Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Public Affairs’ Category

Why and to whom does Donald Trump appeal? Here is one communicator’s analysis:

Trump begins with a message that targets unconventional and deep emotional thoughts that are held by some people but heretofore have not been widely articulated. He then expresses those thoughts with simple messages presented as dramatically as he can, insuring widespread attention and thereby giving them a measure of “endorsed legitimacy.” These people now feel they are not alone with their feelings, and so they can now “suspend” any fleeting thought they may have about the impracticability of their opinions.

The fact is they are actually having a virtual experience that is much the same as attending a play. A theater audience “suspends its disbelief” in order to believe the dramatic experience they are having is real and possible, and they share that experience as a group until after the play is over!

In today’s digital world the situation is further complicated by the fact that “people always tend to hear what they want to hear,” and by the more recent realization that partial truths (and even lies) begin to take on a ring of credibility when repeated over and over… especially when they are inadequately challenged.

But challenging outrageous claims, partial truths, and lies is complicated in this digital media world. Challenging requires finding a way to target a different and genuine set of emotional concerns that are shared by a good number of important audiences, and then repeating  carefully crafted simple messages over and over again until reality wins the day.

I must add that the more people we have in the world with a fundamental understanding of the psychic and social consequences of 24/7 media revolutions, the more intelligent challenges of outrageous  claims we will also have in the world. And when all is said and done, a media savvy global education will be the best way to broaden that universe of understanding.

Read Full Post »

What should be the communication objective of a political campaign? (1) Attract media attention with increasingly outrageous pronouncements hoping for some kind of temporary celebrity status? (2) Win a debate outright merely by repeating talking points which may or may not be true?  Or (3) informing citizens about the critical issues facing the country and giving them a chance to witness and evaluate various leadership styles? The best objective seems obvious to most of us. So what’s the problem?

What we have today is nothing more than a horserace with news media coverage based solely on popularity polls. And those polls are strongly influenced by how effective a candidate is at generating next-day news coverage.

Much of the news media will explain that they just report what the candidates say and do. And when pressed, many campaign staffers  will admit they have concluded that being outrageous is necessary in order to stay visible and keep the attention of the news media.

One broadcaster explained the situation as a tension today between the business and journalism sides of news. In other words, the business side just can’t resist responding to the natural audience appeal of aggressive conflict. And when a candidate like Trump exploits this situation over and over again we have a campaign system out of control and a real mess on our hands.

Even periodic fact-checking hasn’t changed the situation.  Eventually even the public gives up. Some drop out of the process altogether while others just pick a horse and hope the winner is smarter that he or she appears now.

The real loser, however, is the American citizen. Constant political attacks and name calling clearly make our country look silly. But what’s more, everyone at home and abroad is denied the opportunity to hear about thoughtful solutions and to evaluate each candidate as a potential national and world leader.

So who’s responsible for fixing the situation… the candidates or the news media? I believe they both need to take long look at themselves. They both need to make the obvious changes  appropriate for a nation that still wants to think of itself as a worthy democratic leader in a world that is becoming more hostile and insecure every day. This is not just child’s play or competition for ratings. This is serious business!

Read Full Post »

Should higher education be included in national political debates?  Should it have its own place on the agenda?  Or should it be considered as a vital factor in effectively addressing other topics?

For example, in a debate about the economy, job opportunities, and social problem-solving should questions about the role of higher education be asked? Many politicians have already declared higher education a failure, so maybe its role in these matters should be debated and discussed more widely.

If some of the more extreme charges go unanswered the implications are frightening. For example:

(1)  Universities are inefficient and ineffective. In political debates where the nation’s effectiveness as a world leader is being questioned, this charge against higher education’s effectiveness has far-reaching implications? Since our universities produce the nation’s leaders, it is a charge that must be strongly and visibly answered.

