Larry D. Lauer

The one thing that characterized 2016 more than anything was a complete breakdown in political communication. Cool Hand Luke’s famous line “What we have here is a failure to communicate” was a reality every day in every way.

While communication always breaks down initially, some understanding is possible over time with clarity, consistency and persistence. Between a constant flow of lies, fake news, 24/7 breaking news clutter, and politician initiated miscommunication, the citizen consumer had no frame of reference  from which to understand much of anything.

Responding to the belief that Americans are tired of assuming the burden of other countries’ wars, Obama began a policy of seeking to form coalitions of countries to assume the responsibility. When that was not working well enough many pundits criticized, and then later suggested much the same thing.

Mr. Trump was one of those critics, yet much of his attacks amounted to a series of daily contradictions. CNN defended its out-of-balance coverage of the Trump “rallies” by arguing that his outrageous comments were always news and had to be covered and fact-checked. But we quickly learned in 2016 that after the rally fact-checking never gets back into the news strong enough to correct the situation.

Reporting remarks about building a wall between the US and Mexico, immediately eliminating ISIS, fixing inner city problems, belittling the UN, threatening NATO support, etc. without explaining implications and contradictions suggests the need for a whole new approach to journalism.

For example, is it responsible to give Mr. Putin credit for achieving a ceasefire in Syria as if it’s a victory over the US when he authorized air strikes in Syria that killed thousands of innocent civilians and children to achieve it?  Too many reports had a dramatic tone of declaring a winner who sidelined the US, rather than communicating the complexity and contradictions of the total situation. One analyst reinforced this misleading tone by suggesting that Putin will continue hacking because he is winning and outscoring the US.

In the past, balanced television reporting was simply putting both sides on camera and letting them argue. In the digital age, however, this has only led to extreme polarization, outrageous remarks, lies, and consumer confusion.

2017 will require the news media to think beyond the headline potential of outrageous remarks and tweets. The main lesson of 2016 teaches us that politics and policy can no longer just be about star making and personality contests. We must now focus on evaluating the substance of ideas… and we will need the help of very smart journalists to do it.

Read Full Post »

You may have heard reporters describe their job as simply reporting what people say and do. The implication is that if things are said that are not true it is up to someone else to point that out. Then the press can report it. In other words, it is not the reporter’s job to be the truth police.

But the “new media” and 24/7 cable worlds have demonstrated that reporting endless untruths on both sides only leads to extreme polarization, gridlock, vulgarity, and consumer confusion. In other words, reporting alone has not solved the problem.

The president-elect is fond of Twitter. He tweets day and night. So, does this practice allow him to bypass the press? The press seems concerned. But truthfully the situation is much worse!  The press actually has been treating his tweets as “breaking news” press releases. They reprint them word-for-word right up front, and TV reporters display them prominently on the wide-screen.

Just as manipulative has been his practice of inviting all types of people to visit him in Trump Tower.  Anticipating a little drama, the press sets-up live cameras in the lobby just to photograph the traffic. Grabbing the most surprising visitors for comments becomes a stream of breaking news blurbs. In the end this is nothing more than brilliant hotel advertising and star building manipulation from the Trump camp.

Maybe the time has come for reporters to face the fact that if they do not call out lies and ethics violations no one else can with enough long-term sustainable visibility? Let’s face it, significant traditional American values are suddenly missing from our political discourse and it’s critically important that this be given ongoing coverage. After all, what is omitted from the founders’ fundamental “idea of America” is also important news!

Maybe broadcast organizations should now borrow from newspapers and establish editorial boards to aggressively investigate and factually report such matters every night in prime time. In the final analysis, when lies proliferate and repeated manipulation is tolerated, news too frequently becomes indistinguishable from “fake news.”

So can the press help us understand this new media world and find the truth in it… or must we suffer the consequences of vulgar language, lies, clutter, and chaos? A better educated media consumer could be another answer, but I am afraid we no longer have enough time.

Read Full Post »

Is it possible for leaders to use new media technology such as Twitter to communicate directly with their constituents, and thereby ignore the news media?  The answer is yes, and no!

Since the digital technology revolution changed the world, strategic communicators have been using new media tools to communicate directly with their audiences with great success. These tools certainly mean that institutions and governments no longer have to rely on the press to connect with their constituents. It is indeed possible to send messages to audiences exactly as leaders shape them. The president-elect did not invent this idea… it’s been going on for a long time.

However, the need to have strong relationships with the press cannot go away. It is deadly to think otherwise:

First, those relationships are necessary because dealing effectively with issues and crises require it.  Otherwise, relentless investigative journalism will ultimately undermine a leader’s credibility. Leaders must look like they know what they are doing in a crisis, and they cannot do it without handling themselves confidently with reporters.

Second, 24/7 news media will be writing stories with or without the cooperation of leaders, and will be using the same technology tools to reach their constituents directly.

