---

---

April 15, 2008

Across party lines ~ Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson Unite and Concur on Climate Change

Not every issue is partisan, and the recent Climate Project Ad Campaign makes that point crystal clear. Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton joined forces in an ad urging action to protect the planet.

They call it an “Unlikely Alliance,” but the only reason why such an alliance is considered unlikely is because our culture has grown polarized and been taught to think that topic has to be either Republican or Democratic.

They don’t.

There are many ways to categorize differences, and one way is between those who want to be (In the words of Pat Robertson) “good stewards of the environment and do everything within our power to protect this fragile planet that we all live on” and those who don’t.

One of the biggest roadblocks to reasonable dialogue is the pigeonholing of individuals and ideas into one political category or another, abandoning critical thinking about the issues, independent of other people’s stands on the issues.

The Climate Project Ad Campaign not only increases awareness of climate change, it also increases awareness of the possibility of forming more “unlikely alliances” and working together toward the greater good.

April 10, 2008

Firestorms over show hosts Imus, Shuster and Rhodes’ suspensions illustrate confusion over aggression and assertiveness

Almost exactly one year ago, Don Imus was fired for an inappropriate comment on the air. Two months ago, NBC’s David Shuster was suspended for an inappropriate comment on the air. Last week, Air America Host Randi Rhodes was suspended for an inappropriate vulgar slur during a station-funded appearance. She resigned today rather than apologize. All three events stirred firestorms.

The arguments in defense of name-calling and personal attacks demonstrate common misunderstandings about the difference between aggressive and assertive communication. Many people confuse strong expression with vulgarity, disagreeing with disrespecting, and holding people accountable with personal attack. Those conflations muddy the real issues. People think that objecting to Imus’ firing, and Shuster and Rhodes’ suspension is the same as silencing them. It’s not. It’s about maintaining communication standards in our airwaves

Imus is back, and apparently is willingly continuing to be assertive without being viciously aggressive. Shuster is back without incident. Rhodes chose to quit instead of apologize. I hope Rhodes maintains her passion in her new ventures while toning down her vitriol.

April 7, 2008

Reader question ~Who’s entitled to an opinion?

Meryl

I am increasingly troubled by the large number of people who profess opinions on matters for which they are not entitled to have an opinion. Worse yet, people are taking into consideration these totally ignorant “opinions” in making decisions!

Polls asking people who have never studied military history, tactics, strategy, or even served in the military are being taken about how we should run the war, and are then being cited as reasons to pull out of Iraq summarily. People who have never studied physics, biology, thermodynamics or even read an unbiased technical textbook on the subject are spouting off against using nuclear power because it is too dangerous and are actively blocking potential safe new energy sources. People who have never cracked a economics textbook are weighing in on the subprime mortgage crisis, answering polls and spouting off on things they know NOTHING about.

New employees who have barely worked at the company a week are full of suggestions to reform how things are done, without bothering to do any research about why things are being done they way they are. The upshot here is that they shoot themselves in the foot at work. No real harm is done, except to the person who is spouting off without any credentials or background. In the other cases, we are looking at the very real risk of major policies being based on ignorance, bias and sheer stupidity.

I know that I don’t have the right to have an opinion on a very large number of topics, and that I do have the right to an opinion on a small number. If I am asked for an opinion on something I know little or nothing about, I decline to share my ignorance. Part of Speaking Strong is knowing when to keep your mouth shut, and another part is to quit asking the ignorant for useless “opinions.” I would like to see you address this issue.

Meryl Responds

I suggest that we’re all entitled to opinions as long as 1) we know that’s what they are – opinions and not fact, 2) we are willing to be influenced by opposing opinions and 3) we consider levels of expertise.

Many are skeptical of “authorities” these days, and rightfully so. Authorities have led us down some ill-advised paths. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to experts. It does mean we should also listen to our ourselves if what an authority says doesn’t seem right.

Of course it’s important to understand why things are the way they are before we assume we know better. And it often happens that people new to a situation can see things that those who are close to the problem miss.

I agree that public opinion polls are a dangerous way to create policy. And they are a great way to find out what people do and don’t know. They also are a great way to find out what people are experiencing, which often gets overlooked on the decision-maker level. We are all experts – on how the world looks to us. It’s our piece of the proverbial elephant. If we put them all together, we just might get a glimpse of the whole elephant. The danger your question references is we tend to think we are seeing the entire elephant, when in fact we just see the tail. The opinion isn’t the problem – it’s the lack of perspective on our own opinions that creates problems.

