Larry D. Lauer

Many felt the third presidential debate had more substance than the first two. Different people will judge that differently based on how much substance they require to have confidence in the belief that a policy topic can or will be turned into action.

But it’s also essential to ask just how important is the tone of leadership rhetoric when it comes to getting things done?  What is the effect of persistent and consistent rants about what and who is wrong as the tone for your leadership rhetoric versus persistent and consistent remarks about what’s right, accompanied by visionary statements about what’s possible.

In my experience communication tone can be a surprisingly strong and important message. It’s easy to see how consistent tone over time becomes contagious and powerful. It attracts audiences like a magnet based on their own life circumstance and orientation. Those who are upset with what they see around them and can’t see exciting possibilities ahead will be attracted to an angry and attacking leader. And those inclined to be positive people on the whole will very likely be energized by remarks about why this moment in time is perfect to achieve new possibilities. A clear and believable  vision for what is possible is a strong action enabler.

When significant numbers of people are responding to angry rhetoric it must be a wake up call for the surrounding community or nation. And when any leader cannot inspire change with a positive and believable visionary tone there will be a very rocky road ahead.

Bottom line: There is truth to the concept of “self-fulfilling prophesy.” Communities, nations and organizations only move ahead with positive talking leaders who aim high.

Read Full Post »

A recent Newsweek cover story described in some detail how the Trump organization’s foreign business ties could upend U.S national security should he become president. In a follow-up interview with Judy Woodruff on the PBS Newshour the author described extremely complicated business interests in potentially dangerous countries of the world. He therefore questioned how a sitting president’s family members can possibly run his international business relationships as if it really is a “blind” trust.

If this journalist’s investigative work is accurate, this campaign may no longer be about political ideology or “looking” presidential. It could very well be about national security. Based on this story alone should not every investigative journalist in America be working to verify its accuracy? And if accurate, should not every media organization feel compelled to bring these facts to every citizen?

In addition, are there Clinton Foundation projects related to human rights, immigration, or terrorism that could complicate U.S. foreign policy? Do voters deserve to know more about how having a past president as “first husband” will actually work?

The problem is that the “business of journalism” and the nature of television often favor daily drama over investigation. Reporters are urged to pick up the pace, dramatize headlines and “breaking news,” promise new information when only words change, and cover staged events in anticipation of dramatic headlines more than substance. The unquenchable appetite of 24/7 cable is what led to this situation, but many mainstream newscasts have also been influenced by entertainment values which attract mass audiences.

The debate was interesting. It was good television. But we learned little more than how effective the candidates are as speakers on television. Looking past the debates, if television news continues to focus mostly on the drama of rallies and polls and fails to investigate and report the dangerous implications of candidate entanglements and conflicts, all of America will lose.

We are in the closing weeks of a crazy and scary campaign. Television news must now slow up and bring the best possible research and investigative information to all Americans. Facts, truth and integrity really do matter. We are running out of time… and our national security may be at stake.

Read Full Post »

Television prefers human drama and emotion over explanations of policy details. I learned this the hard way as a public affairs producer early in my career. Drama is simply in the nature of the medium. The more information I crammed into programs the more boring they became. The more I used the camera to stress emotion and drama the more compelling they became.

Trump is a natural. He instinctively creates endless streams of drama while continuously “fogging” details. TV producers simply cannot resist him. Think about his recent rally at his new hotel in Washington. His promise to admit for the first time that Obama was born in America guaranteed live TV coverage. His  insistence on not saying it until the end guaranteed total rally coverage. His setting included military “brass” behind him. And his beautiful hotel was the background. And to add even more hotel exposure he required reporters to come inside if they wanted to ask questions. A perfect television event: Great background. Emotional anticipation. Few details.

In this age of imagery pseudo-events are fast becoming a new reality. Trump’s campaign staff had actually already told reporters what he was going to say. Even so, people were willing to watch the event until the end just to hear the “celebrity” validate it. And when he finally did, he went on to preview the next dramatic episode with a clever misstatement of facts.

What’s more, all of this was hours of free publicity for both Trump’s hotel and his campaign, with no new news. In this age of imagery performers with Trump’s television instincts will continue to compel this kind of visibility. That is unless the vast silent majority and politicians with integrity finally step-up and proclaim they have had enough… and the broadcast journalism profession also musters enough courage to do the same.

Read Full Post »

With today’s mixture of outlandish statements, outright lies, and name calling it is becoming more clear every day that without integrity and clarity our words no longer have any consistent meaning.

I was talking with a colleague the other day about why he is so afraid of Donald Trump. He said it’s simple: ” Trump said he admires Putin who clearly is a dictator. He also said that as president if he did not like his generals he would fire them and find ones he did. That sounds to me like a person on his way to creating a dictatorship.”

Another colleague said about Clinton: “She has refused for far too long to explain in simple terms what actually led her to put a private internet server in her home. At first I thought it was just a campaign strategy, but watching her fumble around on television all this time I have come to think she just can’t be trusted to do the right thing.”

Without a base of fundamental integrity and transparency, and without a commitment to the accurate use of language, there is no hope for trusting  any speaker we ever hear or see. If we continue like this in today’s image saturated and social media dominated world we will never know for sure what we are getting in a public servant. And what’s more, this leadership uncertainty can also carry far beyond politics into business, nonprofits, education, and everywhere else.

The basic question now is this: “Are there enough good people in media, politics and the rest of society who are disgusted enough to take charge of the situation and set the standards necessary to save the day?  The irony is that the same digital technology that enable this mess to begin with could actually be used to fix it.

Read Full Post »