed with how this is being handled thus far. The federal government and its state counterparts have been doing a solid job of preparing people of the potential seriousness of this storm. As a result, I feel extremely confident these same entities will respond with equal competence and commitment in helping people recover from Hurricane Sandy should that be necessary. Politics aside, we all want our government to be competent. This build-up to Hurricane Sandy is making me feel as if this is eactly what we have.
Risk communication is not easy. It involves getting people to prepare for a crisis that may or may actually happen. How do you do that without sounding like Chicken Little or turning people off because you are coming across like an alarmist? More and more, storms like Sandy are becoming a regular part of the American landscape. In a twisted way, this helps. We have seen the great harm and damage storms can do, particularly when people are not prepared and those in-charge are not as competent as they should be. One thing that will get us through this current challenge is ongoing communication. So far so good.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Expanding Our Resources
A major characteristic of communication is that it is reactive. Looking at my own actions or things I say, for instance, and I see a person that spends the bulk of his time responding in some way to what goes on around him or to what others have said. In this regard, at least, I do not see myself as being all that different than any one else. This, of course, is not to say I and others are not capable of original thought or of taking actions that are truly our own. We are. At the same time, even those steps we view as being our own do not happen in a vacuum. Often, they are inspired by what we have seen or heard others say or do.
On the surface, the choice I made today as to what to wear was mine. Yet my decision was influenced by what I call outside forces: the weather, my itinerary, what others I will be connecting with today may be wearing, and even how I am feeling physically. I examined these outside influences and for better or worse made the choices I made. While I feel as if I made a good choice, I recognize others may see me today and think otherwise. In essence, they will be judging my reaction to various outside sources such as the weather forecast or my itinerary. I recognize this is a trivial example. But it represents a larger point regarding our communication decisions and choices.
Any choices we make in how and what we communicate verbally and non-verbally are going to be assessed and judged by others on some level. Given that, it behooves us to make the best choices we can. One key way to do that is draw from the widest spectrum of resources and outside influences as we can. If our choices or outside influences are limited, then in all likelihood whatever decisions we do make will be less apt to be of note, be creative or exhibit much originality. As communicators devise various strategies to promote something, it is important they make their range of influencing factors and resources as wide as possible. Doing so is apt to make them better communicators.
On the surface, the choice I made today as to what to wear was mine. Yet my decision was influenced by what I call outside forces: the weather, my itinerary, what others I will be connecting with today may be wearing, and even how I am feeling physically. I examined these outside influences and for better or worse made the choices I made. While I feel as if I made a good choice, I recognize others may see me today and think otherwise. In essence, they will be judging my reaction to various outside sources such as the weather forecast or my itinerary. I recognize this is a trivial example. But it represents a larger point regarding our communication decisions and choices.
Any choices we make in how and what we communicate verbally and non-verbally are going to be assessed and judged by others on some level. Given that, it behooves us to make the best choices we can. One key way to do that is draw from the widest spectrum of resources and outside influences as we can. If our choices or outside influences are limited, then in all likelihood whatever decisions we do make will be less apt to be of note, be creative or exhibit much originality. As communicators devise various strategies to promote something, it is important they make their range of influencing factors and resources as wide as possible. Doing so is apt to make them better communicators.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Being In-Sync
I do my best not to over simplify matters of disagreement, contention or dispute. Doing so does not always do justice to the issue at-hand and it also tends to redefine the matter in a way that presents it in an inaccurate and misleading light. At the same time, whenever issues of this nature occur or are brought to my attention for comment, I do my best to identify the core reasons for a dispute. It helps me better understand what is going on and, if I can, articulate those points pertinent parties cannot or do not seem to be able to reconcile. I should note here that because of my own limitations, I am not always able to do this as well or as consistently as I would like.
In my own limited experience, I am struck at how often communication is the primary reason for why people either drift apart, argue, or behave in ways that do harm to the other. From my perspective, not being in sync with another person is the core culprit for disruptions or breakdowns in relationships. Thus, at the risk of oversimplfying such occurrences: if people communicated better, then we would have far fewer problems of consequence? Perhaps. But at the same time, would such a statement be true? I have to say "yes." How could communicating with openness, mutual trust, honesty and respect result in any thing other than people being more in sync with one another?