April 6, 2008

Air America Radio suspension of host Randi Rhodes raises communication questions

Air America Radio’s suspension of talk show host Randi Rhodes stirred anger among her fans, drew cheers among her detractors. As a communication author and teacher, I herald it as an example I hope other outlets follow.

If you’re asking, “Randi who?”, she’s a liberal talk show host who is generally considered smart, outspoken and often caustic. Air America Radio suspended her last week for calling Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro “f*&#%^$ whores.”

To me, this kind of language is indefensible, but there are plenty of people who try. If you follow the discussions whenever a media figure gets suspended for poor word choice, you get the impression that you have to be disrespectful in order to disagree. The real issue of Rhodes suspension is whether you condone calling public figures F&%#& whores. It doesn’t matter how you feel about Clinton or how you feel about Rhodes. Either you approve of this kind of attack or you don’t.

Air America’s press release read:

“Air America has suspended on-air host Randi Rhodes for making inappropriate statements about prominent figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton, at a recent public appearance on behalf of Air America in San Francisco which was sponsored by an Air America affiliate station. ‘Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our Hosts.”

To ignore this kind of vulgarity is to condone it. I know, I know, it sells. Randi Rhodes commanded high ratings. I predict she will command higher ratings if she returns to the air, keeping her feisty nature but losing her vulgar tirades. I predict she would keep her current fan base and gain a new base of people who like their commentary to be clear without being caustic and corrosive.

If you’ve read any of my books you know my philosophy is to say what you mean, and mean what you say, without being mean when you say it. Practice that yourself, and then hold the people you support to the same standards. Advocate clear, substantive dialogue from the candidates and media outlets you support.

SpeakStrong in Politics: You don’t miss what you don’t see

Here’s a test for you. Watch the news and ask yourself, what WASN’T reported? While the airwaves were filled with campaign news, what was omitted? What voices do you not hear?

Think about old news. Since news has a short cycle, chances are good there are scores of stories that dropped off the radar but still are relevant. If Iraq has not been in the news, can you assume nothing is happening in Iraq?

If the economy isn’t in the news, can you assume it’s sailing along just fine?

If no one carries labor news any more, does that mean there is no labor news?

You don’t miss what you can’t see. So next time you watch the news, ask what wasn’t there, and let your news providers know what you want to see covered.

Priorities ~ Bowling for distraction

Recently, Constitutional lawyer Greg Greenwald posted the following on his website.

“In the past two weeks, the following events transpired. A Department of Justice memo, authored by John Yoo, was released which authorized torture and presidential lawbreaking. It was revealed that the Bush administration declared the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to be inapplicable to “domestic military operations” within the U.S. The U.S. Attorney General appears to have fabricated a key event leading to the 9/11 attacks and made patently false statements about surveillance laws and related lawsuits. Barack Obama went bowling in Pennsylvania and had a low score.

Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

“Yoo and torture” - 102

“Mukasey and 9/11″ — 73

“Yoo and Fourth Amendment” — 16

“Obama and bowling” — 1,043

“Obama and Wright” — More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

“Obama and patriotism” - 1,607

“Clinton and Lewinsky” — 1,079″

Ths says something about our media, doesn’t it?

Another strange omission hits me. Al Gore announced on Sixty Minutes that he is investing $300,000,000 of his own money into a PR campaign to raise awareness of global warming. The coverage I saw focused on Gore’s candidate preferences to the exclusion of his new endeavor.

Whatever you think of Al Gore’s mission, to me, when ANYONE invests $300,000,000 in a cause, it should be news.

Gore is using a Unite and Concur strategy in his campaign. He is sponsoring bipartisan ads with political opposites such as Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton.

Great way to make a point that some issues transcend party affiliation, don’t you think?

PR strategist David Meerman Scott praises Al Gore for his marketing savvy on his website. Scott’s points are instructive. Still, I wonder why an announcement of such a massive effort was upstaged by campaign speculation.

When you think your news source doesn’t have its priorities straight, let them know what matters to you.

And what doesn’t matter to you. That can mean saying requesting they give Obama’s lack of bowling acumen a rest.

• A better way
• Across party lines
• Blog Guidelines
• Communciation questions
• Communication standards
• Get real
• Guest post
• Old school politics
• Priorities
• SpeakStrong in Politics
• Uncategorized
• What Not to Say
• What's wrong with this picture?