Moldy Words or Molded Words?

Out of curiosity today, I picked up a 40-year-old American Heritage dictionary to see the definition of pundit. The first entry defined it as "A Brahmanic scholar." ("Brahman" refers to a "highly cultured person."). The second definition was "a learned person" (from the Hindu word pandit).

 Compare this to a more current definition from the website dictionary.com. The first definition also calls a pundit "a learned person, expert, or authority." But the second definition is "a person who makes comments or judgments, especially in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator." It is that second definition that most people attach to "pundit" today, and it is not meant to be flattering. So much changed for this simple word over those decades.

Forty years ago, "elite" was defined as "the best or most skilled members of a given social group," which to my mind is a status worth aspiring to. Today, many use it as a pejorative, synonymous with exclusionary. Do you have an education, and did you take the time to actually study something before you offered an opinion on it? Well then, you are an elite; you're not one of us.

Today many people use adjectives recklessly to discredit ideas so that they are essentially dead on arrival. A proposal may be discarded out-of-hand simply by branding it as "conservative" or "liberal"  without taking the time to examine the content of the idea. (Those two words have been so overused and poorly employed that I am not sure they have any meaningful value except to elicit a knee-jerk reaction.) "Racist,""bigoted," "politically correct" -- all are terms hurled indiscriminately, though I would not say thoughtlessly. Actually, these words are used quite strategically to kill a reasonable discussion before one has even begun. It is easier to win an argument with emotion rather than the inconvenience of facts.

It is good to choose one's own words carefully so that a conversation remains rational rather than reactionary. On the other hand, we can also be on guard against those who would willingly highjack an analysis with the weapon of words. But I will also admit that this is easier said than done, as incendiary words can set a policy discussion ablaze before we know what has hit us. 
 
And now on to the campaign commercials! ;-)

Our Responsibility with Social Media

Any of us who choose to blog, Tweet, trade opinions on Quora or otherwise disseminate information via the social media assume a great responsibility. Once we attain a position where people trust us, we become their quick and easy route to information. But what happens when we are wrong? 

The damage is more likely to be small and personal rather than global or catastrophic. We can mistakenly or purposefully take a quote out of context and change the entire meaning of what was said. An innocent restaurant can be irretrievably damaged by a hastily, unfairly scribbled Yelp review once it hits the ether.

Check and double check your information before you hit that "send" button. Reassess your mood when you composed your post in order to eliminate any unintended bias. Will Rogers said in the first third of the 20th century that a lie can go halfway around the world before the truth gets its sneakers on. What would he have thought of the potential, damaging power of our viral media today?

Bernie Madoff Reminds Us of the Need for Open Communication and Ethics

There is a revival of interest in Bernie Madoff now that the eminent TV program 60 Minutes profiled his family (Oct. 30, 2011). It is a reminder to us all about the value of reputation. I give a speech on branding. I ask my audience if they could imagine the image that their own name would conjure. I then list the following names and show their pictures:

• Mohandas Gandhi
• Mother Theresa
• Martin Luther King
• Hitler!

The flinch at that last name is palpable, especially after the admiration and good will expressed for the others. (Stop and think: When was the last time you heard a reputable family name their son “Adolph?")
Peter Drucker noted that "ethics stays in the prefaces of the average business books." Consider the long line of lies told by a famous oil company when it had a massive spill off the Louisiana coast. The company listed lists otters, sea lions, seals, and walruses as "sensitive biological species" that deserve protection in the Gulf of Mexico. However, there are no otters, sea lions, seals, or walruses in the Gulf of Mexico. They listed emergency phone numbers for mammal specialist offices in Florida and Louisiana that were no longer in service. And their spokespeople proudly stated in their disaster plans that, "under the worst-case spill scenario," it could skim, vacuum, or otherwise remove as many as 20 million gallons of oil a day. In fact, they captured only about 630,000 gallons a day.
Even the best companies often obfuscate in their annual reports. Some may say that "We performed well in a difficult economy," rather than say, "We didn't make our numbers this again again."  Or they may state that "We have a healthy backlog," rather that "Our manufacturing inefficiencies keep us from meeting our delivery goals."
Conducting business in a socially responsible way is, in the end, a sound business practice in and of itself. It allows you to attract the best employees. It helps create an atmosphere in which quality products are produced because your people will proudly stand behind them. Trust helps maintain good relations with people and institutions such as your employees, your shareholders, the media and the local community. Your word becomes your bond, as good as a contract. But most important, it is the best branding possible. After all, if you can't be trusted to keep your story straight, why should your customer trust your products or services? So I encourage all business people to build their trust in the following ways, as I have helped my clients in my role as a professional communicator:

• Inform your employees of the state of your business regularly through face-to-face meetings and publications.
• Issue press releases and meet with members of the local media so that they learn to trust your word.
• Address members of your community and build relationships with your elected representatives.

"I would rather be the man who bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the man who sold it," said Will Rogers. The name "Madoff" is now a synonym for "swindler," and all financial planners now operate under a cloud of suspicion.  Indeed, the hell through which Bernie Madoff put his family, his employees, his customers, and even his colleagues is an argument for both ethics and transparency.

To Betty Ford, and All Those Who Build Platforms

As we celebrate the life of Betty Ford, who passed away yesterday, I am reminded of her courage to speak out on issues she embraced. Of course, her work on behalf of awareness of substance abuse and breast cancer were well known. However, she also supported the Equal Rights Amendment, which was not common to do in the mid-1970s, access to abortions, and the rights of gay Americans to serve in the military. (She was someone who acknowledged that gays had already long served in the military.)

Beyond Mrs. Ford, I began thinking of the people who found causes in their personal lives and pursued them relentlessly against the tides of their times.