Another point I wish to note is that I do not view being "in sync" with another person as being in-agreement with them. It can, but not necessarily. All of us are different as we have our own perspectives and biases. Many of us may like ice cream, for example, but that does not mean we prefer the same flavor. At the same time, there may be those who do not like ice cream at all, Instead, they prefer pie or even no sweet. How well do we communicate those preferences with others? How well do we respect the preferences of others? Often, it is when we fall short at either one when problems appear that tend to escalate. This is what happens when poor communication is afoot.
In my own limited experience, I am struck at how often communication is the primary reason for why people either drift apart, argue, or behave in ways that do harm to the other. From my perspective, not being in sync with another person is the core culprit for disruptions or breakdowns in relationships. Thus, at the risk of oversimplfying such occurrences: if people communicated better, then we would have far fewer problems of consequence? Perhaps. But at the same time, would such a statement be true? I have to say "yes." How could communicating with openness, mutual trust, honesty and respect result in any thing other than people being more in sync with one another?
Another point I wish to note is that I do not view being "in sync" with another person as being in-agreement with them. It can, but not necessarily. All of us are different as we have our own perspectives and biases. Many of us may like ice cream, for example, but that does not mean we prefer the same flavor. At the same time, there may be those who do not like ice cream at all, Instead, they prefer pie or even no sweet. How well do we communicate those preferences with others? How well do we respect the preferences of others? Often, it is when we fall short at either one when problems appear that tend to escalate. This is what happens when poor communication is afoot.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Debates and Communication
As I write this, the 2012 presidential campaign is only weeks away from coming to a crashing end. It has been quite volatile with the candidates verbally blasting away at each other with an intensity we have not seen in years. Presently, we have had two debates between the presidential candidates and one between the vice presidential candidates. (Currently, there is one more presidential debate to go.) While I have found each of the face-to-face confrontations between the various candidates to be quite interesting, I have also been struck at what I call the communication posturing that has occurred and the apparent impact it has had on American voters.
To begin, in these kind of settings candidates have the challenge of communicating effectively with several different audiences: their opponent, the moderator, in-person audience members, and with the millions of citizens who are tuned in either via television, radio or the Internet. Under any circumstance, communicating with such diverse publics is difficult. Regardless of the specific strategies one uses - and thus far we have seen smiling, laughing, ignoring, interrupting - they have not worked with each intended public because each public has their own bias. For instance, Democrat supporters were not turned off by Vice President Joe Biden's constant smiling in response to what Congressman Paul Ryan was saying while Republican supporters were.
Audience attitude has been a key factor in the debates. My sense is a heavy majority of people have tuned in to the events to have their pre-determined perspectives be validated rather than gain new information. Thus, what the candidate has said and will say has made and will make little difference in altering how prospective voters ultimately vote. This, generally, means debates are not necessarily all that risky unless a candidate says or does something totally dumb or inappropriate. That, in my view, has not happened and is not likely to. Still, presidential debates remain highly fascinating and do contribute greatly to our imperfect election process.
To begin, in these kind of settings candidates have the challenge of communicating effectively with several different audiences: their opponent, the moderator, in-person audience members, and with the millions of citizens who are tuned in either via television, radio or the Internet. Under any circumstance, communicating with such diverse publics is difficult. Regardless of the specific strategies one uses - and thus far we have seen smiling, laughing, ignoring, interrupting - they have not worked with each intended public because each public has their own bias. For instance, Democrat supporters were not turned off by Vice President Joe Biden's constant smiling in response to what Congressman Paul Ryan was saying while Republican supporters were.
Audience attitude has been a key factor in the debates. My sense is a heavy majority of people have tuned in to the events to have their pre-determined perspectives be validated rather than gain new information. Thus, what the candidate has said and will say has made and will make little difference in altering how prospective voters ultimately vote. This, generally, means debates are not necessarily all that risky unless a candidate says or does something totally dumb or inappropriate. That, in my view, has not happened and is not likely to. Still, presidential debates remain highly fascinating and do contribute greatly to our imperfect election process.
