When To Share

Ideally, organizations should conduct themselves with openness. They should be transparent in terms of decisions, policy positions and connections with others. Their leaders should have nothing to hide. On the surface, I do not know many who would disagree with that sentiment. Yet there are scenarios when and where openness is not ideal. An obvious example is the federal government. They wrestle with national security issues that most concede should not be made public. For instance, mum's the word when it comes to our plans to fight terrorists. And, if I am not mistaken, Coca Cola still has yet to disclose its recipe for coke.

Nevertheless, the question of how open an entity should be and where the line is drawn between what the public has a right to know and what should be kept secret remains a viable one; one that is worthy of debate. One professional that should be at the table whenever that discussion occurs is the communicator. Many who subscribe to the Public Relations of America's code of ethics would argue on the side of disclosure or openness. At the same time, they are in the business or protecting their client. Does that sometimes involve withholding information? You bet. So, how and under what circumstances does one reconcile such opposite values?

I wish I had a clearcut answer. Perhaps if lives are at stake is a good reason to keep information from the public. What about the sale of property? Many agree with that, too. But what about the tax returns of a public figure? As we know from the current presidential campaign, not every agrees on that one. Professional communicators walk a fine line between protecting their client and serving the greater good that is society. In attempting to choose, communicators should encourage their client to conduct themselves in the context of others. After all, this is how communicators should base their behavior. What is in the best interest of those with who they are to connect?

Segways

Perhaps the best thing about mankind is its insatiable need to move forward. Progress. Advancement. That's what we do. The telegraph. Automobiles. The Internet. All those achievements and so many more are among mankind's bragging points. The hits keep coming and that is a good thing. Sometimes, however, we over do ourselves. Sometimes we come up with a contraption that goes too far. I am referring to the segway. This is that motorized personal vehicle that enables its users to ride from one location to another. No walking. Stand on its platform, turn on the engine and hang onto the handles.

Segways look fun. Plus, the prospect of not having to overextend oneself is appealing. Despite that, however, taking away or even reducing our need to use our feet is not good. It is akin to making it no longer necessary to speak. We need the challenge of trying to figure out what words to use, how best to organize them, or even the most effective way in which to present them. Without that challenge our need to think is compromised. If we no longer have to work as hard to think, then we become less than we are. The same holds true for walking. We need to walk even when we may not want to. We need to keep working hard to be effective communicators, too.

Yes, communication is difficult. But it is the kind of hurdle that makes us better; keeps us on the upswing. Segways represent an obstruction to maintaining a level of sharpness that makes us who we are. So, for what is worth, my recommendation to anyone who asks is to not make using a segway a regular habit. Keep walking and be grateful you can.  And while you are at it, when faced with trying to connect with another, keep scratching your head until you come up with the right words. And keep talking. Oh, other thing: be wary of anything that seems like a step forward. Give it a thorough look-see before giving it your personal seal of approval.

Fireworks

I was one of what I estimated to have been 100,000 people who attended the 2016 Fireworks Festival held in Busan, South Korea, earlier this month. With all the pops and whistles, bright lights and spectacular displays, fireworks are fun to see. I find it nearly impossible to witness any fireworks display without letting out a string of ohhhhs and ahhhhs. The festival in Busan was no exception. Lots of fun especially on a pleasant night surrounded by many folks of any ages intent on having fun. It was a memorable time.

Without question, fireworks displays are hard to ignore. Yes, they are fun to watch, but on a deeper level serve as a distraction from life's more sobering realities such as going to work, making financial ends meet, maintaining a reasonably healthy lifestyle, and caring for loved ones. Fireworks offer a brief escape from those challenges. Because people know that, it is probably why so many happily go out of their way to watch a display. At the end of the day, however, one cannot completely turn their back on their responsibilities. That may seem like stating the obvious, but the fact is there are those who communicate as if they are a fireworks display. Fluff with little substance. Lots of noise but few facts.

The U.S. presidential campaign this year seems to be a non-stop fireworks display: lots of noise in the form of name calling, bragging and posturing, but little substaniative information sharing or vision designed to make voters a more informed citizenry. One result is that so many folks are turned off by the candidates and claim they have no attention to even vote. This is unfortunate, of course, as the very existence of the US revolves around the degree to which all citizens are engaged in matters of policy and current events. Yet, ironically, top candidates seem to be trying to devote much energy to distracting voters from real issues. Communication-wise, this is poor form. In terms of civics, such behavior is harmful.