(2) The high cost of higher education is limiting access to good jobs. The truth is that financial aid offsets an average of 40% or more of the cost, and the diversity of size and type means that sticker prices vary significantly. There is a college somewhere in the US to fit most everyone’s needs and pocketbook. This misunderstanding needs to be answered.

(3) Universities should focus more on practical fields of study. The implication here is that the liberal and fine arts are less worthy. The facts are that many companies prefer liberal arts graduates, and that the job a graduate gets today might not exist tomorrow! These facts need to be heard.

Even if the debates themselves end up with politicians continuing to attack the academy, 24/7 cable, social media, and other major news outlets could balance the situation by having top academic leaders immediately and visibly respond. Otherwise, these charges might go unanswered. Then we all will be the losers.

 

Read Full Post »

There is little doubt in this age of digital technology that television can be a powerful tool to cover senseless and violent crises and explore their causes. The horrible killing of nine innocent people  in the church in Charleston once again has me thinking about both the power and responsibility of television news.

Any new media technology will always be used, especially when it proves to be powerful. Over time serious users will perfect ways to make it more and more effective. In the case of television it’s strength is in its capacity to use carefully selected images and editing to dramatize. Extended television news coverage of major crises is therefore inevitable.

All of this raises questions about the potential for both positive and negative influences. These three have been swirling around in my mind:

1. What level and tone of television coverage informs the public most appropriately?

2. How much coverage of details about a perpetrator’s planning and background is appropriate? When might these details and images actually produce a celebrity status in the eyes of like-minded individuals and possibly encourage future assaults? And at what point might this coverage actually help achieve the perpetrator’s public relations objectives, and even those of sympathetic extremist groups?

3. And when might lengthy in-depth coverage move beyond mere observing and reporting into unintended participation in the event itself?

In order to address these and other questions, should television and other news media be  evaluating their own  impact on society and human behavior more visibly and more often… maybe even at times other than when a crisis has occurred?

And since media consumers are pretty much on their own to edit and evaluate their many  information sources in this 24/7 digital media world, is it also a good time to consider more media literacy courses and forums in schools, colleges, and community organizations?

 

Read Full Post »

Anticipating the upcoming primaries, it is only natural that I would be wondering if this election season will be any better than the last. I would hope that many past candidates are now ashamed of much of what they said and the mean-spirited tone of their attacks. Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?

Not too long ago my I-phone dictionary app greeted me with the word of the day “malarkey!  It is defined  as “speech or writing designed to obscure, mislead; ‘bunkum’…  as in “the claims are a lot of malarkey.”

As we prepare for a new primary season, let’s hope that there will be a minimal amount of malarkey. Processing it is a huge challenge for every media consumer. It feeds polarization and fuels extremism. When repeated over and over it is eventually accepted as true by too many partisans. And as it builds momentum it erases any chance of compromise, and can lead to hostility… and even anarchy.

What makes it worse is that technology today spreads malarkey so rapidly that many thoughtful people become overwhelmed and disgusted election dropouts. The world becomes so cluttered with conflicting  information that it is often impossible for even intelligent people to distinguish fact from fiction. Therefore, too many of them are dropping out simply because they think there are no decent choices.

Every day, understanding the consequences of media revolutions is becoming more and more essential to the survival of a civil society.

Read Full Post »

The presidential primary election season is underway and I have been reflecting again on just how much the game has changed in recent years. What does it take today to win a primary, and then a general election? And what role does new technology play?

When television became a dominant medium more than 50 years ago it literally changed the game in fundamental ways. Suddenly a candidate had to look good on television, be able to afford to buy time, and present the image of a confident leader able to make everything better. The Kennedy-Nixon debate was the classic example of how one candidate could hold his own on the issues, but still lose out to the one who looked more presidential on camera.

Now we are in the age of digital media. Looking presidential on television still counts, but even more critical is the capacity to build a highly motivated “community-of-interest” among like-minded individuals using two-way interactive media platforms. Such communities are not limited by geography and can be sustained over time.  And this same technology has the power to inspire them to attend rallies and vote on election day.