Monday, October 15, 2012
A Blog on Blogs
I am closing in on entry number 450 of this blog. I started the blog several years ago and with few exceptions have been making a minimum of two entries per week - all having something to do with communication - since the beginning. Even though at times I am hard pressed for a specific topic to write about, I enjoy the challenge and, even more, appreciate the benefit the entries are giving in helping me articulate my own thoughts about a subject I hold quite dearly. I do, of course, wish I received more responses or comments to my entries. But more and more I am coming to the conclusion this is how it normally is for most blogs.
Presently, I guess there must be well over 100,000 blogs that exist on the Internet. Of those, there are probably only a handful that enjoy an active following in which outsiders share their comments and own thoughts on various issues on a regular basis. Despite this, I am a big fan of blogs. I am all for vehicles that enable any one to write down their thoughts. Blogs are kind of like diaries that people in addition to the author are privy to. For myself, rarely do I disclose anything too personal. But this is not the case with others. There are ones that are very personal. I admire the courage of those who are willing to provide glimpses into their own hearts.
In several of the classes I currently teach I have assigned students the task of creating their own blogs and then, of course, contributing to them on a regular basis. Overall, I have been pleased with their entries. Some, in fact, have been quite insightful and heartfelt. Others have been lighthearted and fun. Mainly, the blogs are giving the students an opportunity to practice sharing their perspectives in a format that perhaps is not all that common for them. If even a few continue their blogs after the classes are over, then I will consider this assignment to be worthwhile. Our society will never not have a need for writers.
Presently, I guess there must be well over 100,000 blogs that exist on the Internet. Of those, there are probably only a handful that enjoy an active following in which outsiders share their comments and own thoughts on various issues on a regular basis. Despite this, I am a big fan of blogs. I am all for vehicles that enable any one to write down their thoughts. Blogs are kind of like diaries that people in addition to the author are privy to. For myself, rarely do I disclose anything too personal. But this is not the case with others. There are ones that are very personal. I admire the courage of those who are willing to provide glimpses into their own hearts.
In several of the classes I currently teach I have assigned students the task of creating their own blogs and then, of course, contributing to them on a regular basis. Overall, I have been pleased with their entries. Some, in fact, have been quite insightful and heartfelt. Others have been lighthearted and fun. Mainly, the blogs are giving the students an opportunity to practice sharing their perspectives in a format that perhaps is not all that common for them. If even a few continue their blogs after the classes are over, then I will consider this assignment to be worthwhile. Our society will never not have a need for writers.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Columnists
One of the many reasons I admire columnists is the fact they are able to produce column after column on a particular topic. Whether their area of focus is politics, economics, foreign affairs or the American culture, these men and women are to be applauded for their ability to add new layers to a given issue so consistently. Not only that, so many do so in a style of writing that is coherent, understandable and, above all, readable. For many of us, we spout off on one issue about which we feel strongly and then are hard-pressed to come up with something else - anything - to say on that topic. But columnists do that every week.
Their pieces generally appear on what is commonly called the op-ed page: the page that is opposite a newspaper's editorial page. What they do appears easy, but it is not. Far from it. In fact, the really good ones do as much reporting and uncovering of facts and figures as do any reporter working for the news department. Once that is done, the columnists then have the challenge of analyzing what they have uncovered and presenting the information in a manner that is insightful, original and fresh. These journalists work hard at what they do and, as a result, add an important depth and dimension to the publications in which their articles appear.
Being a guest columnist is an important tool for all public relations practitioners in their effort to support or promote a client. In my years in public relations I have helped prepare a number of these kind of pieces on behalf of others. Always, they are a challenge. It is one thing to write something that expresses nothing more than one's opinion; but quite another to prepare a provocative piece in which you support your perspective with hard facts and concrete examples. This is what good columnists do. We may not always agree with them, yet the good ones are always worth reading. This is no small achievement.
