Communication Darwinians

After all these years I am beginning to feel as if I have been barking up the wrong tree. Let me explain. It has been my sense that when it comes to communication, people ideally strive to establish a two-way dynamic in which there is, generally, an equal amount of speaking and listening that occurs; a dialog in which people or entities talk with each other rather than at. Their bottom line is to establish a mutual understanding of each other by focusing on creating a dynamic in which all parties are heard. Their exchange, in essence, is a relationship characterized by the equal exchanging between the roles sender and receiver.

I continue to believe people are certainly open to establishing mutual understanding and harmony in their connections to or relationships with others. However, I am coming to the conclusion that people, as they enter into a relationship, are driven more by the desire to be heard, understood and accepted for their own benefit than they are in the idyllic scenario of establishing a two-way dynamic. Does this make us fundamentally self-serving? Yes. Does this suggest we driven by a fundamental desire to do what is best for ourselves? Yes, again. Does this, then, make us bad? I do not think so. Rather, it makes us who and what we are.

For much of the 20th century numerous communication theories and models have been devised by scholars in their effort to explain and analyze how we communicate and what makes for effective communication. These have ranged from the magic bullet and diffusion theories to the agenda-setting hypothesis and the asymmetrical and symmetrical models. There have been, of course, many others, too. Collectively, these theories point to steps we take to achieve our goals, meet our agendas and have our voice/message heard. Establishing a two-way connection with others is simply a means to an end. I am still getting my head around this new perspective, so I will be writing on this in future entries. For the moment, it points to the reality that our communication efforts and objectives are far more Darwinian that I first suspected.

"Liberal Elite Media"

"Liberal elite media" is a refrain conservatives have been spewing for years. It feeds into the notion that media coverage has a liberal bent and, as a result, does not report the news in an objective or fair manner. You especially hear it a lot, of course, from conservative commentators. They wish their viewers and listeners to believe that it is they - and only they - who report the news without bias or any kind of agenda. This refrain also adds fuel to the notion that conservatives are being treated unjustly and therefore must intensify their loyalty to the cause of conservatism. The underlying message is this is the only way to combat the "liberal elite media."

One question I have is if there is, in fact, a "liberal elite media," does that also mean there is an "elite conservative media." Can one exist without the other? Can there be good without bad, happiness without sadness, or left without right? Interestingly, one never hears the phrase, "conservative elite media"from liberal commentators or any one else for that matter. Why not? Is it because no one has thought of it or because it does not exist? Another possibility is it is because "liberal elite media"actually does not exist except in the minds of marketing experts who are trying to generate greater listener and viewer loyalty for their conservative media outlets.

To the credit of those who thought it up, the tag line "liberal elite media" has certainly caught on to the extent it has generated a hardcore loyalty among those who disagree with or oppose anything that even comes close to being labeled "liberal." That's too bad. While I agree that news is reported with bias, my sense is that bias does not exist to serve a certain political agenda as much as it does to support a financial one on behalf of the giant companies and corporate conglomerates that own much of the media in today's world. Bottom line: profit drives news coverage far more than politics.

Irresponsible Use of Words

It has been written and stated many times before - including by me - that words do matter. They matter big time. The spark emotions. They motivate actions. They change minds. They hurt feelings. They can bring people together or divide them. They even can take something that is false and make it seem like the truth. Yes, they are that powerful. If organized properly and presented in a creative way, they can change lives. I write of this now for several reasons. One is that I believe we as a society tend to forget the reality that words are as powerful as they are. Because words belong to all of us, we tend not to give them as much respect or place as much significance on them as we should.

The other reason pertains to Trayvon Martin. This is the teenage boy in Florida who was recently gunned down by a man who claims he took the actions he did out of self defense. The man - George Zimmerman - apparently felt so threatened by Martin that he chased after the passing teenager in order to shoot him. In all fairness, information pertaining to this terrible incident is still being released, so we do not know all the details other than Martin's lawyers claim the boy did nothing to provoke Zimmerman and Zimmerman's team claims the opposite. The justification Zimmerman is using pertains to the "Stand Your Ground"law in Florida, which makes it legal for people to take whatever actions they feel are necessary if they or others are deemed to be facing possible harm.

What does all this have to do with words? Everything. It is my contention that words have played a key role in creating an environment in which: (1) Zimmerman and others like him feel compelled to take such steps as to arm themselves against perceived threats; and that (2) Zimmerman and others like him feel justified to actually use the guns against others. Words have played a key role in creating this kind of "shoot first, ask questions later" mindset within many of our citizens. It is not good. My great fear is the more George Zimmermans that emerge out of the irresponsible use of words being used to advocate community safety, the more Trayvon Martins we will see.