Election districts are also shaped differently in this new media age. Today, districts are clusters of like-minded people with their boundaries drawn by the most powerful party. Representatives are expected to champion their district’s thinking. This generally results in taking extreme positions on issues. And the situation keeps getting worse.

In presidential and gubernatorial primary elections this same kind of extreme thinking will take place. Confusion then develops when the winners must adjust and broaden their appeal in general elections. Candidates are often driven to say things they can’t sustain after elected. Then, their popularity fades and the political pendulum can easily swing from one party to the other.

The intensity of 24/7 news and ongoing community-of-interest building activities can keep these ideology-driven issues hot long after elections. This requires year-round fundraising which continues daily. More and more money is needed, and it only comes with clear voting expectations. This is what has put wealthy individuals and corporations fully in charge.

A new media world would seem to have the power to reduce the cost of campaigning. But the opposite has actually occurred. It takes huge amounts of money to sustain this constantly changing political game, including to pay for the last-minute negative attacks which many consultants believe win elections.

It’s amazing to think that it’s television imagery and community-of-interest building technology that enabled all these changes and contributed to this mess. Time heals, to be sure. But let’s hope it does not run out before another promising society collapses. Lessons of history can be sobering.

Read Full Post »

This week Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to the US Congress at the invitation of the Speaker of the House without the concurrence of the President, breaking all established protocol for a state visit. This event had me thinking again about how the balance of power is supposed to work versus how media revolutions in the past have been able to significantly disrupt it. And the more I thought about it the more I could see media influences once again contributing to this disruption.

In the US we have a checks and balances system designed to balance the power between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. But with each media revolution, from print to TV to digital and Internet technology, the balance of power has shifted in favor of those branches and individuals who understand and use the new dominant medium most effectively.

For example, among the 425 members of the House of Representatives and the 100 members of the Senate, only those who know how to use television and digital media effectively are able to attain widespread visibility and influence. The executive branch, by virtue of its administrative importance, has greater media access and so the president has the advantage of his powerful “bully pulpit.” And the judiciary’s “court of last resort” function tended to diminish its media access and influence, although recent hot constitutional issues might be changing all that… producing more balance disruption.

The appearance of Netanyahu before the US Congress is still another development in this changing media dynamic. Was the US speaker of the House’s invitation to speak to Congress without consulting the US President a pure Republican political move?  Was Netanyahu’s interest in coming primarily influenced by his impending bid for re-election back home? Was this just a dramatic  example of an inevitable permanent shift in the balance of power? Or was it a horrible blunder with negative consequences for the Speaker and/or the Prime Minister?

Whatever the motives, television and digital media and the ability to use it clearly made this event possible. And yes it could change the protocols for conducting foreign affairs in the future. Are we better off? Only time will tell. Change is difficult no matter how it comes, and this is still another example of what I mean when I argue that “media revolutions change everything!”

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Cities cannot escape media revolutions, especially when those revolutions bring new technologies that intensify, multiply and expand both messages and relationships.

Neighborhood problems are exposed more dramatically. Poverty is more difficult to ignore. Frustrations of minorities come more to the surface. Management issues are scrutinized more consistently. News coverage changes from daily events reporting to intensive issues investigation. And these same new technologies help extend a city’s story far beyond its borders.

These dramatic changes in how individuals and communities communicate have had both good and bad consequences. The very technology that has the potential to bring people and neighborhoods together has often magnified their problems and exacerbated divisions. And while communities of interest can come together on-line, such virtual communities are often not geographically aligned and end up stimulating conflicts.

What seems to differentiate cities from nations, however, is that mayors and city managers tend to be less political and more pragmatic in dealing with these new problems. Issues related to neighborhoods, poverty, immigrants, water, energy, air quality, climate change, etc., are real and urgent but have little to do with political ideology or religion.

