Languages

Language is such an incredible communication tool. By uttering various sounds we humans are able to connect with others, share thoughts, express feelings, give commands, impart information and on and on. Then, by uttering other sounds, we are able to respond to the sounds just made to us. These sounds, of course, represent language. Presently, it is estimated there are over 7,000 languages in the world today. As geologist Jared Diamond recently wrote, many of these languages are unknown to most of us, some are only spoken and unwritten and can be heard in far away lands to which few ever travel. Mandarin is the primary language in the world followed by Spanish, English and Arabic.

Even though it may not be the most popular of scholarly fields, lingistics strikes me as one of the most fascinating. Those who study it are almost detective-like in their pursuit of examining the origins and evolution of this most basic way of communicating. Their field of expertise is an important key to the existence of mankind and, in many ways, insight into how we will be interacting in the years to come. As many of the languages of the world are spoken by a relatively few people, those so-called sounds will in all likelihood cease to exist when those people pass away. The result, eventually, is that how we as a species communicate  will be via many of the more popular or giant languages of today.   

I do not find this to be particularly good or comforting news. While it is true the only language I speak or write is one of the major ones, the prospect that the billions of us who live on this planet will be reduced to communicating via a few lanauges might make things easier, in a larger context it also speaks to a decline in what helps make us unique, colorful and individual. Perhaps this trend is inevitable. After all, in the animal kingdom, for instance, the number of creatures in the world today is also less than what it used to be. I do not like that either. And so it goes with language. I only hope it is a slow decline.

Yellow Journalism and PR

Tio this day, "yellow journalism" continues to be one of the most infamous phrases in the history of the news profession. It was coined by a man named Erwin Wardman, editor of The New York Post, near the end of the nineteenth century  one day while describing the circulation battle between papers owned by Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. In an effort to out-do the other, the two peppered their papers with sensational and misleading headlines designed to make theier publications irresisitable to potential readers. In describing the Pulitzer-Hearst battle the way he did, Wardman created a catch-phrase that has come to describe all journalism that leans toward exaggeration at the expense of "the truth."

The height of the Pulitzer-Hearst conflict occurred between 1895-1898. This was apprioximately twenty years before the first formal class in public relations was taught by Edward Bernays at New York University. Around this same time, Bernays also wrote the first book on that subject, "Crystallizing Public Opinion.". Bernays is acclaimed as being one of the early pioneers of public relations. As a practitioner, he gained fame by media events he staged on behalf of clients to promote their various products. One famous example is a parade of models he organized in New York City on behalf of the tobacco industry to help make it more socially-acceptable for women to smoke in public.

This stunt was highly successful, thus establshing Bernays as a leader in the art of pubic manipulation. The so-called style of Bernays does not strike me as being all that different from yellow journalism: purposeful exaggeration to gain attention and ignite public action. How much was Bernays influenced by the actions of Pulitzer and Hearst? How much has the public relations profession been influenced by those two media giants?  Without question, an element of exaggeration can be found in most any act of persuasion. But at what point does public relations cross the line and become "yellow public relations?" When it occurs, it needs to be denounced as readily as Pulitzer and Hearst.

Speaking for Yourself

One of the most oft-used expressions people use is "I can speak for myself." Something comes up and rather than have another person speak on our behalf, we speak for ourselves. After all, who knows our own mind better than us? Who knows every little detail as to how and why we have the opinion we do about a particular issue or matter than us? So, speaking out should be pretty easy. Right? Wrong. It can actually be rather difficult. I can attest to this from personal experience. While I have strong views on various issues, I am not always able to articulate my specific thoughts on any given topic nearly as well as I would like.

This may be a reality that others experience as well. My point here is not to directly address the reasons for it. Rather, from a communication standpoint, I can speak to what to do about it. When one speaks on their own behalf, they are essentially serving as a spokesman for themselves. One of the first steps a spokesman takes when preparing for an interview or public appearance is to do as much research on the topic-at-hand. Even if research includes information about one's self, it is important to become well-versed on the part of yourself that is relevant to the topic at-hand. Do not let your guard down just because you are quoting yourself.

If anything, professionals should be harder on themselves than they are on others. Doing so shows discipline that can and should be impressive to others. Furthermore, representing one's self, particularly if you take it seriously, is good practice for representing others. Do research on your topic. Compose talking points. Practice them. Find out as much as you can about your audiences. These are the same steps one should take on behalf of any client. Public relations is its most effective when it is the result of serious and detailed preparation. This level of professionalism should always be the rule.