Interviewers

In my current job and over the years as a student, I have been involved in a multitude of interviews as both the interviewee and interviewer. Personally, I much prefer the role of interviewer. Perhaps this speaks more to my own personality, but I am more comfortable listening to others talk than being the one who others listen to. I have particular admiration for those individuals who are articulate and are able to regale those around them with their views, memories and story-telling ability. It does not even matter whether I agree with what they are saying. I tip my hat to all persons with strong verbal skills, particularly in the context of interview situations.

Having said that, I confess to having a love-hate relationship with interviews. The love-part is easy: listening to people tell their story - no matter what it might be. Rarely are people more animated than when they are talking about something that has meaning to them. It is a time when they shine because they are giving a glimpse of a passion that both drives and defines them. The hate-part pertains to the challenge faced by the interviewer to make the interviewee feel safe and comfortable to share their personal thoughts, thus revealing certain aspects of themselves. Being able to do that is no easy task.

A good interviewer requires one who recognizes the benefit of thorough research. This person must also possess a wide range of knowledge to draw from in order to ask provocative and stimulating questions of the interviewee. The interviewer must also be willing and able to inject themselves into the world of their subject, thus familiarizing themselves with that person's perspectives. Above all, the interviewer must be a good listener and be able to easily set aside their own ego in order to better showcase their subject. These kind of skills lend themselves to effective public relations, particularly when it comes to the promotion of others.

Virginia Tech Visited.

The toughest thing about a crisis is that it appears without warning. As much as people have prepared for a fire, for example, when flames are seen bursting through walls or smoke seen billowing out from under doorways, surprise is the knee-jerk reaction of the witnesses. Being able to make snap decisions that are wise and good in response to this unwanted nightmare are never easy. All of us have been caught unaware. When that has happened, how often has our judgement been spot-on? I doubt any one of us can honestly say we have been wise and good in our reaction one hundred per cent of the time.

I mention this in lieu of the recent court decision finding Virginia Tech negligent for waiting to warn its students about an active shooter on campus in 2007. Before committing suicide, this killer ultimately shot 32 students and faculty. It remains the worst tragedy on an American campus in the history of our nation. Upon learning two students had been killed, administrators claimed they purposelly waited to tell the entire campus because they thought those shootings were isolated incidents. The jury disagreed. This, of course, is a powerful example of a crisis in need of snap decisions that were wise and good. That need was not met.


While I understand the logic of the administrators, I strongly concur with the jury. I am sure administrators did not want to ignite panic among the campus population. But the violent deaths of individuals at the hands of a gunman should have trumped their hesitancy. Rather than trying to decide whether to tell the campus community, their dilemma should have been in determining the quickest way to convey this terrible news. The people's need to know is paramount even if the news or information is unwanted, upsetting or inconvenient. On that day Virginia Tech officials did not act as responsibly as they should have. Possibly greater wisdom would have saved lives.

Communication in the News

Is there ever a time in the news when something interesting regarding communication isn't going on? Definitely not. Let me give a few examples. One pertains to a terrible incident in Afghanistan where an American soldier apparently went on a killing spree and murdered 16 civilians. Understandably, this senseless rampage has angered citizens there and triggered much anger toward the United States. President Obama and his administration are now faced with a communication problem on several fronts: he needs to effectively communicate to the Afghan nation his deep regret at what happened, convince them the U.S. will deal with what happened and the person responsible for it in a just and transparent manner, and reassure Americans that this tragic incident will not deter us from our overall mission.

Another example pertains to Rush Limbaugh, the nationally popular and conservative radio talk show host who is currently under heavy criticism for comments he made about a law school student who testified recently before Congress. Limbaugh went on a verbal rampage and called the female, among other things, a "slut" for what she had to say about on the issue before the Congressional hearing: contraception. As a result of his tirade, Limbaugh's advertisers have been leaving the show in droves. He has apologized several times for his comments. Still, Limbaugh's communication challenge is to convince his sponsors, listeners and critics of the sincerity of his regret.