This reality has led some analysts to imagine groups of city managers and mayors from around the world meeting on a regular basis to address our recent and violent international problems. For example, the current crisis of immigrants joining ISIS and other extremists to bring terror to the world has become basically a city problem. Is it therefore not reasonable to think that groups of city leaders meeting from around the world might be able to find pragmatic solutions?

In short, countries have national identities, histories and borders to be concerned about. And world organizations get caught up in those politics. But cities have immediate problems to solve, and invariably address them pragmatically. Therefore, maybe cities really can lead the way to more effective international problem-solving.

Read Full Post »

The President has one opportunity each year to address all of Congress and the American people at the same time. But it is an almost impossible situation. This vast audience is made up of every ideology and opinion imaginable. And each person is hearing what he or she wants to hear. Changing minds is very unlikely.

Even so, on the whole Obama’s grade should be at least a B-plus, maybe even an A-minus. It was a good speech. But could it have been better? Or is there a better approach?

I have written in the past that these speeches end up containing far too much information. Half way through many of us are already wondering how all this will be financed, or thinking that there is simply no way to get all this accomplished. But presidents somehow still feel compelled to address every domestic and foreign policy issue that comes to mind.

This time the president began by seeming to indicate he would focus on a few themes  instead of a long list of issues. I was hopeful. But then he proceeded to work his way through  the same long list.

There were several moments when he sounded like he was about to conclude. But alas, more issues. There was one moment about ten minutes before he finally did conclude when he got very emotional and recommitted himself to continue to champion his “save the middle class” cause. This sounded like it came straight “from the heart,” was very sincere, and extremely convincing.

Was he finally going to step up and become the compelling full-of-passion leader that many people think he is capable of being? But then he quieted down… and reviewed more issues.

At best, I think these state of the union speeches are opportunities for presidents to activate their earned bully pulpit and simply restate precisely what they believe in with as much passion as possible. They would do better to avoid getting bogged down in long lists of problems. Rather this is an ideal opportunity to rally the well-intentioned troops both inside and outside Congress around a strong vision, and to do it with all the self-confidence they can muster.

The simple goal here would be to fire-up those who are already followers and to ask them to get out there and help convert the undecided. Then it might be possible through follow-up speeches and events to build an impressive momentum that overwhelms the opposition’s negative approach.

Long lists of issues tend to lead to confusion about what might be possible to accomplish. But rallying people around a compelling bold and exciting big idea can feel satisfying. And when people feel confident in a leader they tend to think less about problems. Rather they take comfort in thinking they are in competent hands and everything will eventually be alright.

Read Full Post »

This week I attended a forum on national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). One of the sessions that impressed me most touched on the question of who is responsible for rebuilding societies torn apart by war and revolution?

It seems obvious to me that the decision to participate in war raises the basic question: “If you break it, do you own it?”  In the past, this question was rarely considered.  But it’s clear today that many uprooted nations desperately need rebuilding…physically, economically, culturally, and institutionally. But who should be responsible?

Should it be the responsibility of the damaged nation to rebuild itself? Or should it be the responsibility of the attacking country? Or can some kind of public-private partnership be formed to do the job? Or could an internationally funded NGO take on this enormous task?

This CSIS session got me thinking about the feasibility of creating a quasi-governmental organization to take on the task. Such an organization would combine legislature allocated funds with additional international and private funds to do the job. Globally engaged universities could also make significant contributions to the effort.

Regular readers of my blog are aware that I have been pointing out for a long time that the entire higher education industry is quickly becoming a global one. Over time more university talent and resources will inevitably get focused on helping solve many of the world’s problems. And this talent literally ranges all the way from public health to city management, and everything in between.

Further more, helping to launch such an initiative might be just the opportunity the US needs to rebuild much of its international credibility. If the US coordinated the planning, and the unique cultural and historical heritage of the devastated society would be preserved, all those charges over the years of American imperialism might finally begin to get put to rest.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »