Playing the Fear Card

We are not quite finished with the first decade of the 21st century, yet if there is one thing all of us have learned when it comes to communication and getting people to support various positions or take certain action, it is this: playing the "fear card" works very well. As a communicator, if you are able to make people afraid, then there is little doubt a significant portion of them will buy most anything you say even if it runs directly counter to such things as facts and reality. We all want to feel safe. Fear is a fundamental reaction that so often over powers logic or common sense. Consequently, to get people to jump through a hoop, all you have to do is convince them that not jumping that hoop will put them in danger.

The build-up to the Iraq conflict is a great example. We were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was an imminent threat to our security. As a result, the United States had no recourse other than to invade that country and overthrow its government. Enough people believed those lies to where the Bush administration felt justified in carrying out its plans. Fast-forward to the current debate over health care. It is one thing for people to question and even disagree with the prospects of universal health care. But given the facts that entering into such a program would only be optional and that, as it is being presented, would merely be an extension of what military personnel and veterans now have, does it really warrant comparing Obama and his administration to Hitler and the Nazi government of the 1930s and 1940s? Of course not. Such a comparison of course, is absurd. Yet a number of people are making it out of ignorance and, most of all, fear.

In the world of communication, playing the fear card when it is inappropriate and misrepresents the issue at-hand is certainly one way to play the game. But it is not the right or ethical way. It is short-sighted, manipulative and fundamentally dishonest. It is unfair to those to whom you are sending your message and a disservice to your client and to the specific issue. The end does not justify the means. Sadly, as we are seeing, there are those who disagree with that. So-called winning, to them and their clients, is everything. If efforts by the Obama administration to implement universal health care fail, then in large measure it will be due to dirty and unhealthy communication tactics. Shame on those who are behind those tactics and shame on those who are allowing themselves to be driven by them.

That Toddlin' Town

A few days ago I was invited to participate in the fall conference of the National Association of Communicators in Chicago. I was asked to be one of several doctoral students to participate in a panel discussion on our experiences in our various programs. I am very excited. First of all, I have never been to Chicago but have always wanted to see it up close and personal. Secondly, I find being asked to speak to anyone about most anything to be very flattering. Fortunately, there will be others on the panel to carry the ball so it won't just be me having to be interesting, entertaining and informative all at the same time. Nevertheless, I am still going to have come up with somethings to say that hopefully will add to and not detract from the discussion. Full disclosure: A few years ago I participated in a panel discussion at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on the challenges of working with national media to promote a university. I was not pleased with my performance.

Speaking before a room full of people is always a challenge. Even though I have been teaching part-time for over ten years, it is not something with which I feel all that comfortable. Whether it is in a room full of students or professionals, being prepared is the key. I may have a bunch of information floating around in my head, but if I have not properly organized what I want to share and how I want to engage the audience, then my presentation is a struggle. Looking back at my experience at the National Press Club, I do not believe I was as prepared as I should have been. It was a good communication lesson for me: knowing one's stuff is not enough to guarantee you will be able to share it effectively.

But to get back to Chicago, the opportunity to go there is very exciting. Even though it may be very cold there in November, I am prepared to brave the elements and do all I can to check out as much of this classic city as I can. Michigan Avenue. The art museum. The people themselves. Maybe even sneak into a jazz club or two. It is all about gaining new experiences, which, of course, add to one's tool box as they seek to communicate well with others. This new experience for me is still several months away, which is good because it gives me plenty of time to prepare myself. If I do well, then for the duration of this upcoming panel discussion at least, I'll be an effective communicator.

Communication and Vision

Leadership is such a tricky undertaking. While we all have our own ideas as to what characteristics a successful or so-called good leader should possess, there is one element not nearly as associated with leadership as I think should be: service. Specifically, one's ability to serve others. Sure, it is important for a leader to have vision and a good sense of how to move toward it. But at the same time it is vital to be able to instill in others a willingness to travel down that path. After all, if a leader cannot convince his or her followers that their vision is in the best interests of those they are trying to lead, then those followers will quickly look elsewhere for someone to lead them to where they wish to go. It brings to mind the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

Presently, President Obama's leadership skills are being tested as it pertains to health care for the nation. This is his vision. But will meeting it be in the best interest of his followers? Do enough people recognize this particular vision as a way they wish to be served? Presently, the jury seems to be out on this. According to various national polls, when Obama's formally introduced this vision, the great majority of citizens said they comfortably supported it. But now as the health care debate evolves, national polls indicate a shift in what many of these same citizens say they want regarding health care. As I read the polls, many still say they want it, only now they are expressing legitimate concerns as to its costs and how it will be administered. This is the hard part of having a vision. Any one can have a vision, but only when it is challenged is when its validity and applicability are truly tested. It is also a significant test of the visionary's communication skills.