Sometimes as a result of our own doing and sometimes due to the actions of others, things happen that impact our lives. Granted, this is not always fair. Those violent actions of the American solider, for instance, have created a real dilemma for President Obama and the many other military men and women in Afghanistan who conduct themselves in a respectful an peace-loving way. On the other hand, Limbaugh has no one to blame but himself as he deals with his current situation. Not only how the President and the radio commentator deal with their respective matters from a communication standpoint define them, but how we - their publics - listen and assess what Obama and Limbugh do will define us as well.

"Me" to "Us"

Not too long ago a book hit the shelves called "S**T My Father Told Me." The book proved to be so popular that it spawned a television program. While I never watched the show, what I read of the book I found to be amusing. It got me to thinking of my own father (not that I need any help with that). He's been gone 20 years now. Still, he remains a strong presence in my life. While I do not remember him as being a really funny guy or a person with a knack for putting forth many quotable quotes, he was a wise, introspective individual who viewed each day as an opportunity to expand one's level of knowledge.

One observation he did make to me once does apply quite well to communication. At the time, however, he meant it to be about marriage. Before marriage, he said, a person is about "me." After marriage, "me" becomes "us." There is no doubt in my mind this is true. Even if it is not, it is the attitude that drives me in my marriage. Regarding communication, I understand so much of what and how we communicate is "me-driven." Ideally, however, in should be "us-driven."Communication is about making and maintaining connections. Connections do not last without both parties striving to achieve mutual understanding.

Communication at its best involves more than one individual or publics acting toward the greater good. How they define that "greater good," of course, is unique to them and not necessarily applicable to others. Nevertheless, entities involved in a communication effort make it work by recasting their individual needs and goals into the context of what they have in common with their partners. These collaborators join forces to become the rising tide that raises them all. The challenge of communicators, then, is to put forth strategies that result in such mutually-beneficial alliances.

Information Overload

Here is an interesting statistic from Time magazine: each day the average American spends about 12 hours consuming information, taking in more than 100,000 words. That is as amazing as it is mind-boggling. While I do tap into a number of information sources each day, I never even thought of it in terms of word exposure. It raises the question of when does this get to be too much. At what point do our minds hit overload and words begin pouring over the side of our brains similar to the way water overflows from a bucket? In my case, at least, I need to acknowledge that that overflow may have already started.

I suspect I may not be alone. When you think of the number of websites people visit each day, the number of television and radio programs they watch, the number of people with whom they interact, and even the number of written messages they read, then it is easier to see how the Time magazine statistic is not unreasonable. At the same time, it still does not make it any less than a very high number of words. Assuming our brains do have the capacity to process these many words, then how well are we able to define, understand and contend with them? How well are we able to determine a viable response to them?

This makes for a major communication challenge. If you are a public relations professional, for example, trying to drive-home a particular message or information on behalf of a client to specific publics, then the odds of coming even close to success are definitely less than half. Not only are you competing with your direct competitors, but you are also trying to contend with thousands upon thousands of other communicators sending out communiques having nothing to do with your subject matter. No wonder people tend to settle in with sources of communication with which they feel most comfortable and no wonder it can be very difficult to break into those comfort zones.

Communicating With Charity

As I write this the 2012 Republican primary contest is moving along at a fast and furious pace. Front runner Mitt Romney is spending a ton of money to maintain his lead. In fact, the conventional wisdom is that he will eventually win his party's nomination. Despite that, months remain before the race is settled. Till then, many speeches and interviews will continue to be given by all the candidates. Each, of course, will be followed closely by the media and campaign followers. As physically and emotionally taxing as running for president must be, I continue to be amazed at how well these individuals hold up under what has to be incredible pressure.

Much of the pressure, as I see it, revolves around communication. Everything these individuals say and attempt to communicate is under relentless scrutiny. When they misspeak or say something that appears to not quite jive with what they have said before - sometimes even years before - a seeming floodgate of questions, criticisms and/or attacks on them open. Often, many of the misstatements happen on questions they have been asked countless times before. This is so unfair. Are there any of us who, after being asked the same question hundreds of times, wouldn't try to reword our response differently? After all, saying the same thing over and over is pretty boring.

In the world of communication, all of us are senders of messages. None of us do this perfectly. By the same token, all of us are receivers of messages. We do not do this perfectly either. Because we all share these traits, we need look at all the candidates, in the words of George Washington, "with greater charity." Unless a person is found to be telling a falsehood, then I urge everyone of us to cut the candidates some major slack. It's fine to go after their decisions or positions on various issues. And, yes, how and what they communicate is important, too. But they are also just like us when it comes to communicating with others. They do not always speak as well as they should or would like to. For us, then, communicating with charity in many ways improves our own communication skills