Protecting Dominance

Call me "old school" or a "fuddy-duddy" or whatever else might seem appropriate as it applies to communication and dominance. I recognize that to some, when it comes to communicating with others, there are those who feel it is vital that they dominate or control the interaction. This way, they reason, they can both control what is being said as well heavily influence how the conversation will go. In other words, they can tip the scale toward getting what they want from others. These desired results can range from achieving agreement and being understood to triggering action by others and gaining acceptance. Any one of those possible outcomes is not necessarily a bad thing. What is "bad," however, is found more in the intent behind how one chooses to communicate. The act of dominating another for its own sake is, at the least, selfish and, at the most, manipulative and dishonest. At its best, the act of communicating is designed to foster mutual understanding and harmony. For hundreds of years now, men and women have added an array of layers to that act by identifying ways to communicate that goes beyond simply getting along. Communication, for many, is a way to sway or dictate the decisions and actions of others. At this point, we can no longer tell folks to stop communicating in a way that inflences others. That train, as they say, left the station years ago. But what we can strive for is encouraqing people to dominate through honest means. Do not lie. So long as honesty prevails, then dominance as it applies to communication is not wrong; nor does it need to be stopped. What we as a soceity need to keep doingi is enforcing regulations and sanctions that help ensure dishonest communication is kept to a minimum. At the same time, we must keep doing all we can to protect acts of dominance so long as they are carried out honestly.

The Challenge of Evolution

I wish to officialy add my name to the list of those who believe evolution is a good thing. I like, for instance, the fact that once we used to walk bent over but now walk upright. I like that once the only thing that could fly were birds but now mankind has multiple ways to take-wing and not die in the process. I like that once there were diseases that could kill us but now thanks to numerous medical advances we can deal with pretty easily. On a personal note, I like that once I ate food with my hands but now am able to use utensils so as to not make a mess and get all of the goodies in my mouth without spilling it all over my face or on the floor. Yes, evolution is a good thing, especially when it equates with progress. Of course, evolution does not come without a price. With it comes a need for us to adjust and change our behavior so as to ensure the evolutionary step takes-hold. One example is toothpaste. The invention of toothpaste designed to help keep our choppers healthy and white is a good thing, but now we have to incorporate it into our schedules using it two-three times per day to ensure we benefit from it. No discussion of evolution would be complete without mentioning communication. Over the past few centuries the number of evolutionary changes regarding this field and act have been staggering. Not only can folks on different sides of the planet speak to each other, but they can do so in "real time" and face-to-to-face. When it comes to communication,one very tricky aspect is incorporating it into our own evolution as individuals. Every day I am bombarded with information. The result is I have some tidbits of information in my head today that I did not have yesterday. At the sametime, there probably are some nuggets I had that I have either forgotten or no longer need or want. This forces me to make some adjustments on a constant basis. This influences how I comunicate with others. It also impacts how others communicate with me. Progress, yes, but also constant challenge.

Election Results

The 2020 Presidential election is now history. The incumbent was defeated - something that has happened only a few times in our nation's history. More people voted in this election than ever in any in our history. The winner received more votes than anyone who has ever run for president. The person who received the second most votes in an presidential election was his opponent, the incumbent. The giant voter turnout is a good thing, of course. Seeing that many citizens do their civic duty is one thing we can all feel good about. In past elections, far too many folks elected not to do their duty. The result was a nation that did not fill its mandate. In 2020 we did much better. With so many people voting, a signficiant result is that there are millions of people who are now very unhappy. They are upset because their preferred candidate - the incumbent - lost. Some are even bitter. Many are convinced the other side cheated to win. Never mind that so far no on has yet to produce evidence to support that claim. A little over half the voting public is extremely happy at how the election turned out. But then there is sizable portion that remains upset. Going into the election the nation was nearly equally divided in terms of the two major candidates. Now with the results in, we still seem to be divided. The election did not heal the divide. Rather, it documented in. Yes, it is good to finally have it behind us. But now what? There remains far too much distrust and animosity. What is going to be done to address that? Giant blocks of citizens are still on opposite sides thinking unpleasant thoughts about the other. This cannot continue. What are our leaders going to do about? What are we going to do about it? One step in the right direction is going to need to involve a great deal of effective communicating. Listening with respect. Talking with. Having open minds and hearts. Bridging the divide within our nation is not going to happen without that.

Choice

The entry I am making now falls on a very significant day in American history: 2020 presidential election. As I write this, over 100 million votes have already been caste. Experts are predicting this year's electrion between Trump and Biden will see the largest voter turnout very possibly in the history of our nation. If that turns out to be true, then I will be delighted. The more people who participate in our nation's democratic process, then the better it is for all of us. After all, an engagged citizenry is what we are supposed to be about. Particularly in a democracy, the health of the nation is only as strong as the active interest of its people. Democracy is about choice. Making one. Sometimes the choice is easy. Sometimes not. Sometimes neither alternative is appealing. For too often when faced with candidates that do not measure up to a voter's ideals, voters here in America have opted to not vote at all; not make any choice. I have always found such behavior to be most unfortunate. When voters decide not to fulfill their civic duty, then we all suffer. The democratic form of government that defines the United Statres suffers. It becomes weaker. Elections are designed to help people determine the direction of the nation. To turn away from that represents a level of apathy that benefits no one. Think how this might apply to communication. When interacting with another, we all have a choice to make as to how we are going to communicate with that person. Be friendly? Be rude? Talk at but not with? Not talk at all? If any of us choose not to communicate at all, then what does that say about us? What is another supposed to think when assessing our character? If given a choice, I am sure we would all prefer that people not think ill of us. As a result, we should behave accordingly. We should choose to communicate in a way that helps make sure that does not happen. This election day, I hope as many people as possible make a choice. I also urge all of us to make a positive choice when it comes to communicating with others.

Ghosts & Goblins

Our nation's next presidential election is now just days away. As is normally the case, there is much tension in the air and will be until the results are known. And even after a victor has been declared officially, dissatisfaction throughout much of the country will remain. The losing political party and its many members will be upset that their candidate lost. Many, no doubt, will continue to make known their ill-feelings about the "other side" as well as their unwillingness to make any thing resembling an overture toward reconciliation. In many ways, the presidential election will not resolve the differences within our country. This reality is what makes Halloween 2020 all the scarier. The ghosts and goblins, it seems, are not children dressed in an array of creative costumes. Rather, they appear to be the grown-ups. It is easy to identify which ones they are. On the one hand, they are the folks who lovingly chuckle at how cute their kids and the ones in the neighborhood are. But on the other, they also spew forth ugly remarks and attitudes toward those who have political views that are counter to theirs. These are the worst kind of ghosts and goblins because their nastiness seems mindless, unrelenting and driven by a very narrow way of thinking. So, what is to be done with what is one of the worst Halloween's in our nation's history? Given the state of mind among so many people, including many of our so-called leaders, the upcoming election will not produce winners and losers. Rather, it will produce losers unless the ghosts and goblins driving it decide to cease with their intolerant mind-set. Such an act requires courage. It calls for a recognition that as valid as our perspectives might be, it is time to begin working at melding them with ones that are different than ours. Also, this time in our history calls for all of us to exhibit a willingness to communicate.

Addressing a Divided House

As of this entry, there is now one week to go before the 2020 Presidential election. By now, it is safe to say that most everyone knows there is much riding on the results. People on both sides of the political aisle are convinced that the country will be on the road to disaster if their side loses. The kicker is that each is probably right - given their perspective on life in the U.S. these past four years. That means there are going to be an awful lot of unhappy folks no matter the results. With that in mind, it seems as if the first order of business for either Trump or Biden will be to begin taking steps to bring the country together. How does one do that? How does one take opposing sides that are convinced with every core of their being that not only are they right in how they see the world but the other side goes beyond wrong. Those on the opposite side are practically evil and because they feel the way they do they are also idiots. On top of that, a large segment of the population will view Trump with much distrust and scorn if he wins and the same will be true with Biden should he win the day. Talk about your tall order. If the winner of the election ignores this divide, then they will be making a major mistake as it will only get worse. The first thing the winner will need to do is acknowledge the divide. Even though such a declaration may seem like stating the obvious, coming from the President of the United States it will still have impact. The second step should be to launch a nationwide listening tour as conducted by the President, his top aides, and even leaders from the opposite political party. Voters will be upset and cry out to express their emotions. Trump and/or Biden will need to give them that opportunity in the form of town hall meetings throughout the entire country. Results of that effort should then be compiled with appropriate recommendations for elected leaders and citizens to follow. Throughout all this, the President should continue to recommit himself to establishing unity in our nation. It is time for all of us to begin taking tangible steps to address our house divided.

