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!