Baby Steps

The older I get the more I realize how little any of us take giant steps. At times, of course, it may seem that way, but reality speaks otherwise. The last few days I have spent a good deal of time with my grand daughter. As I write this, she is not quite two years old.She is at the beginning stages of building a vocabulary - being able to identify various objects, communicate her thoughts, describe what she sees and wants. It is fun and exciting to watch, of course. But it is important to remember her progress is the result of the work of her parents, teachers and others with whom she interacts. Day by day, they have contributed to her growth.

I observe a similar dynamic in the communication classes I currently teach. In each one, I try to lead students in discussions on various aspects of public relations, communication and writing. At least from my perspective, they are making progress on incorporating various elements of each topic into their conversations and class projects. This growth, of course, is not just the result of my efforts, but in reaction to other communication classes they have and are taking. Nevertheless, it is growth that is exhibited weekly.While at the conclusion of the semester, the students' progress, upon first glance, may seem great. But truth is it has been incremental. 

These examples illustrate how communication works.When in results in progress, the great majority of the time that progress is in baby-steps. Whether the result is greater profits, increases in membership, an enhanced image or stronger community ties, these advances are not in "leaps or bounds" but over an extended period of time. Effective communication is not Superman-like. Rarely, if ever, is success measured in any other than inches as opposed to yards. This is the way it is with relationships, which helping establish and maintain is ultimate purpose of communication. That, I might add, is not a bad thing.

Making Special Moments Special

Here is a question: What creates a bigger stir: an actual breaththrough such as a cure for polio or finding out about that discovery? What triggers more robust celebration: the discovery of a new land, to cite another example, or being told of this new finding? The point here is not necesarily to get any one to choose between the two. Rather, it is to suggest that communication is a necessary part of any notable moment - good or bad. As Francis Darwin, botanist and son of Charles Darwin, once observed: "In science the credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to the man to whom the idea first occurs."

On a more personal scale for all of us, every year we all have a birthday. The inevitable result of that is people around us - generally family and friends - acknowledge it in some way. They greet us with a "happy birthday" wish, perhaps take us out to lunch or dinner, or even buy us a present or two. But how do they know where to take us? From where do their ideas come as to what present to buy us? The answers, of course, come from us. We make it known what kind of foods we enjoy eating as well as what gift we need, want or both. Our birthday is a special moment made all the more so by our communicating it.

This brings me to the old question about the tree and the forest. Does a tree that falls in the forest make a sound if no one is around to hear it? Rather than just give a straight "yes" or "no" response, from a communication standpoint, my answer is the tree makes a noise only if there someone around to communicate it. Action and reaction derive from at least some degree of knowledge. We people do not do what we do in a vaccuum. While our base or understanding of particular information may be questionable at times, it is the element of communication that sets in motion our thoughts and/or action. The two cannot do anything but go hand-in-hand. 

Evolving Definition

It has been 90 years since the first book on public relations was written. ("Crystallizing Public Opinion" by Edward  Bernays). In that book, Bernays set down the first formal definition of this social science that more people today are practicing, researching and studying than ever before. Public relations, he wrote, is "information given to the public, persuasion directed at the public to modify attitudes and actions, and efforts to integrate attitudes and actions of an institution with its publics and of publics with those of that instittion." One of the reasons this definition remains significant is that it serves as a foundation on which the literally hundreds of definitions that followed have been built.

This early definition by Bernays perfectly summarized his belief that it is the job of the professional communicator to shape and/or redirect public opinion. Throughout his entire career Bernays never wavered from this perspective. Many other practitioners and scholars that followed echoed his sentiment. At the same time, others believed public relations was more of a tool designed to establish and maintain alliances or partnerships. Rex Harlow, one of the most recognized communication scholars, put it this way: "Public relations is the distinctive management function which helps establish and maintain mutual lines of communication."

Just last year, the Public Relations Society of America seemed to suport the Harlow prspective by declaring public relations as a strategic process designed to build on "mutually beneficial relationships" between organizations and their publics. This definition reinforced the fascinating evolution of public relations as a practice and social science. From shaper or manipulator of public opinion to builder of relationships. Upon first glance, that may seem like quite a shift. But my sense is the shift, though intriguing, has been more gradual than dramatic. After all, each relationship - professional or personal - requires some degree of persuasion.

Crossword Puzzle Enthusiasts

There is a segment of our population that does not receive nearly the applause it deserves. In many ways they are unsung and that is a shame. They are passionate, dedicated, smart and fearless - all qualities I aspire to possess one day. They are crossword puzzle enthusiasts. Most of us, when we come across a crossword puzzle in a newspaper or magaine, quickly skip to the next page either without thought or, perhaps for a fleeting moment, a little fear at how intimidating this collection of numbered squares is. Yet these men and women of all ages do the opposite. They pick up a pencil or, in some cases, a pen and dare to step across the line in the sand the puzzles represent.