Their pieces generally appear on what is commonly called the op-ed page: the page that is opposite a newspaper's editorial page. What they do appears easy, but it is not. Far from it. In fact, the really good ones do as much reporting and uncovering of facts and figures as do any reporter working for the news department. Once that is done, the columnists then have the challenge of analyzing what they have uncovered and presenting the information in a manner that is insightful, original and fresh. These journalists work hard at what they do and, as a result, add an important depth and dimension to the publications in which their articles appear.
Being a guest columnist is an important tool for all public relations practitioners in their effort to support or promote a client. In my years in public relations I have helped prepare a number of these kind of pieces on behalf of others. Always, they are a challenge. It is one thing to write something that expresses nothing more than one's opinion; but quite another to prepare a provocative piece in which you support your perspective with hard facts and concrete examples. This is what good columnists do. We may not always agree with them, yet the good ones are always worth reading. This is no small achievement.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Dry Bones
One of the great songs that lays out how connected things are is that old children's ditty, "Dry Bones." People may not be familiar with the song from its title, but I have no doubt once the tune begins everyone immediately knows it and has no trouble singing along: "The toe bone connected to the heel bone, the heel bone connected to the foot bone, the foot bone connected to the knee bone," etc. right up to the neck bone being connected to the head bone. It is fun song with a catchy beat. To me, it has an even more memorable message: all of our parts are forever linked and, as a result, are interdependent.
It is this reality of connectivity that is also part of the public relations process. Research is connected to planning. Planning is connected to execution. Execution is connected to evaluation. Evaluation is connected to research. The four primary steps in any public relations effort are linked in a circular manner. To exclude even one of the four steps from a public relations plan is to put forth one that is compromised, less than what it should be; an effort that is weaker and less likely to enjoy any degree of sustained success. Research, planning, execution and evaluation are a package deal and should be treated as such by all practitioners.
In their haste to launch out-reach efforts, it is not uncommon to see practitioners skip over such fundamental steps as research or evaluation or, worse yet, both. As communication scholars David Guth and Charles Marsh said, research and evaluation represent the cornerstone of the public relations effort. They help practitioners address two vital questions: What do we think we know? and "What is it we don't know? Together, answering these questions help address any false assumptions we might have or explore any unknown territory we have not examined. They are part of the entire public relations package, much like the body parts in the "Dry Bones" song.
It is this reality of connectivity that is also part of the public relations process. Research is connected to planning. Planning is connected to execution. Execution is connected to evaluation. Evaluation is connected to research. The four primary steps in any public relations effort are linked in a circular manner. To exclude even one of the four steps from a public relations plan is to put forth one that is compromised, less than what it should be; an effort that is weaker and less likely to enjoy any degree of sustained success. Research, planning, execution and evaluation are a package deal and should be treated as such by all practitioners.
In their haste to launch out-reach efforts, it is not uncommon to see practitioners skip over such fundamental steps as research or evaluation or, worse yet, both. As communication scholars David Guth and Charles Marsh said, research and evaluation represent the cornerstone of the public relations effort. They help practitioners address two vital questions: What do we think we know? and "What is it we don't know? Together, answering these questions help address any false assumptions we might have or explore any unknown territory we have not examined. They are part of the entire public relations package, much like the body parts in the "Dry Bones" song.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Style and Substance
In a perfect communication world, when one communicates a message, not only does it have substance that is accurate and relevant but it is transmitted in a way that is appealing, engaging to the ear and/or eye, and motivational. I am not sure if this happens nearly as often as many of us might like to think. That observion is not meant as a criticism as the great majority of our messages occur with little prethought or planning. Someone speaks to us and we respond. Someone asks us a question and we attempt to address it. We have a thought or make an observation and we attempt to share it. These communication acts, generally, happen on the spur of the moment or over the span of a few moments. How much style and/or substance goes into such acts?
My sense is many of us try to insert both elements into everything we communicate. I certainly do. Having said that, I confess that I fall short on both account much more often than I succeed. In fact, there are times when I speak that I know I am not hitting the mark as well as I would like. Yet when that happens I forge ahead and hope for the best. The fact I teach full-time at the univesity-level makes this confession all the more painful. If I had to guess, I would say I am not alone in my self-assessment of my ability to successfully comebine style and substance while speaking. I suspect others view themselves in a similar manner.