One of the things all of us are now discovering about President Obama's in the first year of his presidency is just how good of a communicator he really is. The health care debate is a giant indicator. Not only is the president being called to describe and reiterate this vision, he also has the additional hurdles of overcoming tons of fear mongering and misinformation along with addressing sincere concerns about the mechanics of national health care. At the same time, there are also other major challenges on his plate, including our two wars, struggling economy, relations with other countries and vulnerable environment. At this point, my money remains on The President. But if he is to succeed, then he is going to need to take his communication skills to a higher level as well as begin making greater use of the many tools of those who continue to share his vision. The ultimate success of his communication efforts in health care and other issues of importance will be the ultimate determiners of his effectiveness as a leader.

Communication Battles

Right now in our country there is a no-holds barred communication battle going on over health care. Putting aside for a moment the fundamental issue itself, watching those who support reform and those who oppose it bang heads is painful to watch. Almost daily these days the news gives us images of people engaging in shoving matches and screaming bouts at events and meetings designed for anything but that kind of uncivil behavior. Granted, the prospect of health care for all citizens is complex. But when there are people who use fear, false information, and bullying tactics to promote their own perspectives, it only makes this entire issue more complicated. If ever there was a need for people to engage in effective communication in the form of even-handed and respectful dialogue, this is it. When communication is sabotaged, then everyone loses.

My hat goes off to those who are trying to engage in sessions of civil information exchange. Trying to be respectful is never easy when people with whom you are trying to connect behave in a blatantly disrespectful way. Who among us can communicate with even a degree of civility in a room of people who are screaming at you? The screamers and bullies are not interested in honest information exchange. They simply want to disrupt and shutdown those who are trying to approach this issue in a proper manner. Normally, I am not one to feel sorry for politicians, but seeing these officials struggling to maintain some level of discourse with those who want anything but that is a bit heart wrenching.

Those who disrupt should not be allowed to participate. Ultimately, communication only works when more than one person plays. For it to work best, then the participants need to want there to be dialogue. But when the primary goal of one or some of the participants is to disrupt, then communication is compromised. There is little point in carrying on. If the uncivil behavior continues, then the ultimate decision makers in Congress will be forced to make decisions with very little input from the voters. Only the lobbyists and special interests groups will have input into whatever decisions are made. If that happens, then once again the people will have failed the system and not the other way around. Communication is a tool and a damn good one when used properly.

Dialogue Leads to Consensus

I work at a place that employs over 6,000 people. These men and women come from different backgrounds, have wide levels of experience, and numerous interests, strengths and levels of responsibility. To get all these individuals to come even close to agreeing on any issue is, to say the least, a challenge. At the same time, it is a challenge that must be met consistently if the organization is going to advance and prosper in any way. Otherwise, it will inevitably slip into a state of mediocrity and, ultimately, cease to exist. That holds true for any organization and, I believe, branch of society. In the absence of dialogue of some sort there is chaos. And, believe me, when true chaos reigns, the last two things you will find are dialogue and, as Woody Allen might say, a good ham sandwich.

Recently, I read a book called "Do the Right Thing" by James Hoggan. In it are a number of fundamental tips for public relations practitioners. One particular truism put forth by the author is, "dialogue leads to consensus."This simple statement in many ways reflects one of the earlier definitions of public relations itself in which it is described as a form of communication that helps create an harmonious adjustment between publics. Our democratic society is based on progress or advancement through interaction, the melding of minds, agreement, compromise, and the achievement of consensus. People talking with people. In fact, since our country's beginning it is no coincidence that it is only positive change that has taken hold and lasted any significant amount of time. Each time, the act of one party connecting with another has occurred.

A word to those in positions of power who do not like to collaborate with others but simply prefer behaving in a heavy-handed way by barking out orders and bossing others around. Your way, at best, only results in temporary change. Further, it creates tension, resentment and discourages dialogue. No dialogue means little or no sense of community. The only commonality people share is a desire to rid themselves of those who do treat them with such disregard. This kind of attitude does not lead to meaningful consensus. As a result, in such a scenario, anyone looking for meaningful communication should look elsewhere.