Mud-Slinging

Mud-slinging is an expression that has been with us for many years. It pertains to a high level of accusations and insulting that occurs between political candidates who are running against each other for office. I do not know the origins of the expression or who introduced it. Whoever it is should be recognized everytime we have a political campaign. After all, it is not every day one coins an expression that requires no explanation even among those who do not follow politics. Off-hand, the only other phrase that I can think of that ranks just as high on the familiarity scale and that requires no explanation is "love at first sight." As I write this, after today there are ten days remaining in the 2020 presidential campaign. The two candiates - President Donald Trump and former vice president Joe Biden - are following the tradition of mud-slinging. The negativity between them and their followers is intense and will no doubt continue long after the campaign itself is over. Both candidates are to be congratulated for the energy they are bringing to this form of campaigning. (Yes, there are such things as positive campaign. Not a campaign comes along where the candidates do not pledge to run positive campaigns. It is the rare candidate who keep this promise.) Personally, I would prefer if Trump and Biden made a better effort to be positive, but maybe they just bring out the worst in each other. What is the best way for the rest of us to handle this form of political communicating? Enjoy it? Ignore it? Hold office seekers to higher standards? Such questions are not as easy to answer as they might seem. After all, it is important for all citizens to vote even if we may not be totally pleased with our choices. Consequently, we the witnesses to the mud-slinging are left with the option of rising above the unpleasant behavior of our choices. We hope the person to whom we ultimately give our support is better than they sometimes appear to be.

Self-Reflection

A few entries ago I shared that I was attempting to write my autobiography. As of this entry, I am nearly 30,000 words into this project. I am not sure if that is good or bad or if what I have put down on paper thus far has any real merit. But what I am sure of is that taking a look at my history, actions I took, and decisions I made is turning out to be a bigger challenge than I anticipated. Why is that? At the outset, I figured writing about myself would be fairly easy. The only real challenge would be the time commitment. Once I was on board with this, then I should be able to knock out this book in no time. Right? Wrong. Just because I may be an expert on me does not make my self-reflecting any easier. The fact I do know so much about me is what is making this effort all the more challenging. For the first time in a long while I am attempting to critique me. I am attempting to delve into the reasons why I traveled the path I have these many years. What influenced my choices? What led me to select one turn over another? As part of this effort, I am also trying to more thorougly understand my many communication choices. This is especially tricky because it is forcing me to critique myself as a communicator. I am recognizing that there have been times when my communication skills were less than lauditory. It is not easy to acknowledge this. Generally, I like thinking positive thoughts about me. What I do not enjoy is recognizing that I have not always communicated with others in ways that were as straight forward or completely honest as they should have been. That does not make me feel good about me. Perhaps others have these same uncomfortable moments. For me, I am trying to be honest with myself when it comes to those times when I could have behaved more honorably. I urge all others to do the same. Doing so is one way we call improve as communicators. We owe it to ourselves as much as we do thoe folks in our lives.

Aftermath

Each of us communicates every day. And you know what? We are pretty good at it. If I want an extra piece of toast, I know how to make that known. If any of us are ready to go to bed early, then we are fully capable of making that known as well. The point is: day-in-, day-out, we all communicate our wishes with success with great consistency. As a result, on that level, communication is as straight- forward and easy as most anything we can name. The challenge that comes with it is two-fold: how we communicate what we seek to communicate and the aftermath of whatever "style" we might utilize to communicate our initial message. Let's look at those two points. To begin, it is important to remember that the two are linked. One impacts the other. The "how" of any communication effort is very important. For example, if I communicate that I want that extra toast with a scream or by throwing my plate against the wall while making my request, then without question that is sending multiple signals that go far beyond a simple piece of toast. People around me will no doubt recoil from my outburst. If the person wishing to go to bed early does so by kickng over the coffee table and stormiung out of the room, then what they are communicating to others goes far beyond their wanting to hit the hay. This leads us to the aftermath. How we communicate directly affects how others perceive us and how they feel about us. This influence whether folks want to maintain some type of connectionw with us. Who would want to have breakfast with me if I throw my plate over a piece of extra toast? No one. This points to the notion that when we choose to communicate a message in a particular way, then part of our thinking should include the aftermath. What result do we want beyond the immediate message? How important is that to us? Our answer to those basic questions, ideally, should drive the "how" of our communicating. This is what helps make the act of communication so complex.

Our Story

One of my all-time literary heroes was and is Studs Terkel. As an interviewer and author his lasting contribution was a reminder that we all have stories to tell. Within each of us, we carry around biographies that are worth telling. Terkel's most famous book was "Working" in which a host of what I will call "regular people" talked about their jobs and their feelings about the challenges that came with them. (Fun fact: This book was even turned into a Broadway musical.) As Terkel's style of interviewing was conversational rather than, say, confrontational, he was able to elicit thoughtful comments from his many subjects. Drawing from Terkel's work, I believe we can all draw lessons from ourselves to better present ourselves to others. Whether it is in a formal job interview or a casual conversation with a neighbor, our encounters provide us with opportunities to communicate and/or connect. Accepting the premise of Terkel's work, one way all of us might become better connectors or comunicators is by incorporating our own stories into our interactions with others. For instance, it is one thing to tell a prospective employer that you want a job. But such a wish can be significantly strengthened if we can package that wish with a story about ourselves that explains the background of the goal. Presently I am working on my autobiography. I have no idea if anyone other than me and my family will be interested in it once it is completed. I am about one-third of the way through it and, frankly, am not thinking the jury on that is still out. Nevetheless, I am enjoying the process. The challenge of this book revolves around telling my story in a way that is coherent and interesting to others. Given that I am not famous, the challenge is all the greater. Also, the projected book represents a unique comunication exercise in figurng out ways to make stories through me more interesting. Normally, my style is to leave me out of whatever is it is I am talking about. Perhaps I need to change that. This is something that we all might consider about ourselves.

Wiggle Room

So, how much wiggle room is one allowed when it comes to communication? Can you be too loud or too soft in your speech? Can you be too blunt with your message or a bit vague? The answer to all these questions is "yes." That is the great thing about communication. It is also the most frustrating aspect of it. Communicating effectively is as precise as it is imprecise. This is because not every act of communicating works for everyone. To give one example: Sometimes while watching television I need to turn up the volume. And then there are times when I need to turn it down. And this could occur during the same program! And then there is the message itself. Depending upon the topic and what I am doing at that particular moment, at times I need things thoroughly explained to me. Directions, for example. Other times, just give me the name of the ultimate destination and I can take it from there. All this points to the same reality for all of us: we need to be as flexible and nimble as we possibly can when trying to enjoy a sustained connection with another. Here is another piece of reality: that is never going to change. There will never be a one-size-fits-all strategy when it comes to communicating successfully with an audience. And if that is not enough, here is probably the biggest, most undeniable aspect of communication of them all: none of us can throw up our hands and walk away from it. None of us can say, "That's it. I'm outta here." If we are going to co-exist with others, then we have to contend with all the foibles and inconsistencies that define communication. Need I remind any one that being social creatures, we all need to co-exist. We all need to have that skill on some level. If not, then we cease to be. This means all of us need to embrace what I call the wiggleness of communication. Whether we like it or not, when it comes to communicating, wiggle room is part of the mix.