Accepting the Work of Media

Is the media trustworthy? Are they worthy of our time and attention? Do they make us feel like reading their stories and listening to their reports is time well-spent? Sadly for us all the answer to each of these questions is the same: "no." In terms of why this is the case, my own theory is the reputation of the media has declined proportionally to the rise of niche journalism; those outlets that specifically gear their work to reporting the news with a particular bias. Media outlets of that ilk may be satisfying their followers, but they sure are not doing their profession or information seekers of all stripes any favors.

Recently, I attended a lecture by Dr. Seong-Ho Park, senior commentator of YTN, South Korea's premiere 24-hour television new channel. Dr. Park attempted to address the question of the media's trustworthiness. While urging readers and viewers to be skeptical, he views good reporters as being unbiased. They collect information, weigh its potential impact, timeliness, level of unusualness, and relevance, and then share it with the public. Dr. Park observed that good reporters are only concerned with reporting the truth. They do not operate under a cloud of bias, he suggested. This, of course, sounds good but I am sure I agree.

We all certainly want our press to be totally objective. But wanting does not make it so. Reporters are people and people have their likes, dislikes and sense of what is important. As a result, what they produce comes with a slant. The sooner we can embrace this reality the better we can process the news. Be skeptical as Dr. Park advised. Processing the work of public relations professionals should be done with the same perspective. It is a matter of not accepting the complete of any happening from only one source. This may make communicating more of a challenge, but it is possible it could make it more effective, too.

Deplorable

One of the more infamous comments coming out of the United States' 2016 presidential election thus far came when democrat nominee Hillary Clinton called nearly half of her opponents followers "a basket full of deplorables." For starters, generalizations are rarely a good idea. Trying to lump millions of people into one category is dangerous business. Look what happened four years ago when republican nominee Mitt Rominey characterized nearly half of his opponent's supporters as "takers." I would say the comments from Clinton and Romney were both deplorable. Fortunately, both persons walked back what they said.

Still, it does not change the fact that here in 2016 much of the communicating going on is, in fact, deplorable. Most, in fact, seem to agree with that. Ironically, this even includes a number of the folks who are among the most active offenders. They refute what the other side has said about their candidate and then proced to jump right back into the cesspool of name-calling, lieing and mischaracterization. No wonder so many people, including those planning to vote, are so turned off by this year's election. No wonder people from all over the world are looking at this and thinking "What in the hell is going on?"

The United States is better than this. It really is. Sadly, though, one would not know it from the level of communicating that we are seeing and hearing every day. For me, I am wrestling with the question of whether this is reflective or where we are as a nation in terms of communicating, or if this speaks to the lack of quality of the specific folks doing much of the speaking in this campaign. Perhaps I am being gullible, but I am clinging to the notion it reflects those on the playing field these days rather than the nation itself. At least I sure hope so. If I truly believed the US had sunk this low, then my belief in our country would be beyond repair.

Bomb Dogs

I have always been strangely fascinated by bomb dogs. These creatures, full of energy and a desire to please, are trained to sniff out "live" bombs. Yet when duty calls they do not know they are trying to find a contraption that potentially could kill it. They are unaware of the danger they are running toward. Their trainers do, of course. The folks who have fled the scene to avoid being in harm's way know it. But the bomb dog is totally clueless. Their singular focus is to please their master by finding this "thing." The dog does not care if it is a chew toy or pair of fancy sneakers. It is all about pleasing the master.

So, one might ask, does such a slice of reality have to do with communication? Perhaps it points to the actions one takes when they are not given all information. People do not always make the best choices when misled or deceived. Would bomb dogs be bomb dogs if they actually knew or understood what it was they were supposed to be looking for? My guess is probably not. Would people make certain relationship choices if their prospective partner was straight forward and did not gloss over their "baggage?" Would voters vote the way they do if their candidate of choice was honest?

All of us like to think we make good choices because we are well informed. We like to think we do what we do because we know all that we need to know about a particular issue or person. Perhaps that is the case some time. But there is no denying that is not completely the case. We are subject to deception at times. Given that reality, it makes sense to be skeptical about what others swear is true. It also points to our responsibility to be in-charge of our own lives and the choices we make. Be open. Be a good listener. Be prepared to confirm that is presented to us. Do not be like the bomb dog that blindly accepts what it is told.

