Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2019

We simply cannot ignore what words can do. When divisive words become the norm, they inevitably incite anger… and eventually produce violence. The fact is… Social media are creating an international vocabulary of copycat words, with the power to unite extremists and incite violence.

“Immigrant invasion” emergencies. When any emergency is explained as an “invasion of immigrants,” it must be recognized that this is a code phrase being used by white supremacists who have already staged killings in New Zealand, Charleston, Pittsburg, Charlottesville, and many other places around the world.  Today, social media has become its own ecosystem with an incredible international bonding power for lost and angry souls.

Contempt for adversaries. When constructive conversations in search of imaginative solutions degenerate into widespread contempt and hatred for adversaries, violence is close at hand.

Populism, nationalism, and autocracy.  When populism and nationalism force citizens to take sides, an autocracy is in the making. Fueled by social media, and encouraged by autocrats, dangerous divisions have already appeared in Russia, China, Philippines, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and a number of countries in eastern and central Europe.

The dividing power of wealth. History teaches that widening class divisions can eventually destroy entire civilizations. In the U.S., huge tax cuts mostly benefiting the rich, unfair job advantages, easy elite college access, plus arrogance… and more, might be early indications of a possible middle class and poor people’s rebellion.

The seriousness of climate change. Willingness to ignore modern science by too many of those invested in polluting industries, is inspiring a growing and dangerous youth rebellion. Such generational divisions have a history of turning into worldwide, peace-threatening, demonstrations.

Code words and phrases. Fear mongering on social media every day exacerbates, unites, and incites. And when leaders suggest that their followers might get out of control on their own, a kind of permission for violence is felt by those who only need a little encouragement.

Autocracies can actually become attractive. In countries threatened by division, a gradual belief can emerge that the control promised by an autocrat is necessary to bring about stability. Inevitably, however, autocracies backfire into cruel dictatorships.

“With me, or against me” are words that produce dangerous divisions, no matter the political ideology. Ironically, they are both the dividing and uniting words of terrorists, autocrats, and dictators all over the world.

Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute, has a new Book: Love Your Enemies. It is an alarming warning of how violence results when constructive debating grows into contempt and hatred for your adversaries.

Read Full Post »

Finally feeling in political control, party enthusiasm might very quickly lead Democrats to a an unanticipated costly overreach. And it’s important to understand that there are unavoidable communication dynamics at work in political moments like this.

You announce a Congressional investigation. You release ambitious plans to move quickly ahead. You immediately make requests for documents from your recently defeated adversaries. And then, you ask many of them to testify at a hearing. But, just as quickly those adversaries begin complaining about harassment, and very soon begin to use doublespeak to state doubts about your legitimacy. In time, this constant noise-making opens a few cracks and weaknesses in your arguments, threatening the future of your investigation.

In the case of current hearings underway in the House of Representatives, one committee’s immediate request for over 80 documents, combined with extremely liberal ideas becoming vocal at the same time, will likely expose unanticipated vulnerabilities. All lawyers know that in situations like this embarrassment is lurking somewhere. Thus, political parties in the minority will always complain about hypocrisy, and in this case will brand leftist liberal ideas as Communist-inspired socialism.

And all this is going on when polls are showing that the majority of Americans are somewhere in the political middle. So when Republicans brand Democrats as extreme socialists, and also produce a pragmatic sounding counter-plan, they will very likely find a large and receptive “silent-majority” audience. Hence, aggressive overreach is dangerous… especially now for the Democrats.

It’s also important to understand that the danger of overreach is a natural part of communication dynamics, and has little to do with political ideology. 

So avoiding the bad consequences of overreach requires strategic communication savvy more than political argument. Don’t make huge requests for documents from adversaries up front. Consider inviting them to meet with your committee first. Carefully plan penetrating, but fair, questions. Then, follow-up with requests for only essential documents. Don’t be in a big hurry. Only then, threaten to subpoena the important hold-outs. And all this while stating and restating your ultimate pragmatic game-plan… preferably one that meets the needs of the already known “silent” majority.

In today’s overwhelming media ecosystem, the irony is that what seems to be a political breakthrough one day, might end up only adding more clutter and confusion to an already vast universe of good ideas. Or worse, overreaching can also lead to political defeat.

Read Full Post »

Since the president began calling the news media “the enemy of the people” I have been asking colleagues how they think reporters are doing with finding and reporting truth.

One colleague recently told me that he thinks many journalists are doing their best in a very difficult climate. But he does not understand why so many television anchors still put opposing experts on camera to shout at each other, and why some journalists still report wild assertions as if they are reasonable. And also, why do rallies based on personal attacks and double-speak still get so much coverage?

His remarks reminded me that traditional journalism education has always taught reporters to give equal opportunity to all sides of controversies. This obviously makes sense. But in an all new era of nonstop lies, gross exaggerations, and personal attacks, should this practice be revisited?

In other words, in today’s confusing media ecosystem, should the national news media focus more specifically on fact-checking and reporting the results in real-time, no matter the source?

The president’s two-hour double-speak at the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will connect with different people in different ways. For some, it simply will be remembered as harmless entertainment. For others, it will be remembered as the sad cries of a person losing his mind. And for others, it will only have been more of the same from the person they chose to support during the campaign.

But is there an overall truth that should be unpacked and reported as the main story from this perplexing CPAC extravaganza? I think so… see Lesson 477, “Word Salad” leadership.

That said, we must also remember that even nonprofit news often operates as a business. All news organizations are influenced by TV ratings, newspaper readership, celebrity power, and advertising/subscriber/fund-raising revenue. Could it be that in the final analysis the president’s daily antics are the best “profit” producers the news media ever had? Sadly, this too often complicates reporting only truth.

Read Full Post »