More on Reality

All of us know about reality: death, gravity to cite a few quick examples. Reality is that thing that exists no matter how strenuously one denies it or changes their behavior to avoid it. It is there. Ever-present. And it is not going away. Ever. Most everyone, I believe, would agree that to deny reality is as fruitless and foolish as it is nuts. While to do so may not necessarily be risky, but at the very least, it is silly. But it can be both. For instance, my wife has a birthday coming up in a few weeks. If I choose to deny this reality when the actual day arrives, then the consequences of that will be undeniable - for me and her. Reality is no one's friend. At the same time, it is no one's enemy except when it's existence is denied. Yes, I have blogged about reality before. But it is a topic that needs to be highlighted as often as possible these days given the fact we seem to have a government that denies reality on a regular basis. Climate change? Doesn't exist. Never mind the terrible fires and hurricanes that we are experiencing. Wearing a mask to safeguard against COVID-19? Not important. Scientists, of course, have been shouting from the roof tops about these realities. Yet leaders who should know better have been using their bullhorns to spout the opposite. The consequences of denying the hard-truth of those realties represent reality in its most blunt form. Effective communication at its best is when it is wrapped in truth. Truth comes from fact. The best of our communicators base all that they say and do on both. They do not wrap their outreach on opinion or spin at the expense of truth and fact. That seems obvious enough. Yet spin continues to dominate so much of our airwaves. No wonder the heads of so many of us seem to be spinning all the time. Being witnesses to ongoing wrong-headedness is exhausting. No wonder people are either protesting or turning away.

Information

Call me old fashion or old school or just old, but I like information. I like that entity that gives you facts. I like it best when it does not come wrapped in fancy ribbons or off-the-wall hyperbole. The benefit of information speaks for itself. It needs no showcasing of any kind - at least for me. Just share it in its straight-forward glory and I am good-to-go. I like it best when it is not weighed -down with opinion or heavy emotion. The power of information is that it needs none of that. Its power speaks for itself. Big time and with a level of consistency that is unmatched. But don't take my word for it. I bet there is no one who does like or need information, too. In fact, our embrace of it is so strong that we get upset when information is withheld or it is not presented in its entirety. Incomplete information is unfair to information and, more importantly, to any of us on its receiving end. Another great thing about information is that it lets us decide what to do about it or with it. If we take certain action as a result of it, then that is on us. Or if we decide to do nothing based on it, then that is okay, too. Information does not push itself on any one. Rather, it says "Here I am. Do with me what you want." It does not judge. It does not second-guess. It does not crticise or, for that matter, praise. Any issue I may have with information is not directed at information itself but the agents of it. I applaud those who communicate it accurately and in a timely manner. For those who do information wrong by presenting it inaccuately or not in full, then I say, "Shame on you." You are the true villains of informastion-sharing. You are the "bad guys" of communication. Sadly, in our world today, there are more than enough "bad guys" thank you very much. I am not just talking about public figures. They are among us. They are "regular folks." At times, they may even be us. We must all continue to concentrate on being one of the "good guys" when it comes to information. It is a daily battle.

Miniature Golf

It may be embarrassing to admit this, but growing up I always enjoyed playing miniature golf. Even as an adult, it was fun to take my daughter or go with friends to try our hand at seeing how easily we could putt the ball past the windmill or play the angles to come as close to a hole-in-one as possible. Plus, miniature golf was never all that expensive. In its hey day, according to Wikipedia, it is estimated there were over 25,000 miniature golf courses throughout the United States. That's an average of about 500 per individual state. Is there any one who has not played at least one round of miniature golf in their life? Miniature golf has always struck me as being similar to communication. Obstacles. Turns. Angles. Traps. Overshooting the hole. Being overly cautious. All these hurdles were designed to make the golf more fun, but also more difficult. One finds many of the same challenges in attempting to connect with others. In the context of communication, they are not always so much fun. In many ways, each of us is our own miniature golf course. How many times, for example, has a friend or acquaintence attempted to connect with us only to be rejected by our own windmill of emotion? How many traps do we set for others to keep them from getting too close? Here's a thought: one way to be better at communicating is to treat others as we would a miniature golf course. With the right mindset, it can be a fun experience. Challenging, too, but in a less stressful way. Miniature is more enjoyable when played with others. People approach it with the idea of having a positive experience. My thinking here is communicating can be more effective if we view others as having their own set of obstacles that we must figure out how best to work through or around. At the same time, they have the same challenge with us. And just as it is in miniature golf, everyone finishes together with smiles and in anticipation of what is ahead.

Liars

How do you deal with lying liars who lie? This is not always as easy as sit may seem. Folks who lie play by their own set of rules that does not jive with those who do not purposefully tell falsehoods. Most people in most situations tell the truth. To begin, we must state that this is not to be confused with those times when folks are stating their opinon or giving their analysis of an event or issue. Often people will claim to have "their own truth." That is another way of saying, "I have my opinion." Opinions are not lies but neither are they "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." The kind of truth I am referring to is a fact. Gravity remains the undisputed champ when it comes to fact. Liars try to pass off falsehoods as facts. It is like saying gravity does not determine whether an object falls to the ground. When that happens, how does one on the receiving end of a purposeful falsehood react, particularly when they know they have just been lied to? The choices range from ignoring it to correcting the falsehood or ending the conversation. Ideally, for any interaction to have a chance of remaining effective or having a lengthy timeline, then the lie must be called out. It must be corrected. The victim of the lie must decide whether they want their encounter with the liar to continue. Assuming they do, then the question revolves around how best to let it be known that you know a lie has been told. Further, tell the liar that you do not appreciate what they have just done. Set the record straight by stating what is fact and be able to defend your claim. You can do this calmly or by speaking harshly. Again, it depends upon what, if any, future interactions you wish to have with that person. There is also the matter of the gravity of the lie and the reasons behind it. Still, a lie is a lie and a comunication device designed to derail or impede postive encounters. As we dwell in a world of constant communication, that is not to be tolerated.

Suicide

I was in the eleventh grade in high school when I had my first introduction to suicide. One of the guys that I had lunch with every day died by his own hand. It happened over a weekend. I remember that all of us had just plopped down at the table at which we usually ate and cut-up until it was time to return to classes. Somebody asked, "Hey. Where's Jim?" Several seconds of silence passed when another spoke up, "Didn't you hear, " he said. "Jim killed himself this weekend." A lot more than seconds passed before any one said anything. We all began asking questions. Are you sure? What happened? What was wrong? None of us ever did learn exactly what was happening that made Jim decide to end his own life. He was barely old enough to drive, yet had reached a point in his thinking that death was more appealing than life. He no longer wanted to endure whatever emotional pain he was feeling. Even now, over a half century later, the memory of this tragedy gives me pause. Suicide was a thing "out there" that perhaps a one would hear about in the news or if a celebrity took their life. Yet here it was at what felt like my own doorstep. A person I actually knew, talked to, laughed with, had turned down that one-way path. Forever. I mention this incident to drive home a key point about communication. This guy was a close friend of mine, yet I had no clue as to the depth of his inner pain. Perhaps he was giving me signals that I failed to pick up on. Even if he was not, one thing I failed to do was reach out. Never mind that we talked nearly every day at school. His unexpected passing made me realize that all of us should never stop communicating with each other in meaningful ways. This includes asking hearfelt questions and then making a point of listening to what responses are given. Communicating well can help all of us feel as if we are not alone.

A Very Personal Act

One aspect of communication that is not discussed all that often is how personal it is. It is very personal. Off-hand, I can not think of any thing that is more personal than how we present ourselves or how we communicate with others. Are we polite? Cordial? Rude? Off-putting? Whatever the answer may be, it gives a window into the kind of person we are. Yes, that glimpse may speak to us at thet specific moment in time, but it also showcases us on a deeper level. Whether we interact with what I will describe as a non-essential person in our life, such as the person behind the counter at a local movie theater or one who is essential such as a relative, then we are revealing us. "This is who I am," we are saying to them. What would we like that person's response to be to such a declaration? Do we want them to think positively about us or negatively? How about indifference? Don't forget tramautic. The list of possiblities is endless. Whatever answer we either choose or prefer, the reality is it is one in which we play a major role in answering. For instance, in a little while I am going to go to our local grocery store to pick up a few items. It is my decision to make as to how I present myself to the person in the check-out line or to other customers. Regardless of how I am feeling or whether I am having a good or bad day, this is my call to make. Whatever decision I make will heavily influence how I am perceived. It is on me, not them. Each act of communication has a purpose. But so, too, does each act leave an emotional footprint. We leave an impression with every facial expression, physical act or turn-of-phrase. Yes, the message is important, but so is the act of presenting it. This is how it is with communicating. How we communicate is how we are regardless of the circumstances. Bottom line: if we want others to think well of us, then we need to commuicate accordingly. It is a very personal act.