With that, I have two generalizations: few of us feel as if we communicate as well as we wish and our ability to be both sustaniative and articulate when we do send out messages is also less than we would like. Given that commonality, it seems as if we should be as generous as possible in our assessment of others who fall short on both accounts much in the same way we feel we do. Whether it is presidential candidates or those not in the public arena, exhibiting style and substance simultaneously is not easy. Being more charitable in assessing others helps others communicate more effectively and enable us to be better listeners,
My sense is many of us try to insert both elements into everything we communicate. I certainly do. Having said that, I confess that I fall short on both account much more often than I succeed. In fact, there are times when I speak that I know I am not hitting the mark as well as I would like. Yet when that happens I forge ahead and hope for the best. The fact I teach full-time at the univesity-level makes this confession all the more painful. If I had to guess, I would say I am not alone in my self-assessment of my ability to successfully comebine style and substance while speaking. I suspect others view themselves in a similar manner.
With that, I have two generalizations: few of us feel as if we communicate as well as we wish and our ability to be both sustaniative and articulate when we do send out messages is also less than we would like. Given that commonality, it seems as if we should be as generous as possible in our assessment of others who fall short on both accounts much in the same way we feel we do. Whether it is presidential candidates or those not in the public arena, exhibiting style and substance simultaneously is not easy. Being more charitable in assessing others helps others communicate more effectively and enable us to be better listeners,
Monday, October 1, 2012
Ralph Potter
Ralph Potter will never be as famous as Beatrix Potter or Harry Potter for that matter. But in the world of communication, this former professor of divinity, now retired, certainly has his place in the sun. Potter came up with an interesting model for making ethical decisions called the Potter Box. It represents a process that persons, not just those in the communication world, should follow when facing some kind of ethical or moral dilemma. Specifically, the Potter Box is comprised of four mini-boxes, each of which speaks to certain questions a person should ask him or herself on their way toward determining a course of action to take.
The four boxes within the Potter Box are: the definition box; the values box; the principles box; and the loyalties box.The definition box calls upon an attempt to define the situation as objectively and thoroughly as possible. The values box calls for the person involved to identify and compare whatever values might be involved. These could include such perspectives as being prompt, being thrifty, attempting to please others or being honesty. The principles box speaks to examining various ethical philosophies might be applied to the situation. For instance, what might Aristotle, Kant or even Confucius do in a similar situation? Finally, the the loyalties box calls for a review of obligations or loyalties one has to others. What courses of action do your top loyalties suggest?
After one has stepped into each of these four boxes, then they should determine the most compelling values, principles and loyalties that emerge. According to Potter, that will help one ultimately decide the best course of action to take. This process may seem a bit difficult and even intimidating, particularly as it calls upon one to have a good understanding of values and even be a bit knowledgeable about several of history's great philosophers. But, if followed, it helps one arrive at solutions to difficult challenges in a thoughtful and ethical manner: exactly the way the best communication decisions should be reached.
The four boxes within the Potter Box are: the definition box; the values box; the principles box; and the loyalties box.The definition box calls upon an attempt to define the situation as objectively and thoroughly as possible. The values box calls for the person involved to identify and compare whatever values might be involved. These could include such perspectives as being prompt, being thrifty, attempting to please others or being honesty. The principles box speaks to examining various ethical philosophies might be applied to the situation. For instance, what might Aristotle, Kant or even Confucius do in a similar situation? Finally, the the loyalties box calls for a review of obligations or loyalties one has to others. What courses of action do your top loyalties suggest?
After one has stepped into each of these four boxes, then they should determine the most compelling values, principles and loyalties that emerge. According to Potter, that will help one ultimately decide the best course of action to take. This process may seem a bit difficult and even intimidating, particularly as it calls upon one to have a good understanding of values and even be a bit knowledgeable about several of history's great philosophers. But, if followed, it helps one arrive at solutions to difficult challenges in a thoughtful and ethical manner: exactly the way the best communication decisions should be reached.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)