Politically Correct

One of the most oft-used phrases we hear these days is "politically correct." Initially, it was introduced as a way of describing efforts not to offend or insult various segments of the population. But as time has passed ther are those who view it as an annoying and/or unnecessary hindrance to free expression: "I can't criticize people who belong to a certain race because people will say it is not politically correct." For instance, some will complain about not being able to comment on the amount of black-on-black crime for fear of being viewed as a racist or denigrating all African Americans. So, they lash out at having to be "politically correct" as they feel doing so limits their ability to speak their mind.

More and more, I have come to view that kind of thinking as lazy. No one is saying people should not be free to communicate their thoughts or feelings. Rather, what "politically correct" represents is a need for all of us to communicate with greater thought, sensitivity and knowledge. That does not sound so bad to me even though it does call for all of us to think more before we speak. Words do matter so all of us have a responsibility to use them with care. Perhaps one way to view this is to compare words to bullets. Fired randomly, bullets can do great and tragic harm. But if one thinks before they fire, then bullets can serve as an effective weapon against a specific target.

Perhaps, generally, our society is becoming more sensitive. Perhaps we are becoming more quick to have our feelings hurt. But is that so bad? I think not. If one communication as the act of two or more connecting and exchanging thoughts and information, then it seems logical that such an act should be carried out with a certain level of intellect. My sense is the ones complaining the most about this are the ones who prefer being able to let loose with their perspectives with little regard or respect for those with whom they wish to connect. To you I say, "Get with the program." Striving to be "politically correct" is not about stifling free speech. Instead, it's goal is to help make that speech better.

Promoting Ethical Behavior

There is not one profession or industry that does not have its own understanding of what is ethical. Whether it is sports, the arts or even politics, there is not one that lacks a general awareness of what type of behavior speaks to the matter of ethics. I am not necessarily referring to what is legal. That is
clear-cut. One either breaks the law or doesn't. Ethics, generally, falls into a more gray area. One, for instance, can be unethical but still be law-abiding. In golf, one player could constantly interrupt another just before they tee-off, but that does not mean they are violating any rules. It does mean they are conducting themselves in an unethical manner.

The world of business is another where ethics has become an important element. In fact, business ethics has even emerged as its own area or field of focus simply because of the level of importance people place on it. Business ethics refers to conducting oneself in a morally proper way in the realm of a business setting. Being truthful, open  and fair are matters of ethics. Thus, following those traits would be reason to refer to one as an ethical business man or woman. Being described that way, of course, would be a good thing. Sadly, in the cynical times in which we live, it is not enough to be ethical. Nowadays, businesses need to do what they can to let others know they are ethical.

That is too bad since, ideally, one likes to assume their ethical or "good" behavior speaks for itself and does not need to be flaunted. Yet here we are. More and more, public relations types are putting together campaigns designed to showcase a business' positive ways. This is the result of companies that do not behave ethically. The banking and auto industry are two examples of where entities have behaved unethically. the public has been burned enough to where companies are almost assumed to be unethical unless proved otherwise. Professional communicators can and do showcase that "proof." it is too bad such work is necessary.

The Dangers of Over Confidence

When it comes to interviews and even public appearances in general, all of us are wise to take some time to prepare. Even the most seasoned veterans should give thought to what points they wish to emphasize as well as what questions or topics might be raised. Even though being ill-prepared is something all agree is important to avoid, it is amazing how many times persons go into press encounters "on the fly" as often they do. How many times have any of us witnessed spokespeople struggle as a result of not giving much thought to what they want to say? For myself, I would say, "far too often."

In those circumstances, my sense is being over-confident is one of the big reasons for this. Professionals reason because they have done many interviews before, then another one should be easy enough. Such an attitude, though understandable, is dangerous. Such a mindset is not unlike "playing with fire." Things can go wrong quickly. The interviewer, for instance, can ask an unexpected question or raise an issue from the past. This can knock the so-called seasoned communicator off balance. When this happens, then often it is "look out below!" They end up embarrassing themselves and doing harm to their client.

One of the marks of a solid professional is they make each interaction with a reporter seem like the first. They are able to inject a sense of freshness into the interview that gives it energy. Confident communicators do this. Over-confident ones do not. Being and behaving in a confident manner is the result of being prepared. Being over-confident crosses a line into arrogance and disrespect toward the reporter and the topic itself. Confident communicators approach each interview with a sense of humility that helps them better serve the topic and client. Bottom line: being confident is good and over-confident is not.