Truth

There are few things more simple than truth. It is, as they say, what it is. It is straightforward, uncomplicated, unbiased, and non-partisan. It has no hidden agenda, nor is it geared to manipulate, sway or direct those on the receiving end of it in any particular direction. It does not have friends, enemies, colleagues, alliances or acquaintances. There is no path on which it travels, nor does it seek to be anything other than what it is. Truth has no ambition, wish to hide or be the center of attention. It does not march to the beat of its own drummer because it leaves beats and drummers to others. Truth does not set out to please, disappoint or serve. The term popularity means nothing to it because being surrounded by others or left alone does not matter to it. If truth were a person, it would be an odd duck, a subject of great curiosity and probably gossip. It would be the focus of whispers, rumors and speculation. Adults would no doubt warn their children to stay away from it simply because they themselves were not sure what to make of it. Though not anti- social, truth would not seek out the company of others. At the same time, it would not turn away any one. It would exist to be of use or not. If used, it would not take responsiblity for how it was used by others. That would be the burden of others. At the same time, truth could be one's strongest allie or worst enemy. B eing what it is, it could be extremely helpful or a great inconvenience. When it comes to communicating, truth is the shining object that many hold high above their heads and claim to know better than anyone else. It is, they claim, the element of life that they have a true "lock-on." They even go as far as to claim they own it. But do they? Interestingly, many also claim to have have their own truth, but do they? Bottom line: truth belongs to no one and everyone. Professional communicators are wise to recognize that and treat it accordingly. This means if truth is every mis- used, then the fault is with the user. Truth is and forever will be blameless.

Sharing Bad News

Let me say upfront, no one likes bad news. I sure don't. Whenever any one says to me, "I have good news and bad news," I always respond by saying that I will take the good news, thank you very much. Of course, one cannot live anything close to a reality-based life without having to digest their share of bad news. This also applies to being the one who has to pass on the bad news. Just as none of us want to be told something "bad," being the one who has to do the telling is also a tough pill to swallow. (Over the years, my dentist has had a lot of practice with this when it comes to giving me the latest on my teeth.) Fortunately, I have good news about passing on bad news. Be honest. Straightforward. Up front. No sugar coating. No warm and fuzzy analogies designed to "soften the blow." No ambiguity. Tell your audience whether it is one other person or mutiple people the truth. Granted, it is no fun hearing that you did not get that job you so badly wanted or that your cat, Blinky, is dead. We have all been there. But let us be honest, looking back, was it not better to be told something we did not want to hear in a direct and clear way? This holds true for the teller of bad news as well, by the way. The coronavirus contines to wreak havoc in the United States. Very soon we will pass the 200,000 mark in terms of people losing their lives to it. A few days ago we learned that President Trump knew at the outset of the disease coming to our shores just how serious and deadly it was. Despite his knowledge, for months and months he opted to not be upfront about this fact and, instead, continued to communicate such things that it would disappear "magically" and that it would not be any more serious than the "regular flu." His willful dishonesty has only made matters worse for us and him. His decision to communicate the way he did - and still does - is communication at its worst.

A Challenge for the Ages

It is a public relations challenge that scholars and practitioners will discuss for years to come. A standing president of the United States is quoted as calling those who have served in the military and, in numerous cases, given their lives in doing so "suckers" and "losers." Firstly, it is unbelievable that anyone might hold such an opinion, but mind-numbing that one such person who does is the commander in chief who oversees that same military. As this was just disclosed only a few days ago, the fall-out from his remarks remains to be seen. Not surprisingly, however, as I write this indications are that outrage is building. In response to the article, President Trump contines to deny strongly that he ever made those comments. The denial comes despite the fact numerous media outlets have corroberated the story. This brings us to the challenge now before the President's media representatives. What do they do? What do they say? How do they handle this challenge? One such hurdle is the President's well-documented history of criticising various military veterans who were captured by enemy forces. Then there is the matter of negative comments he has made over the years about Gold Star families whose children were killed while serving. The odds, it seems, are stacked heavily against those men and women currently faced with the task of defending their "boss." On first glance, the strategy currently being put forth to deny the story and charge the press with making a gross error seems to make the most sense. With that, the controversy becomes one person's word against another's. No doubt this gives the President's defenders enough of a lifeline to which to cling to justify their ongoing support. But then there is the sticky matter of truth. The President has a serious credibility problem any way. If he is lying about this as many believe, then his standing as a public figure is doomed. I will be sharing more thoughts on this in future entries.

Patience and Persistence

There is an old one-liner that says, in essence, "There are no guarantees in life except death and taxes." It is always greeted with either a chuckle or a nod or both. People recognize the harsh reality of that statement even though it is not literally true as some folks do not always pay their taxes. (They are called either criminals, lucky, or people with great attorneys on their payroll......By the way, if that last statement triggers a chuckle or nod, then you have my permission to use it and take full credit for it.) The general point is that in our time on earth there is nothning we can assume will always happen for all time. I wish to add to that brief list of exceptions: communication breakdowns or misunderstandings. No matter how well we think we communicate a message to another, there is always a good chance of one of several unintended results: the person on the receiving end of our outreach will misinterpret what we just said; we won't have stated what we stated as clearly as we thought; or the response to our message will not be what we expected. Given that, the reality of any intteraction is that rarely are we as in-sync with another as much as we might believe. The mind of the receiver of our communicating is almost always on something other than what we are saying - even if it just a little. This truism speaks to why communicating effectively is such an ongoing and neverending challenge. Communication breakdowns can and do happen at any time, even in the middle of a conversation that, up to that point, have been going well. Suddenly one of the participants starts focusing on another topic or injects their own meaning on what the speaking is saying and - presto - misunderstanding or misinterpretation is knocking on the door. Without question, communication is not for the faint-hearted. It is act that requires great patience and persistence.

Dangerous Communicators

There exists a fine line between hyperbole and lying. Hyperbole refers to making exaggerated claims not meant to be taken literally while lying speaks to making outright false statements. All of us are hyperbolic at times: "I flew down the hall" or "I felt like my head was going to explode." It is part of human nature to exaggerate to make a point or to add color to our stories or descriptions of our activities and actions. Think of all the writers, including poets, who use hyperbole to paint vivid portraits of characters and scenes that occur within their stories. The better able a writer is at this, generally, the greater respect readers have for him or her. Such praise also goes out to persons who with their verbal skills are proficient at this as well. Unfortunately, in one's efforts to be as good at hyperbole as possible, they sometimes cross that dangerous line into lying. The one side of the line is acceptable while the other is not. This is particularly dangerous when one is as good at communicating falsehoods as they are at exaggerating. Such a person is a true danger to others because one never knows how honest this person is being because they are so good at mixing exaggeration with falsified information. Particulalry for those on the receiving end of these dangerous communicators,the challenging of differentiating between the two is not easy. What, then, is the best defense against a person who easily floats back and forth between exaggeration and lying? For starters, as much as possible one must have a firm grasp of facts, particularly as they apply to what is being communicated to them. It is one thing to be a generous listener and give others license to exaggerate. But it is quite another to be steadfast in refusing to accept lies from others. The world is full of dangerous communicators. Consequently, we must all do our best to guard against them. It is a matter of protecting ourselves as well as communication itself.

Chivalry

Much like George Washington's cutting down a cherry tree and then telling his father, "I cannot tell a lie, I did it," I suspect the famous act of Sir Walter Raleigh never happened either. In it, upon walking with the Queen of England, the two came upon a muddy puddle. Supposedly, the English gentleman quickly removed his expensive cape and laid it upon the puddle so that the Queen could walk across it without muddying her equally expensive shoes. It is a tale that, even to this day hundreds of years later, many refer to when giving examples of chivalry. Often at the conclusion of the telling of this incident, one laments the fact the such chivalry these days is non-existent. Maybe. But maybe it does only in different ways. How often, for example, have I heard people in conversation display such acts of selflessnes? A lot. For instance, in my experience I find it fairly commmonplace to be told by another, "Go ahead, finish your thought and then I want to respond to what you are saying." Rarely, again in my experience, do folks purposely talk over each other, interrupt or attempt to verbally bully another. Granted, we see this sort of communication behavior often on television. Guests of opposing views either try to outshout each other or interviewers cut off their guests in mid-sentence so as to inject their comments or questions. My experience is beyond television, this kind of annoying and childish behavior happens infrequently. In many of the so-called news or serious talk or interview shows these days, bad form is encouraged. The thinking is viewers prefer seeing guests and hosts mix it up as it makes for good and entertainig viewing. My point here is that such action does not represent the "norm" of interaction between folks, even those having a disagreemnt. As imperfect communicators, people tend to lean on the side of chivalry as opposed to borishness. Generally, we are a lot more polite" and respect then we are given for.

Nuance

I remember a number of years ago watching the late actor Paul Newman giving an interview on television in which he talked about the importance of nuance. If one is talking and about to end their remarks with a loud outburst, then for it to be effective, they should not be yelling the entire time they are talking. Rather, they should build up to it, Newman said. This struck me - and still does - as a valuable piece of advice when it comes to communicating effectively. Nuance shoiuld be a go-to tool in anyone's communication toolbox. Without it, particularly as it applies to verbal communication, one becomes far less interesting. Like most folks, I have sat through a great many speeches in my life. This includes my many years as a student in which I had to listen to my teachers do their best to gain and keep my interest in their topic. On the flip side, I have also given a number of speeches, both as a teacher and in other roles. Paticularly in the latter part of my career, I tried to follow Newman's advice for several key reasons: to hold the interest of my audience but also do justice to my subject matter. Even now, I like to think whatever I was talking about had value and was worthy of bringing to the attention of others. Given those reasons, my responsiblility was to doing the best I could to serve the topic. This calls for having respect for the topic and the audience. The best communicators carry within them these feelings. While I am in no way placing myself in such a category as that, nevertheless it is a value I always tried to maintain. Nuance allows one to use shading and various inflections in how they are speaking. Done well, this serves as a strong signal to audience members that which is most significant in your remarks. It also makes your presentation more interesting and raises the level of potential impact it will have.

"People-Vote"

Tis the season to vote. As I write this, the Democratic party has just completed its national convention week. Bottom line was no surprise: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were voted to be the party's presidential and vice presidential candidates for this coming November's election. Next week will be the Republican party's turn. There are not any major suprises expected as this party is expected to reconfirm Donald Trump and Mike Pence as their presidential team. (Of course,Trump and Pence already hold the positions of president and vice president so in November they will be trying to hang onto their seats.) As has been the case in the majority of presidential elections in U.S. history, this year's election will be another case of challengers versus champs. Though the election is not set for nearly another two and a half months, already passions from supporters on both sides are beginning to build. I, too, can feel my pulse speeding up even at this early date despite the fact this will be my fourteenth presidential election. Regarding the results, my own prediction is there will be a very large voter turnout and that the election will be close.(No, I do not intend to identify my preference.) As a communicator, my sense is the team that wins will be the one that does the most effective job of telling its story. It has long been my sense that even though people have their own political philosophies and priorities, they usually cast their vote for the candidate with whom they can best relate. Here in 2020 as well as past elections, voters will be casting what I call "people-vote." While all humans are intellectu, they are also emotional beings. Generally, Presidential contests are emotional enterprises designed to motivate voters to act on what their hearts tell them versus what their heads say. The team that pushes the most emotional buttons this time around will be the one having its hands raised in victory.

The Introduction

There is an old saying that suggests "familiarity breeds contempt." I concede while this may not always be true, at the very least it can lead to misunderstanding. Let me explain. If a person about to speak is known to his or her audience, then there is the temptation that they may not feel a need to offer up any kind of explanation or lead-in to whatever it is they are going to say. The speaker may think to themself, "I am their spouse or college roommate or next door neighbor, so why do I need to spend any time explaining what it is I am about to talk about? Why can't I just start talking about whatever it is I want to talk about?" There is a logic to such a question. The problem is if the person on the receiving end of a comment is not given any kind of explanation of whatever it is they are about to be told, then their ability to grasp that comment is all the more difficult. Speakers should not fall into the trap of assuming that just because they are a known entity that they are going to be automatically understood. Such thinking is asking to be misunderstood. This is why the introduction of any attempt to communicate is so vital. In news writing, the beginning of the communique is called the lede (lead). In speaking or conversation, it is called the lead-in or set-up. From the perspective of the listener or receiver of a message, not being given an explanation of any kind is like being blindfolded and then asked to identify what is before them. At best, such a challenge is going to be difficult to meet. Why put any person through that? The good news here is that the introduction does not have to be long or complicated. It can be as simple as "Guess what just happened to me" or "Let me tell you about my day." With that, the receiver is onboard and, as they say, "all ears." Establishing a comforable beginning may not guarantee that a misunderstanding won't occur, but it reduces the chances of that happening.

Multiple Paths

As long as I have been part of the public relations world - closing in on a half century - I confess that I continue to struggle with it. This is because puiblic relations seems to have a dual purpose in which the two are diametrically opposed. On the one hand, there is the purpose that public relations at its best is designed to build and maintain bridges, establish a "mutual harmony," to quote Edward Bernays, between multiple entities.Personally, I have always gravitated toward this purpose. The other primary purpose is more competitive. It sees P.R. as the successful effort of one entity to generate greater support than other entities. Of the two, more public relations practitioners follow what I label the competitive purpose rather than the harmonious one. Is it possible for professional communicators to function well by traveling these two paths that run counter to each other? Would not it be easier for all of us if the Public Relations Society of America, for example, ruled that for now on public relations has one purpose. Those professionals who adhere to that purpose may keep their PR label. Those who do not are going to have be called something else. There is part of me that wishes that would happen because it would make this social science and practice so much easier to teach, explain, practice, and discuss. But a bigger part of me realizes that will not happen simply because it is unrealistic. Public relations is about communication, an act that is as fundamental to life as breathing. All of us every day travel multiple paths. Those paths do not always coincide, nor are they always in harmony. Today, for instance, I plan to do things with my wife. I also plan to do things that do not involve her as they are more for me. (This blog entry is a quick example.) Does that make me any less of a husband or communicator? I think not. It also points to the reality that the dual purposes of public relations are not all that off-base after all. Like life itself, it just means it is complex.

Promoting Sincerity

There are numerous tools that help one promote themselves or promote a person or entity that they may be representing. These range from press releases, interviews and advertisements to media advisories, podcasts and tweets. Another notable and effective promotional tool is the media event. For the public relations professional, such a tool represents one's way of drawing attention to their client or to a particular cause in the form of a staged event. While I have written on this before, there is one aspect of them that needs further emphasing. One essential ingredient for this tool to be successful is that it must be genuine. What, you may ask, does that mean? For any public relations tool to be most effective, it must be sincere and honest. Ideally, no P.R. tool should ever be designed to deceive or fool. The media event, as the name suggests, is designed to attract the press in the hope the press will give it coverage, thus generating attention and interest on behalf of a person or cause. The event can be simple or extravagent, inexpensive or costly. Above all, though, it must reflect the true values of the organizers. No phoniness. If one looks at the most effective speeches,for instance, they are the ones deemed most heartfelt. The same holds true for media events. All of us, no doubt, have attended weddings. Which ones did we find to be the most moving? Simple: the ones where the couple was most deeply taking such action on the wings of love. Such a joining reflected their true values. Media events, at their best, should be no different. Public relations, at its best, is not about pretend. It is not about faking something. Rather, it is about giving emphasis to a specific message. A couple invites others to their wedding to showcase their true feelings. Media events, at their most effective, should be geared to highlight that which one feels strongly. Ideally, nothing less will suffice.