• Rachel Carson, a sounder of early warnings against DDT and the dangers facing our natural environment when most people did not even know what she was speaking about.
• Martin Luther King, who spoke so beautifully on such a wide range of topics — freedom, justice, good vs. evil, mob mentality, even the nobility of work — that students should learn to look well beyond his “I Have a Dream” speech and hear words that resonate even today.
• Elie Wiesel, turning his survival of Nazism’s “final solution” to justice for all humankind.
• Dorothy Day, often a lone voice on workers’ rights.
• Ronald Reagan, who spoke so long, passionately, eloquently and consistently against Communism that his entreaty to Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall was, comparatively, one of the mildest statements he ever made on the subject (partially because he lived long enough to see that battle won).

In this era when “branding” is all the buzz, it is appropriate to review what we each stand for and the positions for which we will be known. It need not be even a global, noble cause. Perhaps we are exemplars of courtesy, disallowing coarse treatment of others in our presence. Our language and writing can make us defenders of good and proper English. Or we may choose to extol our free enterprise system.

It is commonly said that perception is reality. So, too, is legacy. Betty Ford’s passing reminds us of that. What is your platform?

Bachmann's Poise Debunks the "Gotcha" Myth

Michele Bachmann taught us all a couple of good lessons when Chris Wallace asked her, "Are you a flake?" First, there are no "gotcha" questions. There are only questions for which we have not adequately prepared. Second, one can also seize the situation.

First, let's take a look at her response. Many observers noted that she handled the question well and answered with Grace. Wallace opined (legitimately, I might add) that Bachmann is known for gaffes and misstating facts. After listing accurate examples, he signed and asked her if she were a flake.
She kept her eyes on him and said calmly, "Well, I think it would be insulting to say something like that." She then listed examples of why she should be taken seriously: that she is a lawyer, a businessperson, and other legitimate accomplishments. All good.
Moreover, she took control of the questioning. She never had to address the examples of mistakes that Wallace brought up because the conversation became about her credentials.
Compare this to another famous example. In September 2008, Katie Couric of CBS News asked vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin where she got her information and how her world views were shaped. If you watch the clip, it was not an antagonistic question; in fact, Couric did not have the dismissive and insulting tone that Wallace expressed to Bachmann. But when Palin could not answer such a puff ball question, she laid the blame on Couric. The fact of the matter is that no question could have been answered in such a cavalier manner and be deemed acceptable.
"Governor Palin, where did you live growing up?"
"Ah well you know, I lived in every city. I liked them all, I really cannot think of a specific one."
This answer sounds just as silly, doesn't it?

In all of our work lives, regardless of the nature of our jobs, we need to be able to answer such questions in order to have credibility. Consider the kinds of questions we get every day.

• Why should I buy your product? What makes it better that your competitors?
• Isn't there a danger that if I buy this stock, the value will go down?
• These layoffs will have a devastating effect on our community. Why are they necessary?
  
• Why do you recommend this course of treatment, Doctor?
• Why did her paper get an "A" while mine got a "C"?

In none of these instances would it be acceptable to waffle or sound defensive. A true leader has the answer at hand.
Bachmann showed such assurance in her handling of an awkward question. In the course of her answer, she communicated much more than her credentials. She exhibited a presence of mind that is essential to the position that she is seeking.

The Power of Poltical Words: Kennedy's Inaugural Address at 50

Quick, how many U.S. Presidential inaugural speeches can you recall? Other than the words "With malice toward none, with charity for all," from Lincoln's second inaugural, do any phrases jump to mind?

I didn't think so.

This week, on January 20, we observe the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. Though I was a child, I remember how it caused a stir. Now, a half-century later, I know the speech to be stirring still, a testament to speech craft that communicators should continue to study and revere.

Why does this speech, just shy of 14 minutes, stand the test of time? You can't say that it was the national swoon with youth, when the youngest man elected President succeeded the then-oldest in Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Twenty years later, Ronald Reagan would become the oldest man elected President.) That zeitgeist is lost to us today. It's not even all the themes comprised in the address, as some are anachronistic. For example, Kennedy pledged a measure of militarism that might not be tolerated or appreciated today.

No, the secret to this speech's longevity is its art employed by the writers. (I am purposefully vague here, as the authorship is not completely certain. For decades, the speech was credited to Ted Sorensen, which he denied. Indeed, there are notes in Kennedy's own hand that indicate he was actively involved in writing the address's key phrases.)

As you listen to the speech through this link on YouTube, hear the various devices. One common device is the use repeating phrases that conclude in different sentiments: "The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life."

As is common in these sorts of speeches, Kennedy strikes a conciliatory pose, offering to stand above the fray. When he says, "We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom," he practically dares his opponents to diminish his disputed victory.

There is also the power of the repeated word. Look at this use of the simple word "any": "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge -- and more."

Similarly, look at his use here of the words "both" and "problems":
"Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us. Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations."
It is both an invitation to negotiation and a challenge to it.

And of course there is that use of the antimetabole (called tongue-in-cheek by some, the "reversible raincoat"), which repeats words in successive phrases, but transposes their order for effect. Of course, the most famous example of this produced the most-quoted phrase: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Another example, seldom cited, simultaneously expresses strength and conciliation: "Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."

We often forget that much of the success of the speech depended on Kennedy himself and his ability to deliver such lofty rhetoric. His voice would rise when needed, and he punched the words that needed emphasis. And yet again, there was Kennedy's youth. As I listened to the speech today, I really had not remembered how high his voice was. This was a man with the energy and enthusiasm to deliver on these problems.

But beyond the craft, I believe the the speech stands up because of the optimism, the ideas that this was still the American century in 1961. "Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors," Kennedy intones, an appropriate sentiment during the paranoia of the Atomic Age. "Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce," he called, and Americans believed that there was nothing we could not do.

Sadly, the speech was sadly prophetic of his rudely interrupted term of office when he said that "All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

Today, polls show that Kennedy still ranks as the best of the post-World War II presidents. This surprises me, but perhaps the answer lies in this speech. In an era when many so-called political stars speak without wit, compassion, or solutions to the problems they cite, the inspirational words from a man whose best was yet to come are all but irresistible.