Third, third-party endorsements are powerful on those occasions when it is possible to get your  message to the public through the news media.

And fourth, there always will be huge numbers of people reacting negatively to leader “tweets” and thereby getting energized and mobilized by the digital and traditional media they follow. Special interest websites, cable channels with viewpoints, cause driven bloggers, and endless other issue-focused social media sites will be building and activating their own followers in opposition.

The fact that a president of the United States stays up all night “tweeting” to avoid talking to the press will not insulate him from the daily negative impact of endless messages generated by a relentless army of 24/7 journalists using the same technology.

Read Full Post »

Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, by Pulitzer Prize winning author, Chris Hedges, offers a compelling analysis of the success of professional wrestling. In brief, he suggests that the audiences are far larger than many of us realize, the spectacle of it is a compelling escape from reality, and a dramatic “suspension of disbelief” is in full force. In other words, there is a willingness to overlook the staging and somehow believe in its legitimacy, much the same as we do in a make-believe play.

Is that what has been going on in this presidential campaign? Both candidates have little or no credibility. So in order to vote many of us will suspend our disbelief, close our eyes, and hope for the best?

Most Trump attacks, crude remarks and misstatements have no grounding in truth or reality. Certainly everyone knows that. But somehow, many of those followers must be suspending their disbelief and hoping against hope that he can fix what is hurting them.

And with Mrs. Clinton, an aura of secrecy has built up over a long period of time… no doubt originating with her past personal crises. And so poll after poll tells us people just don’t trust her to tell the truth.

The lesson we are learning is that when candidates lose credibility their events become little more than spectacle. Then, their followers have no choice but to suspend disbelief, and replace trust with blind hope.

In this new media world the hourly nonstop implosion of misrepresentation fogs our ability to be rational, creates an acceptance of the outrageous as commonplace, and compels everyone to replace credible information with hope.

It’s impossible to be certain of the long-term psychic and social consequences of what we have been through. My “hope” is that with the benefit of hindsight we will finally come to our senses and once again affirm the importance of “source credibility” as the first principle of effective leadership.

Read Full Post »

The release of the FBI letter reopening the Clinton email investigation sent journalists scrambling over the weekend for how to respond. They had to write something just because their competitors would.

The problem is that the letter was a totally substance-free announcement without explanation. It provided virtually nothing to write about, and yet something would have to be written. It’s situations like this that lead to speculation and innuendo… two disruptive communication poisons.

I appreciate the dilemma because I remember when journalists would call me for a statement about a situation I knew had no substance.  But I would still often hear: “My editor is pushing me and I have to write something!”

The problem is that under competitive pressure when there is no substance reporters are likely to  revert to speculation. “What it could be is…”  “It might be nothing, but then if it is…”  “If it turns out there is something she likely will go to prison.” That’s pure poison.

Under pressure to respond, campaigns are likely to revert to persuasive innuendo. Trump will be saying something like: “You just know the FBI  has something.”

And betting the FBI would have released anything it could, Clinton will be saying something like: “I think the FBI should release whatever it has.”

As a voter you no doubt are already leaning in one direction or the other. So you nod in the direction of your preferred innuendo: “Yea, I bet you’re right!”  And if you are still undecided, speculation and innuendo are certain pathways to disillusionment.

The fact is that “no story at all” becomes any story you want it to be. That is why speculation and innuendo are poisons. This campaign has been full of both… “journalism noise” on the one hand, and “smoke and mirrors” on the other.

Read Full Post »

(more…)

Read Full Post »

What did you learn about either Trump or Clinton from Monday’s debate that you did not already know?

Television inevitably makes drama from reality. TV debates are no different. TV backgrounds become performance stages. Cameras are attracted to dramatic close-ups. Performances are carefully mapped and rehearsed. What you are seeing is television drama… and acting.

Trump is an experienced reality show actor. He has created drama with his foul and cruel mouth. He lies about facts, but does it dramatically. He has hidden his finances and then makes boisterous claims about his charitable giving. He admires with pleasure the leadership of a Russian dictator. He uses brash and bullying remarks at rallies to incite dramatic responses, which sometimes turn violent. He makes loud and outrageous claims about what he will do without any ideas about how. He is a reality show actor, the world is his stage, and win or lose a dramatic television debate setting tells us little about what he actually will do as president.

Clinton’s public personality has been shaped by controversies. She is a private person that in many ways is impossible for the public to read. She can be very secretive when threatened. She has refused to be transparent about her recent email controversy, which raises concerns about how forthcoming she will be in future crisis situations. She also can be highly political, and therefore could end up reinforcing the very legislative polarization that has this country currently divided. She rehearsed heavily for this television debate performance. With this in mind what did you actually learn about how she will make decisions as president?

If television news only follows the drama of future rallies and polls, and needed investigative work never gets done and visibly reported, we will be relegated to choosing our next president based on who we think will do the least harm.

Note: More to come about this in a few days…

Read Full Post »