Press Events

Events for the press are always tricky undertakings. On the one hand, you want to have a message or information to share that is substantial enough to warrant the attention of the press. On the other, you want to put together an activity that peaks their interest enough for them to want to send out cameras and photographers as well as actual reporters. And to top all that off, how well the organizers do can have a serious impact on their credibility. If what they do is judged to be too hokey, then you can bet electronic and print media will be relunctant to give you the coverage you may wish in the future. (This points to an important and relavent truism: the press has a long memory.) There are some entities that can get away with putting together shoddy events cause they know the press will give them the attention they desire. The best example, of course, is The White House. But even that has its limits. Television networks have been known to cut-off their coverage in midstream if they deem an event to be more of an attempt to generate publicity rather than share hard news. Some may call such actions on the part of the press to be cyncial. I view it as the press simply doing their job. To avoid such action requires a level of respect for the press on the part of those putting together these types of events. Press officers, to be any good, must bring to the table a deep and unshakeable apppreciation of and respect for the press. No exceptions. Anything less is arrogence and border-line contempt not just for reporters but folks on the receiving end of what men and women of the press report as well. Reporters pick up on this kind of attitude as well and it makes for poor relations between press agents and the press itself. All this is why any and all press events require serious thought.

Truman & Quixote

One of my favorite observations about President Harry Truman came from General George Marshall when he said Truman was one of the few people he knew who looked at things and saw what was there rather what he wanted to see. I was reminded of that the other day when I began reading the classic, "Don Quixote" by Miguel de Cervantes. The main character, of course, has become one of fiction's most famous icons because, in part, of his being very much unlike Truman. This is a big part of Quixote's charm - if I may use that word - as it gives his quest to right all wrongs a matchless romantic flare and makes him all the more endearing as a result. It has always struck me that the perfect communicator would be the one who combines Truman's iron grip on what is real with Quixote's ability to combat all real and unreal dragons and see the world in a way where life is all sunshine and no storms. I like to think that we all have the ability to be like Truman and Quixote: realists as well as dreamers. The question in my mind, however, is do we have the ability or discipline to carry on in a manner where the two qualities co-exist within us? Can we view and face communication challenges with both passion and dispassion? Show me the communicator who does that with some level of regularity and I will be very impressed. (It will also help if he or she can write a good press release.) The day-to-day challenge of all professional communicators who to properly balance what they actually see with what they hope to see. This is not always as easy as it may sound, particlarly if they have a client whose vision may not always be steeped in reality. In such circumstances, it is the communicator's job to be the "bad guy" or "party pooper" and tell the big boss things he or she may not want to hear. Good luck witht that. Roadsides are filled with communicators whose attempt to do that were met with vengence be an unhappy boss. Nevertheless, this does not mean communicators should stop fulfilling that function. Alas, it part of their job.

Driverless Cars

No matter how many years I have clocked-in in this world, I have always gotten a special boot out of a new experience. Earlier this week I had one. I got to drive in a driverless car. No, I did not drive it, but then, in such a vehicle, I guess the whole point is that no one is actually the driver. Still, sitting in the front passenger seat as I did, I think that was close enough to the experience of sitting behind the steering wheel and not, uh, steering. My drive was not on any major highway. Instead, it was through a neighborhood that my friend - the owner of the car - took on our way to a nearby restaurant for lunch. Nevertheless, the car did "show-off" for us as it stopped at a traffic light, obeyed the speed limit, made a few turns, maintained a safe distance from other vehicles, and parked. All very impressive and, for a first timer, a bit nerve-wracking. After all, not being in-control in such a circumstance is not the easiest of adjustments. What would happpen, I wondered, if we rear-ended a car in front of us or ran a red light or hit a pedistrian? Who's fault would it be? Who would be held libel for such a mishap? My guess is the courts are addressing these basic questions right now as this new technology slowly becomes more popular. This is one more example of how technology allows us to relinquish control. Drivers in a driverless car are able to let-go of their responsibility. They simply punch-in their destination and literally leave the driving to the car. This will never happen when it comes to communicating with another. Yes, technology may speed-up the process and make it easier, but actually connecting with another and maintaining ties with them will always be up to us. Some may not like this, but I am definitley not one of them. Establishing and maintaining viable ties with others is a big part of what makes us human. We should never give up such a vital part of our humanity. In the meanwhile, who's up for a joy ride!

Here's to Imperfection!

What could be labeled as an unavoidable trend in communication since the field's beginning days over 100 years ago is the matter of perfection. Communicators, including scholars and professional practitioners, have stressed perfection. No no mistakes. No typos. No misspellings. No misstatements. This, I quickly note, is completely understandable. After all, imperfection in the worlds of professionalism and academia, for instance, represents a clear threat to one's credibility, professional standing and how their level of competence is viewed. In those settings, I for one have strived for perfection though I have not always been perfect in that regard.

As perfection is the focus of this blog entry, it is important that it be given the recognition it deserves. After all, the level of damage imperfection can and does cause is practically immeasurable. This can be especially true when it comes to communication. Having said, that, however, it is also worth noting that perfection, in the context of communication, can be a bit overrated. To begin, let us look at those who do the communicating: people. These are living and breathing creatures who are imperfect by design., As much as they strive to hit the bulls-eye with each action, including attempts to communicate, much of the time they fall short. In other words, their efforts are consistently less than perfect.

Thus, imperfection is the order of the day. As much as all of us may strive to be perfect in all that we do, it is important that we not turn our backs on imperfection or treat it like an uninvited guest to a party. Let us be clear: imperfection is going to make its presence known at any social or professional gathering. The only unknown is how much of a "bang" it is going to make. All this is not to say we should no longer strive for mistake-free days. Of course, we should. At the same time, when imperfection does pop up, it is not necessarily something that should automatically be shunned or scorned.

The Competent Press Secretary

There are two key elements to a press secretary's job: communicating the desired message of the big boss or organization and doing so in a way that either maintains open lines of interaction with those on the receiving end of the messages or, if possible, improves upon those channels. Such a dual challenge may sound difficult but, nevertheless, this is what the competent press secretaries do. Anything short of that represents failure on their part as professional communicators and a short-sightedness that does a serious disservice to the profession, themselves and the persons, including their boss, with whom they are attempting to connect.

This dual challenge never changes regardless of the message. Even if a press secretary has to speak harshly to a reporter, for example, they must do so in a way that is straight-forward, understandable and honest while maintain open lines of communication. For press secretaries to be at their best, these two objectives go hand-in-hand. Every time a press secretary steps up to the podium, it should be with the intent of achieving both ends. They should never sacrifice one objective at the expense of the other. The competent press secretary recognizes that one is not more important than the other, regardless of what direction they may be getting from their organizational superiors.

Granted, this may not always be easy, particularly if a boss is of a mindset that their message is more important than any one segment of the intended public. As a professional communicator, however, the press secretary must hold-strong to the communication truism that interactions are at their best when the thread connecting all parties involved remain viable and open. Yes, at times this can be a real tightrope walk for the press secretary. But that is why their job is both important and difficult. That is also why there be a lot of press secretaries these days but there are only few that are truly competent.

"Relational Mojo"

Take a couple that generally is compatible. The two as individuals are decent and, normally, are very much committed to their union. But what happens when outside challenges seep into their relationship?  What happens when these outside forces begin diverting their focus away from each other? Instead of striving each day to strengthen their relationship, each one begins putting more and more of their energy on contending with the outside elements. The more their attention is directed away from their relationship, the less satisfied each feels with their partner - as if the partner is getting in the way of contending with those outside challenges.

In these times of the coronavirus and economic shortfalls, such a scenario is not all that far-fetched. Not only are many good people being stricken with the virus and are having to scramble to make economic ends meet, they are also finding themselves emotionally isolated as a direct result of having the stability of their worlds upset. It is one thing to be sailing in a ship when the waters are smooth, but quite another when those same waters become violent, unpredictable and life threatening. How are couples to cope? How they are to survive as twosomes? How are they to keep their union as perfect as possible?

There is no way, of course, that I have the wisdom to offer-up specific solutions to any couple currently sailing in rough waters triggered, in large part, by the coronavirus and the economic turmoil that has followed. Nevertheless, one point I will make here is that for those same couple to have any chance of righting their ships, they must jointly acknowledge their challenges. They must be willing to sit down and identify whatever tension they may be feeling as a couple. Once their problem has been outed, then it is easier to address. When it comes to dealing with problems, silence is not golden. Taking such action represents an active commitment to regaining their "relational mojo."