The comment by Hoggan reinforces the notion that respectful and two-way communication should be the boat on which we ride to reach a better place as defined by dreams for ourselves and those around us.

What Is Happening to Television?

There is nothing good about hate speech nor can anything good be said about it. Is there any one who disagrees with that? I suspect not. I bet even fringe types who view the world as being flat, the moon landing a hoax, and Elvis still being alive would even agree if directly asked about it. Given that, it raises the question of why people still do it. Why are there commentators on national television, for instance, that call President Obama a racist, for instance, without one shred of evidence to support their claim, tolerated or, at the very least, not challenged? Has our nation become so polarized that this sort of thing is ok? Have people reached such a level of frustration that it is acceptable to spew such venom on mainstream television? Is extreme speech now part of the national landscape?

Since it's beginning days, programming on television has largely been designed to appeal to the greatest number of people. For better or worse, its content is geared to engage, not offend; to make viewing a comfortable and enjoyable experience and not necessarily one that offends. Generally, content touching on themes judged to be out of the mainstream, if displayed at all, have occurred at times and days when the greater majority of views is judged to be at its lowest such as late at night. When it comes to the coverage or introduction of so-called radical notions, television has been a slow-moving creature. Inter-racial relationships and gays are examples of what were deemed to be explosive themes that took decades before they were eased into mainstream programming.

Given the tone of a number of talk shows on television these days, particularly ones on the Fox network, it seems as if television is in the process of taking its viewers to another level where hate speech is being brought into the living rooms of families throughout the country. Apparently, television executives, at least the ones who oversee Fox, have deemed the mainstream viewing public as ready for hate speech. It is now ok for Fox commentators to publicly lambaste others in the most hateful ways and, as an extension, encourage unruly behavior among those who support their views. An example of this is how bands of extremists are being sent to various town hall meetings on the proposed health care legislation for the sole purpose of disrupting them. It is the same thing that was done in Florida when the Republican party sent bands of thugs down to disrupt efforts by election officials to count votes in the Bush-Gore election.

This is not a matter of free speech or a question of whether American families are ready for this kind negative communication. The onus here falls on the shoulders of the executives at Fox who seem to be so blinded by their own ideology that they have misplaced the great responsibility their positions as influential communicators demand. Fox claims it's news programs are "fair and balanced," but clearly it is not. In fact, it is interesting that the only people who seem to be saying that are ones who work at Fox. Communication, at its best, is engaging and inclusive. Hate speech is neither. Fox's judgment here is as irresponsible as it is poor. A better step on their part would be to begin living up to their slogan.

The Power of Information

The other night I was at a movie when for the first time in my movie-going life the fire alarm went off. The movie stopped. The lights went on and everyone had to evacuate the building immediately. We all did so in a quiet and orderly manner. In fact, as this was one of those multi-screen cinema houses, the quick evacuation of what I'm guessing were easily over one-thousand patrons was quite impressive. Once outside, the ushers directed us to move as far away from the building as possible despite the fact there were no visible signs of fire or impending danger. Soon afterward, two fire trucks arrived on the scene. For the most part, we in the crowd were subdued as we watched the firemen go about their business.

Time passed and other than the hustle and bustle we could see going on inside the large lobby of the building, nothing much else seemed to be happening. Over 45 minutes passed and there was still no word from any one inside the theater. What happened? Was everything ok? Would we be allowed to go back inside and see the rest of the movies? No one knew and we were not getting any help from those in the know. I stood outside in that cool summer night and thought about how vital information is at times like this and how important the role is of those who have it and are responsible for sharing it. At moments of this kind they are in a unique position of power when what they say and how they say it can really have a great deal of influence over many people in terms of what those people think and how they behave. In these instances, the communicator and his or her message are very powerful.

Finally, nearly an hour had passed when several of managers emerged to announce they were going to distribute free passes as the theater was being shut down for the remainder of the evening. No other information was shared. It was not till the next day when I learned that the whole thing was a false alarm. No damages. No inujuries. But the theater lost money that night and many people were inconveinenced. Obviously, it could have been a lot worse. Nevertheless, the lesson reinforced that night was how sharply vital communication is at times of impending crisis. In my own individual experiences and as a member of the general public I have seen numerous inistances when the responsibility of effective communication in these instances has been met well and not met well at all. It makes a big difference. It matters.