That is very impressive. Crossword puzzle enthusiasts are wordsmiths. They know of words most of us do not even know exist. For instance, ever hear of the word "ucalegon?" I haven't. Yet a good crossword puzzle enthusiast has. In fact, they even know what it means and can use it in a sentence. (In case you are wondering, ucalegon refers to "a neighbor whose house in on fire.") The only reason I know it is because I read it in a recent interview given by Will Shortz, crossword editor of The New York Times. My point is this is the world in which these people dwell and I, for one, beleve it to be one that is good.

Communication, of course, is all about words. Words, spoken or written, help us connect and stay connected with others. The more we have in our arsenal the better the odds are we will be successful at creating ties that bind. This is no small thing, especially when one supposedly does it for a living. Communicators are vital to our society. In such a world, crossword puzzle enthisiasts are our last line of defense. Ever since the first crossword puzzle made its debut in December, 1913, the brave lot of enthusiasts have been doing all they can to help keep the rest of us afloat. More power to them. The rest of us would be doing well to join their ranks.

Hurting the One You Love

One of the more popular old tunes in the American songbook is "You Always Hurt the One You Love" by Doris Fisher and Allan Roberts. The great Mills Brothers as much as anyone helped popularize it.  This song came to mind recently while reading Jared Diamond's latest book, "The World Until Yesterday." In it, Diamond, one of my academic heroes, refers to a study by Lewis Richardson conducted over 50 years ago about the causes of the nation-against-nation wars between 1820 and 1949. It seems many of those terrible conflicts during that 129-year stretch involved nations that were trading partners. In other words, nations that had formed partnerships to strengthen their economic bases experienced so severe of a breakdown in communication they actually went to war with an ally.

These nations were not strangers to one another. Their armed conflicts were not due to a lack of information or ignorance one had of the other.  Such an occurrence is not all that different when it involves a couple that marries. Two individuals form a legally-binding partnership based, at least in large part, on feelings of the heart. They wed with the notion this alliance will enhance their lives. Unfortunately, according to statistics from the federal government, approximately half of those same marriages end in divorce. Some of them, at least, are very bitter separations in which one or both parties are so disillusioned with the other they want to do more than simply leave the other - they want to do harm to them as well.

As the old saying goes, nothing lasts forever. Trade agreements between nations and marriages are no exception. The question then becomes: what happens that turns such positive beginnings between nations and individuals into such negative endings? How much of a role does poor communication play in this sharp turnaround? While I do not have a precise answer to that question, what does strike me upon initial reflection is how powerful communcation - good or bad - is. On the one hand, when it works it makes one want to connect with another for a long long time. When it doesn't, it can inspire those same partners to initite steps to destroy the other. It goes to show how effective communication is not something to be ignored.

Too Busy to Communicate

Everybody is busy these days.  Everybody seems to lead a hectic life even when they are supposedly kicking back and "taking it easy."  I look around and see folks talking on their cell phones, texting friends, playing computer games, running errands, doing yard work, watching television, exercising, perhaps writing their own blog, reading, or taking a nap - just to rattle off a few so-called leisure activities.  While we may agree or disagree as to how important or worthwhile any of those actions might be, none can dispute they are among the ways people choose to spend their time. We may be a push-button society, but that does not mean we do not know how to fill up our waking moments.

This is not all that dissimilar to our eating habits. As a society, we may not eat all that well, but consume food we certainly do. No time for breakfast, so we grab coffee and a donut. There is too much going on so our lunch becomes a power bar and/or soft drink. We have every intention of making up for breakfast and lunch with a soild dinner, but then the kids have soccer practice so we end up going to a fast food place instead. It is go-go-go, If being active and busy was all it took to lead lives of health and quality, then all of us would have nothing to complain about. Sadly for us, busyness does not do the trick.

The result of this kind of bounce-from-one-thing-to-the-next lifestyle so much of us lead is that some very importabnt aspects of life are getting short-changed. Good health is one. Another is communication. My concern is more of us are taking less time to communicate in meaningful ways with those around us. We are on-the-go, so therefore we communicate that way. Not taking the time to properly interact with each other and engage in two-way exchanges only adds to the prospect of increased misunderstandings and feelings of isolation. I can only hope our pendulum begins shifting in the opposite direction. If not, then the 21st century may not turn out to be all we hope for.