Robert Owen

Robert Owen was not a public relations pioneer. In fact, Owen lived his life before the term "public relations" was first uttered or used in any way even close to regularity. Owen, who was born in Wales and died in 1858, was a manufacturer who had the idea that if people would, in the words of historians Will and Ariel Durant, "practice mutual consideration and aid they would enjoy a peace and content such as they had never experienced before." In adapting this perspective - deemed a bit far afield at the time - Owen believed a successful bridge between capitalism and socialism could be established that would result in greater harmony among all.

I turn this spotlight on Owen both because of his commendable notion but because without realizing it, he identified the ultimate goal of public relations. In the early twentieth century, Edward Bernays, called the Father of Public Relations, defined this social science within communication as the harmonious adjustment between peoples. In doing that, Bernays, probably without realizing it, was building on what Owen first set in motion approximately one hundred years before. Yes, Owen was all for making money. But he was also a strong advocate of folks acting for the benefit of others. To do both, he believed, people need to pursue their own self interest along with the needs of others.

At its best, public relations is all about the vision of Owen and, later, Bernays. The ideal way to work toward one's goal is to link it to the needs and hopes of others. This way, the possibility of conflict is minimized as people are conducting themselves with both their own interests and those of others as part of their mind set. Granted, at times achieving such a balance can be formidable. But when one operates under the banner of harmony, then the chances of encouraging others to do the same, increase. And when that happens, then we are all that much closer to peaceful co-existence. Fun fact: In 1825, a group of German-Americans and the town in which they lived in the Indiana Territory were faced with the unwanted prospect of bankruptcy. Owen bailed them out. The residents renamed their town New Harmony.

The Universal Goal

There are and will continue to be lots of public relations strategies. This, of course, is a good thing when it comes to communication. It is, in fact, the essence of the act of attempting to relate to a public. All the strategies add up to one basic goal: building bridges. If one wants to persuade a particular public to take a certain action, then they must connect with that public. If one wants to establish lasting ties with a particular public, then they must also connect with that public. The connection involves establishing a two-way means of exchange or interaction between the one doing the outreach and the one on the receiving end; in other words: bridge building.

Without the essential element of bridge building, then public relations does not occur. Instead, whatever communicating is taking place is designed to manipulate or maneuver others into taking on certain beliefs or actions. As it has been defined hundreds of times over the pat century, public relations is about one entity devising strategies to create some sort of connection with another. While the connection may be in limited or vary in terms of scope or length of time, it must occur. Bottom line: if there is no such building of a metaphorical bridge or connection between two publics or entities, then whatever has led to the two coming together is not public relations.

Public relations is about the identification of commonalities shared by multiple publics. This is very much as it is when two individuals come together and try to determine what they might have in common. (Perfect example: a blind date.) Such a joint effort is public relations as its most basic and simple. In such a scenario, the participants are practicing public relations. Their shared goal is the construction of a bridge by which they can communicate and, ideally, build on their evolving relationship. For any long-term success to be achieved, that bridge must be built. No bridge, no successful public relations.

Growing a Beard

Given the pandemic and the fact that we are being encouraged to stay home unless necessary, a challenge many of us share these days is, "What to do?" For me, I have been reading more than usual, watching television (of course), yard work (not my most fun thing), and I have even returned to trying to play the piano. It's fun but slow going. At this point, given my progress, the only way I am ever going to get into Carnegie Hall is to buy a ticket. That aside, something else I have being doing for slightly over a month now is grow a beard. At this point, one thing I can attest to is the fact  watching facial hair grow is not the most exciting thing in the world to do.

Yet here I am. My beard is almost 100 per cent white. Despite that, I do not see working as a department store Santa Claus any where in my future. In fairness, that was never a goal with this venture of mine any way. Mainly, I have gone this long without shaving more out of laziness than anything else. It is just something not to do each day. With our stay-at-home existence these days, not shaving has, in a strange way, become one thing I "do" each day now. Any one reading this right now may be wondering, "So what?" Who cares whether I have a beard or not? And, either way, what does this have to do with communication? All good questions.

Regarding the communication-angle, this beard has given me a new perspective on my face. I look at myself in the mirror differently now. Same face, of course, only different. Do I look older? (Yes.) Better? (No.) More distinguished? (You gotta be kidding.) One thing I will say is it has made the times I do check myself out in the mirror more fun. Also, this new look, regardless of how much longer it continues, has reminded me that change can often be a positive experience as it heightens one's appreciation of what used to be and strengthens one's ability to be open to new experiences and perspectives. This beard of mine has broadened what I communicate to myself.   

Caregiving

There are few - if any - bigger points of responsibility than having someone under one's care. Whether it is a child or another adult, to be responsible for another's well being, including their safety, health and ability to deal with their own challenges on any given day, this is a major weight to carry and one not to be taken lightly. I admire all caregivers and the effort they make to do well by others. Such effort, in many ways, represents the best of all of us because it showcases a willingness to look beyond one's own needs and wants and give those of others at least equal if not higher priority. Full-disclosure: I share this philosophy of mine as one who subscribes to the notion that we are all "our brother's keeper."

As it is with all relationships, the caregiver/caretaker dynamic is not without challenge and comes with no guarantee that it will be smooth or successful. Effective communicating must occur for that to happen. Having said that, we must not forget the reality that no effort to communicate is successful all the time, regardless of how well-intentioned or thought-out it might be. Another noteworthy point of reality is that communication between a person who is needy and one who is able to meet those needs is tricky because the balance between the two is not equal. One has power over the other due to a range of variables, including age, experience, expertise, health, and how others perceive them.

The first and perhaps primary ingredient in such a relationship is respect. The caregiver is not better than the person they are striving to help. Even if the person that one is striving to care for is a five-year-old child, that little boy or girl or is just as valuable as the adult who is watching over them. It is the same if the person being cared for is a 90-year-old invalid. The circumstance of each does not lessen their value or worth. They deserve respect just as much as the caregiver. Respect, in this dynamic, must include a commitment to maintaining an ongoing and full dialog - speaking with and not speaking at. That may not be easy at times but it is vital.

Today's Tension

As I write this, it is America's birthday. Number 244. Not bad at all. Definitely worth celebrating in big ways and little ways. One thing that strikes me on this special day is that despite our country's over two centuries of existence, we very much remain a work in progress. We are still growing, evolving, feeling our way along, and, if I may, taking baby steps. Yes, we are great. Yet for a country that is great, we sure seem to fall down a lot. At least that is how it has seemed lately. The fact our landscape seems to be ripe with so much division and turmoil is a picture of a people that are unhappy, troubled and unsettled. For an entity as old as us, I confess to being as concerned as I am surprised.

After all this time, does it not seem that we should have our act together and be able to reconcile our differences with not nearly as much turmoil as we are seeing?  Upon first blush, I would respond to that with an emphatic "Yes!" But taking a step back for a moment from the headlines of the day, maybe what we seeing and experiencing right now is who we are. Maybe all this head-butting, arguing, protesting, acting-out, etc. is us. Maybe it is who we have been these past 244 years. Maybe our greatness is the direct result of a non-stop, unwavering level of discontent among Americans. Maybe what is going on these days is a continuation of our beginning days when discontent and debate ultimately led to our becoming the United States of America.

Such a realization may be worth pondering as we try to make sense of the tension of the day. To put it another way, has there ever been a time in our nation's history when there has not been a level of disagreement similar to what we are seeing here in 2020? I think not. However, in making this observation, it is not my intent to minimize the issues that are driving our current conflicts. They are serious. Still, it is the arguing, debating, etc. that is not new. Further, what is going on is receiving greater exposure as a result of the advanced level of communication tools, including social media and television, that we now enjoy. So, on this year's birthday, to Americans I say, let's keep being who we are while at the same time keep focusing on being civil about it.

Questions About Yelling

Raising our voices is something pretty much all of us do when we get angry. We are upset and seem to feel a need and desire to shout or yell. But does that make us feel better? Does yelling make our anger go away or, at the very least, take the air out of it? I am not sure it does. Is yelling a natural progression of anger? What happens after that? Is it some sort of physical act such as lashing out at someone, throwing something or some other form of physical exertion designed to do harm or destroy? Inside us, do we each carry around within us a kind of internal Hulk that knows little else but to smash?

Is there a way to express our anger without yelling? The answer, of course, is "yes." I see that as a good thing but recognize being angry without yelling is not easy to achieve. I view it is an aspect of communication that requires discipline. Getting angry by itself is not necessarily a bad thing as it is as much part of our disposition as laughing. The challenge is found is being able to control the release or unveiling of that anger without being destructive to others or to property. Anger is an emotion that is about us. Someone may make me mad but how I express that feeling is about me, not the root cause of that feeling.

As each of us constantly wrestle with ways to most effectively express ourselves, when it comes to anger and wanting to yell, the question becomes, "Is that the best way to communicate what we are thinking and feeling?" Yes, we may be upset but is raising our voice the most effective way to impart what is driving that emotion? A raised voice certainly tells others that we are upset. But does it explain why we are upset or does it leave open a door for extended conversation or dialog? Are those on the receiving end of our yelling more or less apt to properly listen to us if our voices are raised? Yelling as an act of communication is not uncommon, but it is a tool that one should think through before using.

One Contradiction After Another

If you look at what I will loosely call most any normal person and the life they lead, it is a wonder that we all do not concede that we are all simply "crazy." I say that based on the vast number of contradictions in our persona and the choices we make most every day. Let me rattle off a few examples: We crave the freedom to live our lives any way we want yet take comfort in the rules and law that give our behavior boundaries; We love comedies that strike our funny bone, yet also enjoy serious dramas that capture our attention; We focus so much on sexual intimacy yet, the older we get, the more we would so much rather just get a good night's sleep; We want our lawns to look well-manicured yet time after time when we tackle yard work chores like cutting the grass and pulling weeds we zip through them as quickly as possible. The list goes on and on and is as diverse as diverse can be. You may ask, What about communication? Well, my friends, do not get me started.   

The biggest contradiction regarding communicating with others is found in the whole putting forth messages versus listening to responses such effort triggers. For myself, when I speak I want to be heard. I want what I have to say to resonate and result in a favorable response from those on the receiving end. But for that to happen, then I need to be open to what those persons to whom I am  speaking have to communicate back to me. For instance, do they have any questions? Do they have their own perspectives that they want to share? Do they simply want to give me a verbal "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" to my initial comments? The dicey thing about communication is that it is more than simply speaking out. For it to really work the best, equal time and effort must be given to being mindful of feedback and/or response. And once that begins, who knows where will follow? No doubt more complications. Let's be honest: communication is like life itself: one contradictory act after another.

Dealing With Tension

No good comes from a lack of communication. Even when there is tension in the air, not communicating is not the way to handle it. One of the great things about my wife and I happens during those times when we bump heads. It is not uncommon for one of us to say to the other, "I want us to talk but I need a little bit of time first to calm down and collect my thoughts." (I am paraphrasing here but that is the essence of what is said.) Such a comment is a perfect example of effective communication, particularly during a time when cooler heads are on the verge of giving way to non-cooler ones.

Such a statement is a declaration that it is important for the parties to talk. At the same time, this statement emphasizes several key points: (1) for the conversation to be of the greatest benefit, both parties need to be calm; (2) despite the disagreement, both parties want to return to a more positive place; (3) mutual respect remains very much on the table; and (4) both parties want to be heard but are also willing to hear what the other has to say. It is important to inject here that even with this understanding, it does not mean the conversation that eventually follows will be a totally smooth one or that the parties will not continue to "agree to disagree." At the same time, it does put them on a positive path toward resolving their differences.

The statement where one party asks for a time-out and the other agrees to that request represents a  verbal contract where ground-rules have been set. This gives both parties a tangible path for each to follow as they strive to reconcile whatever misunderstanding may have occurred. Without such understanding, whatever communicating that may follow will in all likelihood be more chaotic, off-topic and hurtful. In other words, it will increase the tension rather than take the air out of it. Tension as a result of a disagreement only becomes a relationship-breaker when the parties involved cease to  communicate effectively.      

Ambition

Over 200 years ago, future United States president James Madison wrote, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." A number of historians consider this to be the most famous sentence in the series of Federalist papers that this Founding Father wrote in helping guide his peers toward forming our country. At the time, Madison was commenting on Americans striking a balance between their own individual interests versus those being identified in the form of a new constitution; that is, the priorities of the new country. As explained by historian  Noah Feldman in his 2017 biography, "The Three Lives of James Madison," it was a matter of crafting a structural balance between human nature and constitutional powers.

Such a confrontation is classic and not all that uncommon. Example: I have an ambition to become extremely rich. But laws restrict how I might go about achieving that personal goal. For instance, I can not go out and rob banks nor can I embezzle money from my office payroll. Thus, my ambition to put more money in my pocket needs to be tempered by coming up with legal and, yes, ethical ways to achieve that end. One of the great challenges of our Founding Fathers was to figure out a way for citizens to pursue their dreams but doing so in a way that came within the parameters of their newly-formed government.

To my mind, this relates to communication. I want to be heard and be free to say whatever I might want to say. My challenge with that ambition is to balance it with a number of social norms that have evolved over the years. These range from being sensitive to the communication wishes of others and laws such as disturbing the peace and threatening others with language they may deem to be offensive. Thus, my primal ambition needs to carried out in ways that adhere to more overriding ambitions designed to address the greater needs of society: rules and guidelines that allow society to safely administer individuals.

Symbols

Symbols are powerful communication tools - sometimes in loud ways and other times in subtle, quiet ways. In one's home, for instance, how we decorate our rooms with such things as pictures, posters, artifacts, etc. give insight into us. The represent an array of snapshots into our preferences, histories and even wishes. We draw pleasure from our personal symbols as they give us comfort and a certain level of inner-security because, in part, we are the ones who have chosen them to showcase us to outsiders that may see them. In essence, they say, "This is part of who I am."

Outside our homes, we are surrounded by symbols that speak more to us as part of a larger society. How do we as a community or society want others beyond our borders to view us? We answer that, in apart, via our symbols. These days steps are underway to remove certain symbols that have been part of our societal landscape for generations. Specifically, I am referring to a number of statues of various Confederate generals from the U.S. Civil War that was fought over 150 years ago. In fighting for the Confederacy, these soldiers played an active role in leading an effort to help the southern part of the country that supported slavery form its own nation.

With a movement underway to remove the statutes, our nation is taking a significant step to tell whoever might be paying attention that we no longer want these entities to represent who we are. We no longer want to be assessed on the basis of these symbols. As a result, they are being taken down and will possibly be replaced by symbols that we feel are more representative of who we as a people are today. Make no mistake, the removal of these symbols is a powerful effort to adjust how we wish to communicate with not just the rest of the world but with ourselves as well. I should note that some support this movement while others do not. Boldness is rarely a unanimous act. But without question, it is significant.

"GWTW"

Growing up, from time to time my friends and I would ask each other what we thought was the best movie of all-time. Without exception, "Gone With the Wind," the 1939 classic that copped a bunch of Academic Awards, would top our list. Over the years, this movie of the South before and during the Civil War would remain much beloved not unlike other classics such as "Casablanca" and "The Wizard of Oz." These were among those select group of films that everyone had some point in their lives had seen and embraced. In my time, I have probably seen "Gone With the Wind" three or four times.

Fast forward to today and it seems as if "Gone With the Wind" has lost a great deal of its magic. In this time of nationwide protests against the ill-treatment of African Americans by a number of law enforcement agencies and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, the public is beginning to look at "Gone With the Wind" through a different set of eyes. The movie takes place when the nation was largely divided over the issue of slavery. Despite that, Blacks in the film are depicted as if they were treated with love and respect. This, of course, runs counter to the reality of those times.

For nearly 40 years, "Gone With the Wind" has served as a powerful communication tool regarding a very dark period in our nation's history. It is a tool that a great many people are now viewing as outdated, inaccurate and offensive. One result of this change, I should note, is that HBO has announced that is it removing this movie from its roster of films. This dramatic change illustrates how communication is ever-evolving. What was once embraced now offends. One result of this is that we all now are being called upon to assess how we perceive our own histories, including movies we grew up with. We are being forced to recognize that our communication tools of today must not be once they were before.