The Shirley Sherrod Show Shames All of Us

A race-baiting journalist named Andrew Breitbart (shown here) took less than three minutes of a 43-minute video and tried to embarrass the NAACP with it. In that time, he created a firestorm as surely as a careless Tenderfoot Scout with matches could bring down a forest. He did it with the help of Fox News, who so far has expressed no remorse or culpability in the matter. In this entire process, he nearly ruined the career of a hapless government official named Shirley Sherrod, and the unwitting, cowardly accomplices in this crime were the Obama White House and the NAACP.

This blog is dedicated to communication, but this particular post is about a danger that has long been with us in the U.S. That danger reared its ugliest head ever in the last 24 hours. The danger is communication by zealots who want to further their agenda without facts, yet are armed with the viral power of the New Media. In their own way, they are as dangerous as the faceless, uniformless terrorists who threaten our country.

The Danger of Out-of-Context Edits
To begin, I ask that you watch the entire speech by Mrs. Sherrod.

Mr. Breitbart says he posted a portion of the video as an angry reaction to the NAACP's recent accusations of racism among members of the Tea Party. He says even now that his video that is evidence that the NAACP looks the other way when there is racism among their own. Enter his evidence: Shirley Sherrod, a official of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Georgia, is supposedly shown making anti-white statements at an NAACP event, where the audience "laughed" at what she said.
Any of us might have thought the same if we had watched only this edited clip from the dinner (about 17 minutes into the video), which appeared on the web. This clip purports to show Sherrod's disdain for white farmers and how she did not fully serve them as part of her job.

The Real Reel Story
If you watched the speech in its entirety, you would have learned that Sherrod was ashamed of her racism and learned from it. She did not want her audience to be racist toward white Americans, and she asked them not to be so.
Furthermore, you would have caught some nuances that could not have been captured in the edited version. For example, Sherrod expressed gratitude to God for her position the crowd responded by saying "amen," and then applauding. Furthermore, the crowd acknowledged her when she said that she learned from her experiences that many of the problems of the farmers she served was due to being poor, not their skin color. Finally, she said that she "came a long way. I couldn't live with hate."
Sherrod lamented that there were only African Americans in the room hearing her. "We have to overcome the divisions that we have," she said.
Sherrod went on the exhort the younger members of the audience to work hard and not let life pass them by. More specifically, she encouraged them to go into agriculture, a profession not usually embraced by African Americans. She went on to plead with the young people in the audience to "reach back and help somebody" once they have become successful. "It seems to me that the more, the better we (African Americans) do (i.e., accomplish), the more free we are, the more divided we become."
As a speaker, I did not find Sherrod particularly skilled or articulate. However, her words and her message engaged me, and I believe her speech was heartfelt. It also strikes me that belief in God's grace, personal responsibility, and caring for others less fortunate are virtues to be celebrated, not ignored. But those sentiments did not make it on the air.

The Role of Fox News
This story did not see the light of day until it was aired by Fox News, their disingenuous denials aside. They aired it, and then they exploited it. After all, Andrew Breitbart is a contributor to the network. But as I often do, I watched Fox cover the story today. It struck me in the hour that I watched their coverage of this story, the network's commentators made villains of the NAACP and the White House for jumping on the story, yet they never once commented on the fact that Andrew Breitbart presented an edited, out-of-context snippet of a longer speech. This, after all, was the cause of the story.
Equally damning was their lack of introspection at their own role in the matter. What has been more typical is this smarmy, self-serving review by commentator Charles Krauthammer.

Overreaction by White House, NAACP
Smarting from all the criticism that they have received of double standards, it appears that both the NAACP and the Obama White House did all they could to act quickly and decisively against Sherrod, who did appear to be racist in that selected segment. However, neither body did their homework first. Instead, they acted like hanging-judge and jury, declaring Sherrod guilty without sufficient evidence. This was incredibly naive on both their parts and does not speak well of their judgment. But this is particularly disturbing of the White House, which is the chief administrative body of the U.S. government. For all of the alleged media savvy of Obama and his staff, they made a decision quickly and with little factual basis.
"Members of this administration, members of the media, members of different political factions on both sides of this have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced today. "Without a doubt, Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology." In response, political media expert David Gergen asked on CNN, "Where was the due process?" Indeed, could we expect the administration to make other, more important, decisions in a similar matter?
Furthermore, is this an indication of how thin-skinned Obama and his White House could be? If so, he has many hardships ahead. I suspect that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk smell blood in the water, and they will bait him as often as possible.
Candidate Obama decried the 24-hour news cycle. President Obama allowed himself to be victimized by it.

Upshot
I am reminded of a story that occurred in 1989, when Charles Stuart of Boston, Mass., left a maternity class with his pregnant wife, Carol. Stuart drove his car to Mission Hills, a predominantly African American neighborhood, and he shot Carol in the head and stabbed himself. The black citizens of Boston had their civil rights violated for several days. They were stopped, questioned and accused indiscriminately by the police until Stuart's ruse was uncovered. It was a shameful moment for all involved.
Similarly, a minor, insignificant player named Andrew Breitbart has now dominated the news for 24 hours because we as a people allowed him to do so. We gave this weasel a platform and credibility that he did not earn or deserve. As a nation, many of us should be ashamed of the way we reacted. At the very least, we should be wary, as this is an indication of bigger blowups that may be ahead.

There are other instances like this playing out around the country, questioning the histories of public officials and twisting their words. I have written extensively about the lack of civility in our public dialogue. Now our nerves are becoming so frayed that we are beginning to believe the worst in any of us with the flimsiest of evidence. The slightest intimation of racism, however unfounded, cost a good-hearted woman her job, even if for only a day. It is strikingly, frighteningly similar to the hysteria of the 1950s, where one could be guilty by accusation.

We have been warned. What will we do with this information?

The Rocchi Awards for Best and Worst Communicators of 2009

It is that time again, Dear Readers. We are close to the end of the year, and I am ready to crown my best and worst communicators of 2009. There was an abundance of candidates for the Rocchi Award for Worst Communicator, while it was harder to find effective communication. So, for good or for ill, here are my choices, as voted upon by my panel of experts. (Okay, I am the panel, but hey, I spend a lot of time studying communication, so I’m as qualified as any group of people!)

WORST COMMUNICATOR – Dishonorable Mention

My goodness, but the poor and ill-advised communication from a wide array of politicians was stunning this year. Here is a sampling of ne’er-say-wells:

• President Barack Obama, last year’s best communicator, relinquishing his title through his inability to articulate the case for healthcare reform, allowing his opponents to highjack the discussion.

• Sarah Palin, last year’s runner-up for worst communicator, with her ham-handed explanation of why she was resigning as governor of Alaska. She couldn’t blame that one on Katie Couric.

• Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, resurrecting long-discarded Hispanic stereotypes by saying to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings, "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do." Shades of Ricky Ricardo! With that phrase (combined with a condescending tone), he played right into the worst stereotypes of the Republican Party as an exclusive country club.

WORST COMMUNICATOR – Runner-up

Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California, was roundly criticized for speaking against gay marriage in the question-and-answer portion of the Miss USA beauty contest. Personally, I thought she should have been able to say whatever she believed in that situation and inject some honesty in that otherwise faux and homogenized event. But she quickly overstayed her welcome and became a tempest in a D-cup. This self-described Christian complained incessantly about the attempts to silence her as she appeared ad nauseum in the same “mainstream media” she sought to denounce. If she was so persecuted, why did we see so much of her?

Speaking of seeing so much of her… (segue to the sarcasm…)

It became hard to reconcile her squeaky clean, church-going image with the nude photos that surfaced, which was later followed by a video of her “pleasuring” herself. Miss Prejean, remember the Biblical injunction against those who would cast the first stone? No, didn’t think you did. Watch your step next time as you ascend that soapbox.

WORST COMMUNICATORS -- Winners

Remember how Spider-Man was advised “With great power comes great responsibility?” Well, NBC, the National Broadcasting Company, officially abdicated its responsibility as a broadcaster by eliminating quality from their lineup. Slowly but surely, the network has become a purveyor of pap by concentrating on weight loss competitions, one-time events and other inferior programs. However, their greatest crime was to give up five hours of quality programming every week, Monday to Friday, from 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. and turning it over to Jay Leno and his pale imitation of the Tonight Show. I am not a Leno basher by any means (I met the man in person once, and he was an absolute prince), but it was unconscionable to give up prime-time real estate to his un-entertaining variety show while a cable network is picking up NBC’s discards like “Southland.”

Even Jay looks guilty and weary on his show. He probably is aware of the crime for which he is an accomplice. NBC is creating a template for the demise of the once-great networks. Maybe Comcast will treat this jewel with more respect if the FCC approves the acquisition.

BEST COMMUNICATOR -- Runner-up

I wrote earlier in 2009 – in the same post criticizing Senator Tom Coburn — that “Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina was a model for his party, and perhaps all citizens, in his decorum (during the Sotomayor hearings). He clearly had issues with Sotomayor, but he was able to express them in a courtly and respectful manner, calling to mind a level of discourse that we once had in this country until we Rush-ed in another direction. And as a former Judge Advocate General (JAG, like the TV show), he was well-qualified to question Sotomayor on legal issues.”

Joe Klein of Time magazine, in his own year-end review, also gave Graham kudos: “He faced down his home-state party on climate change and the need for civility in politics.”

In a year marked by knee-jerk partisanship, Graham used high-minded language to rise above the fray.

BEST COMMUNICATOR -- Winner

Let me compare two scenarios:

1. A certain leading golfer is revealed to be having a number of extramarital affairs, and he loses his standing with the public as well as a number of lucrative endorsements.
2. A famous TV star is threatened with the disclosure of several relationships with staff members. Said star meets with the extortionist, has him arrested and, in turn, shoots up to number one in his time slot.

David Letterman, along with his press advisors and his lawyers gave us a masterpiece in press relations this year. Lynette Rice of Entertainment Weekly wrote that “Letterman has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to preempt the scandal by getting ahead of it, both by using his sincere mea culpas and by poking fun at his predicament.” Indeed, Letterman controlled the situation rather than letting it control him. As a result, he and his show are leading in key audience demographics for the first time in years.

Tiger Woods is not the only person who could have learned from this approach. Presidents Nixon and Clinton could have benefited from it, too.

I wish the good had outweighed the bad in 2009, but let's hope for better in 2010. Let's all do what we can to improve communication in the second decade of the 21st Century.

At the end of the day, it's still a cliche

It seems I've been reading this article for nearly three decades: a list of the most overused, banal sayings in the business world. Well, here's just the latest version of the story that never seems to end:
Accountemps recently published a survey of business executives' least favorite/most annoying phrases and buzzwords (plus I always thought "buzzword" itself is overused). Here are my top picks from this litany of lexicon losers:

• "Reach out" -- A synonym for making social contact with someone: "I'm glad you called. Thanks for reaching out." The first phrase is enough. I thought we retired this after AT&T's ubiquitous TV campaign beat this phrase into pabulum in the mid-1980s. But you know what I really hate about it? I've been duped into using this one myself, thanking people for contacting me through the social media (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, et al) after they might have assumed that I passed away.
  
• "Disconnect" -- This noun, previously known as a verb, replaces the perfectly useful "disconnection," meaning two different interpretations. Such as, "I think you and I have a disconnect as to what was said at the meeting," when "You and I heard two different things today" would be more direct, although less politically correct in its directness.
• "Interface" -- Ah, an old favorite reappears, as unwelcome as ever. This was popular when IT terminology was polluting our language in the early 1980s. "You need that information, so please interface with Hal when you have a chance." Folks, computers interface; humans talk, discuss, meet... but we don't interface. Unless we turned into cyborgs along the way, and considering the technologies we attach to our heads, perhaps we have.
  By the way, when "interface" is coupled with the once-popular, always-hackneyed, "touch base" (i.e., get together), it makes for a trite expression that actually rhymes: "Let's touch base and interface."
  
• "It is what it is" -- Honest to God, I have heard this one for about 15 years, and I STILL can't figure out why people think this is at all expressive. I mean, this is just about the LAZIEST expression I can imagine. It sound like something you say when you have run out of words. A good friend of mine described his upcoming bout with prostate cancer, told me his options, and ended with, "Well, it is what it is." Such a meaningless phrase for such a potentially serious situation. An exasperated sigh would have spoken volumes in comparison. But at least I can imagine why he was speechless at that point. What else IS there to say? (By the way, he's healthy today.)

My buddy, Tom Patano, who has his own opinions on communication, also hates the phrase "step up," as in "We have to step up this campaign." So I throw that in for good measure. I guess that is more palatable than "We better improve this campaign, or we will lose our jobs," but again, that sort of directness probably makes me a curmudgeon.
While we're at it, can we retire the term "solution?" As in, "I offer you linguistic solutions through my blog?" What happened to offering products? Or services? I knew this term had reached its zenith (nadir?) when I heard a local jeweler advertise himself as the "provider of your jewelry solutions."
To put this into some kind of perspective, linguists noticed a decline in the German language as Nazism was rising in that country. Can we draw a similar comparison between the quality of American business communication and the quality of American business competitiveness as well? As always, I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Please circle back to me and reach out with your own opinions on this game-changing post of mine. You can leverage the feedback feature of this blog and give me your own cutting-edge thoughts. At the end of the day, if we all think outside the box, we can find a language solution, and then we'll all be on the same page. Maybe my blog will be viral as a result. Now that would be value added.

Shouting Down Your Opposition

Let me tell you about George, who once worked with me. One day in the early 1990s, I told him about an interesting article I read in The Wall Street Journal about Social Security. I thought he might be interested in it because we were about the same age.
"This article on the editorial page wrote about potential problems with Social Security. When the system started, there were several workers for every person who received payments. Now there are only three [at that time], and soon there will be about two and a half. It says we will have to raise taxes, reduce payments or raise the retirement age to keep the system solvent."
George glared at me in silence. Finally he said, "I notice you're not talking about cutting military programs to save money!"
Huh? What did that have to do with what I just said? "I'm not talking about cutting any money from Social Security, George. I'm just quoting what this article said, and it seems to make sense to me that we have to take steps to save the system."
"Yeah, you want to take food from the mouths of old people!"
Again: Huh? "Where did you get this? I want to SAVE Social Security! It's just that it's scheduled to run out of money at the rate we're going. It was based on an old model of the number of people paying into it and a lower life expectancy than we have now."
"You don't care about old people!" And he stormed into his office.

FLASH FORWARD: Social Security is in trouble today, largely because it's
underfunded. George and I may not be able to collect it.

Some time later, David Souter was nominated by George Bush the Elder to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice William Brennan. George was in a huff.
"We have to stop Souter from being on the Supreme Court!"
Why, George?
"He has no paper trail. We don't know where he stands on abortion, and he may overturn Roe v. Wade."
The "no paper trail" was a big concern at the time, as there was some concern about Souter among supporters of abortion rights. But remembering our Social Security "discussion," I didn't feel like arguing abortion with George, so I brought up some history.
"Well, you know, George, you never really know how a Justice is going to rule until they put those robes on. For example, Earl Warren was picked for the Supreme Court because he was a conservative, and yet he became known as the most liberal Chief Justice ever. And Hugo Black was one of the most staunch supporters of civil rights in the history of the Court, but he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan as a young man."
George glared at me (he was big on staring at you in disdainful silence before he took you on), and then shot, "Well, it's obvious that you don't care about a woman's right to choose."
"George, what are you talking about? I didn't say anything about abortion; I didn't use the word once. All I said was that it can be difficult to predict how someone will judge once they're on the Supreme Court."
"It's obvious that you don't support a woman's right to an abortion." Then, true to form, he stormed into his office.

FLASH FORWARD: David Souter just retired from the Supreme Court and, much to the chagrin of the people who nominated him, he ruled for abortion rights throughout his tenure on the Court.

Does George's M.O. sound familiar? It's a familiar strategy: Respond to opponents' views with a non-sequiter, shout them down, make points about their characters rather than their views, and don't let them respond. For some, this falls into the definition of "winning an argument." But it's not. It's STOPPING an argument. It is running from a response, especially when you have no facts to fall back on. And that is what is passing for discussion these days. It happened in the '60s, and it has resurrected its ugly head today.

I once read a review of film actress Ruth Gordon, who had an over-the-top style that was brazen and caustic. The writer said that she didn't so much steal a scene as stink it up so badly that no one else wanted to be associated with it. That is where we are today, and unfortunately cable TV and talk radio are accessories to the crime.
I apologize that I don't have a solution to this condition. I welcome your input. All I know is that I am walking away from more discussions than ever before because they turn into recrimination. Talking with some people about an issue is like talking to a dog about algebra. The dog will only stare at you, make noise at you, and at times, out of frustration, bite you. But in they end, the dog will never understand what you're talking about, no matter how hard you try.

Sen. Coburn, you and your ilk have some 'splainin' to do!

I couldn't believe it when I heard it during Sonia Sotomayor's hearings yesterday. And even though I know I heard it, I still can't believe it.
Sonia Sotomayor was responding to an abstract question about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She was talking hypothetically, and good-naturedly, to Sen Tom Coburn (Republican of Oklahoma) about getting a gun to shoot him in self-defense. He said to her that if she did that, "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do."
Let me repeat that.
A white, male U.S. Senator said to a judge who is about to become the first Hispanic woman on the Supreme Court, "You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do."
Class, let us review the sins that have been haunting the Republican Party of late as they entered these hearings. I will read from the latest polls:
The Grand Old Party is viewed as being out of touch.
As being insular.
As being a country club.
A group that, when faced with economic problems, turns to tax cuts for rich people and hardly ever proposes solutions for the common citizen.
And remember, these are the voters talking, not me. In my line of work, I deal with images and impressions, not politics.
So in light of all these perceptions, a Republican senator evokes the 1950s stereotype of an Hispanic character that has long been disavowed.
Look, what he said isn't the crime of the century. It was merely THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE HEARD A POLITICIAN SAY IN A LONG TIME!
However, this is only part of the problem of this show. When you add it to the entire hearing, many of the Republican Senators have done their image no favors. First, let's all agree that Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark was thoughtless and controversial, and it deserved examination. And let's also agree that if a White Man had said it, his career would be over. (Perception is a powerful but often unfair animal. It is still quite incredible to me that George Allen lost his Virginia Senate seat and possibly a shot at the Presidency with his "Macaca" comment.) But guys, do you know when to quit? You made your point days ago. I'm a white male too, and even I'm tired of hearing this. How do you think Hispanic voters are feeling, hearing this line of questioning over and over?
Let's also consider the condescension that Judge Sotomayor has faced. There are too many to list, but today contained a particularly egregious example. Sotomayor was asked why she wanted to be on the Supreme Court by Senator Al Franken. (Once again, a fact I'm trying to get used to, and the funniest, most incongruant combination of title and name since "Congressman Sonny Bono.")
Sotomayor made a point about her commitment to the job with a story: Her mother asked her if she would have to take a pay cut if she got the job, and Sotomayor had to admit that, yes, it was a huge cut, apparently about 75 percent.
Nice story. Shows how the job and her service to the country is more important to her than money, right? So how does the tin-eared Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Georgia) respond? He points out that the salary of $250,000+ is four times that of the average U.S. household and says quite acidly, "If you can't live on it, you probably shouldn't take the job."
Way to go. Now is the time for all big dopes to come to the aid of the party.
All that we heard in the media for days leading up to the hearings was how risky they would be for the Republicans, as the party have been losing the Hispanic vote, a bloc the party cornered for years after the leadership of Ronald Reagan. The strategy was clearly spelled out. Instead, quite a few of these guys decided to behave counter-intuitively.
Sen Lindsay Graham of South Carolina was a model for his party, and perhaps all citizens, in his decorum. He clearly had issues with Sotomayor, but he was able to express them in a courtly and respectful manner, calling to mind a level of discourse that we once had in this country until we Rush-ed in another direction. And as a former Judge Advocate General (JAG, like the TV show), he was well-qualified to question Sotomayor on legal issues.
For those of us in the public eye and ear, we should remember that tone and context are so important in our communication. Even the most seemingly innocent comment can come across in a way never imagined. But this is not news. There is no excuse for much of the attitude that was displayed over the last few days, given all that was at stake.
I heard something else today. Did you hear it? It was the sound of Coburn, Sessions and others shooting themselves in their feet and many others.

Cramer vs.Stewart vs.Cramer: TRUTHS EXPOSED IN AN UNLIKELY SOURCE

Jim Cramer appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" in a face-to-face discussion with host Jon Stewart that revealed more about the integrity and value of media commentary than the two men could have realized.

The pairing came about after Stewart engaged in a trashing of CNBC's financial reporting over the course of a few nights. It all began when CNBC reporter Rick Santelli self-righteously ranted on the air about the bailout of failed mortgage holders. When Santelli backed out of an appearance on "The Daily Show," Stewart's took the financial network to task over their inability to foretell the global market plunge. Somehow, Cramer ended up being the focal point of the discussions, exacerbated by a defense on "The Today Show." You are invited to watch the Stewart/Cramer bout here here, but I must warn you: It is unedited, and Stewart's language is often blistering.

The two started politely and contritely. Stewart acknowledged that Cramer was not the intended target of his harangue. Cramer defended people who faced mortgage foreclosures. "I've lived in my car," he admitted. "They're not losers, they're fighters.

Cramer continued his mea culpa by admitting that he missed signals of the economic implosion. But the sparring that ensued raises several questions about media coverage of the financial world (or anything else of importance, for that matter):

1. WHAT'S THE VALUE OF 24-HOUR NEWS IF THEY DON'T REVEAL ANYTHING OF VALUE? -- Stewart charged that CNBC presents itself as a font of economic knowledge Cramer as a particular Oracle. Why, then, did they fill their programming hours with mendacious CEOs who misrepresented the capitalization of their companies? Stewart said to Cramer that the two were both snake oil salesmen, but added, "Isn't it a problem selling snake oil as a vitamin tonic?...Isn't that the problem here? Which raises an equally pertinent point of view:


2. WHY AREN'T OTHER NEWS OUTLETS DOING THE TYPE OF RESEARCH THAT "THE DAILY SHOW" CONDUCTS REGULARLY? -- Stewart showed footage of Cramer talking "off-the-record" of his days as a hedge fund manager, clearly coming off as someone who manipulated the market and how easy it was to do so. "I want the Jim Cramer on TV to protect me from THAT Jim Cramer!," Stewart said. Cramer had no retort.
   But this was not unusual for Stewart and his staff. He historically exposes mendacious media types and public officials with their own words. But why don't we see that on "Meet the Press," or "Face the Nation?" Why does it seem that only "The Daily Show" has access to this data? It's not as though they have more time than other seemingly more legitimate news shows. "The Daily Show" broadcasts four nights a week, and the show tackles these issues within hours.


3. WHY ARE WE SO CONTENT TO HAVE OUR CELEBRATED MEDIA PUNDITS BEHAVE LIKE SUCH BUFFOONS? (AND YES, I'M LOOKING AT YOU, TOO, RUSH AND SHAWN!) -- Stewart called Cramer out for his clownish behavior, throwing toy bulls and bears around, ringing doorbells and honking horns. "I can't reconcile the brilliance and knoweldge that you have with the intricacies of the market with the craze B******T I see you do every night!" Cramer's responded (somewhat disingenuously, to my ear) that h was trying to attract a younger audience who really don't care about the P/E ratios, Tier One capitals, etc. Hey, Jim, how about educating them about these things? I think you sell young people short on that one.


4. IF JON STEWART CAN ACTUALLY PRESENT ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW (albeit in a debate), WHY CAN'T OTHER COMMENTATORS? (AND YES, I'M LOOKING AT YOU, TOO, RUSH AND SHAWN!) -- At least Cramer got the chance to present himself. What a difference from the Beck Blatherings and Limbaugh Cheese that passes for two-sided debate in other media (well, mostly radio, but you get my drift). When did hearing only one person for hours on end pass as "entertainment."

There has been a lot of coverage about this tete-a-tete between these two. But, as the law of unintended consequences sometimes allows, this incident has ended up revealing more about some things that are deeply lacking in our national conversations. We have so allowed ourselves to indulge our own prejudices that we have shut ourselves off from seemingly distasteful contrarian information that could actually nourish us. We end up drinking our own bath water, folks!Why did it take two funny men to give us a glimpse into that bitter truth?

Bobby Jindal - A Star is Stillborn?

Bobby Jindal is supposed to be the front-running Republican for the next Presidential election? Couldn't prove it by his response to President Obama's address to Congress and the nation. Yuk! What an awful piece of oratory. What was that opening? A looooooooong discourse on how his parents emigrated to America from India and how his father took a part-time job to pay for Jindal's delivery? What did that have to do with anything? Then there was his patronizing reference to an African American addressing Congress, blathering on about how proud we should all be. Seems we've had this discussion, and I think it's time to move on, Attorney General Eric Holder's recent remarks notwithstanding.

Jindal's rejoinder was brimming with bromides and filled with saccharine stories, all told in a sing-song and inauthentic manner that stood in direct contrast to Obama's address. As I often say, the purpose of this blog is not to make political statements. Still, it is safe to say that the President's address was confident, commanding and skillful. (It was certainly NOT the buzzkill that Jindal tried to make it out to be.)

I've come to comment on Bobby Jindal, not to bury him. I'm not saying he is done. After all, if Bill Clinton could overcome his deadly 1988 nomination speech for Michael Dukakis, anyone can. But he is off to a shaky start. It will be interesting to watch.

Learning from 2008's Biggest Communication Blunders

I had a college English teacher who had our class read the execrable tear-jerker, "Love Story," saying that we could learn from a bad book as well as from a good one. Communicator extraordinaire and speaker Bill Lampton takes the same view in his e-zine article, "7 Lessons from 2008's Biggest Communication Blunders." I submit it for your enjoyment as we look back on a year replete with such mistakes. (Compare his thoughts with my own best and worst communicators of 2008.)

By the way, a word about the author himself, Bill Lampton, Ph.D. I had the pleasure of meeting this most generous and accomplished man online through LinkedIn and his own website. Bill is the author of "The Complete Communicator: Change Your Communication, Change Your Life!" He is a professional not only in communication, but also in motivation, customer service, and sales. His speeches, seminars, and communication coaching have benefited top-tier clients, including the Ritz-Carlton Cancun, Gillette, Duracell, Procter & Gamble, Missouri Bar, CenturyTel, British Columbia Legal Management Association, and the Environmental Protection Agency. I encourage you to visit his Web site to sign up for his complimentary monthly E-mail newsletter: http://www.ChampionshipCommunication.com You can call Bill to discuss how his services will benefit your organization: 678-316-4300. You can also email him, as I did, at drbill@ChampionshipCommunication.com

The Long View on the Long Inaugural Address

Here are my thoughts on President Obama's inaugural address. This blog is about speech and not politics, and you can add me to the chorus of observers who say that this was a good speech, maybe even a very good speech, but not a great one. You can see the full text and the video of his delivery. Here are my observations.

1. Obama invoked Lincoln, somewhat obviously, from the very start by using that President's Bible for the oath of office, and then with the opening phrase "My fellow citizens," which is what Lincoln would say. Later he said that "what the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply." Compare that to Lincoln's words: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present...As our case is new, so must we think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves."


2. Obama clearly repudiated Bush. Yes, there was perfunctory praise at the beginning of the speech, "I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity he has shown throughout the transition." But later in the speech, he delivered this damning paragraph (my emphasis added):
   As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
   The inferences here are quite clear: He said directly that President Bush compromised our values, and now Obama will not make those same decisions. Furthermore, the US has not led the world under the Bush administration.


3. Obama delivered a tough message that challenged his audience and did not patronize them. He hardly smiled, which I believe was an error. People remember the sunny optimism of Ronald Reagan. Can Obama afford to come off as stern.
   
   He pinned the blame for our current problems on our own shortcomings. He said the weakened economy was "a consequence of greed and irresponsibility" by some, but also "our collective failure to make hard choices...." He acknowledged the high price of health care, the failures of schools and our profligate use of energy. Yet Obama received praise for the power of his speech. Let's ask ourselves: How did he get away with that when Jimmy Carter was excoriated for his famously misnamed "malaise" speech? Answer: It was all a matter of tone. Carter came off as a scold. Obama is a leader.


4. There was a nod to religion with Rick Warren's invocation, the use of Lincoln's Bible, and scriptural references, even while he referenced those of no faith: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."


5. Ultimately, my assessment is the speech was too long and too wide-ranging to be totally memorable. I am quite confident that witnesses will praise Obama's confidence and command of language, but I am equally confident that they will be challenged to remember the specifics of what he said. He talked about our national traditions and our character, even speaking about how we betrayed both. He outlined the challenges we face. He called for national service. He recalled European immigrants and westward bound pioneers. He offered friendship to poor nations. But what one single thing did he say? Where are the ringing phrases that will live for generations? Compare today's speech to John F. Kennedy's inaugural address in 1961. That speech was largely focused on America's place as the world's leader and the country's commitment to world peace. It produced the immortal phrase, "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
   Franklin Roosevelt used his first inaugural address to calm a nation beset by a great depression, assuring them that we all had nothing to fear but fear itself.
   At Lincoln's second inauguration, he reached out to his brethren with words of forgiveness that became part of our national lexicon: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
   
   When we reflect on Obama's oratory powers, we are more likely to remember the stirring words that he delivered on the night he was elected. I close on key phrases from that memorable speech:
   
   "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer....
   
   "It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America....
   
   "Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.
   
   "The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there. There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face....
   
   "And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world - our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security - we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America's beacon still burns as bright - tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope....
   
   "This is our moment. This is our time - to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth - that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can.

How to Generate Bad Press - Palin by Comparison

Sarah Palin is worth studying because she has become a textbook case of how to guarantee bad press for yourself. Here is what she teaches us in her latest statements:

1. Be unprepared, then claim ambush media.
2. Use the media for your purposes, then complain when you are covered by the same said media.
3. Confuse bloggers with the mainstream media.
4. Raise the bogeymen of sexism and classism when you screw up.
   

Let's look at her claims and analyze them.

HER CLAIM: Palin says that the media's reporting on her family was "very scary."

FACT: She and the Republican Party were the ones who claimed the moral high ground for carrying a baby known to have Down syndrome to full term. Also, she was the one who shamelessly exploited her son's honorable service in Iraq when it suited her. Yet later, she didn't want her family "exploited" by the media. Where I come from, this is called "having it both ways."

HER CLAIM: The media are giving Caroline Kennedy more sympathetic treatment that she, Palin, received.

FACT: Kennedy is not even a candidate, but she is indeed being scrutinized by the media as she asks for an appointment to the U.S. Senate to take Hillary Clinton's seat. Both her qualifications for the U.S. Senate and her ability to communicate (or inability) are being questioned every bit as much as Palin's were. As a result of this coverage, it is dubious as to whether or not Kennedy will assume Sen. Clinton's seat. Palin faced no such barrier prior to her candidacy; she was nominated to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

HER CLAIM: Governor Palin insulted Katie Couric over their CBS interview. Palin: "Katie, you're not the center of everyone's universe."

FACT: No one put a gun to Palin's head to force her to do that interview, and Couric was totally courteous to her. Afterwards, Couric made no particular claim or boast about the interview, which spoke for itself. All Couric asked was, "What newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this?" It was a very simple question for which Palin was unprepared, which made her look incurious and uninformed. Quite frankly, it also made her look as though she couldn't think quickly.

HER CLAIM: The mainstream media asserted that Palin's daughter, Bristol, was the real mother of infant Trig.

FACT: Bloggers brought out this news. The assertion was reported in the so-call mainstream media only after John McCain's campaign revealed the pregnancy of Palin's daughter.

HER CLAIM: Palin objected to reports that Bristol's fiance, Levi Johnston, was a high school dropout.

FACT: Palin says that Johnston is taking a high school correspondence course. If that's the case, and he is not attending classes, then he IS a high school dropout!

HER CLAIM: Palin thought that Tina Fey's characterization of her was unfair. She pointedly cited Fey saying, "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers." Palin's said that it "kills" her when someone "attacks a kid" like that.

FACT: Will someone please buy her DVDs of past Saturday Night Live programs? Perhaps she will understand that political satire is not uniquely aimed at her when she sees how the cast and writers skewered both Clintons, both Presidents Bush, Senator Bob Dole... the list goes on. She also conveniently overlooks this quote from producer Lorne Michaels, which was very complimentary: "I think Palin will continue to be underestimated for a while. I watched the way she connected with people, and she's powerful. Her politics aren't my politics. But you can see that she's a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman. This was her first time out and she's had a huge impact. People connect to her."

This post has nothing to do with Palin's qualifications for office. It is about he spectacularly bad judgements when appearing before the media, which included not being prepared, being hypocritical about coverage of her family, and apparently being capable of giving a good speech only when she had a TelePrompTer. Her protestations show the dangers of taking on the media after you have been portrayed badly, whether or not it was deserved. Newspapers have buckets of ink and electronic media have all the air time they want. They can always have the last word, so you need to get it right the first time.

Happy New Year to My Best, Worst Communicators of 2008

Happy New Year, everyone! We are a few hours away from wiping the slate clean and recalibrating our communication controls. With that in mind, here are my choices for best and worst communicators of 2008.


WORST COMMUNICATOR -- Runner-Up

Oh, what can we say about a lousy communicator for all seasons, the supposedly "most popular governor" in all of the U.S. of A., the Honorable Sarah Palin. She started out promisingly enough, as I noted right here in this blog after her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. I believed she hit her objectives of introducing herself to the public and promoting candidate McCain. I also found her to be confident in her manner (though clearly that was partially due to reading from a TelePrompTer). But I also noted some characteristics that came to pass, such as her sarcasm and uninspired word choices. This was okay for a biased audience, but I wondered how it play to the country at large. I also found her voice irritating. Ultimately, I wondered if her act might wear thin in the future.
Boy, did it ever. Someone should have advised Palin that the majority of voters in this country live in cities, so it was impolitic of her to dis city dwellers by calling small town residents the "real" Americans, Well, folks in the cities cast "real" votes against her.
I was really unprepared for her lack of wit or preparation. Sorry, but when a network anchor like Katie Couric asks what you have been reading in preparation to be Veep, that is not a "gotcha" question. That type of question is so elemental to mental acuity that her inability to answer it on the spot was a red flag. She was supposedly a journalism/communication major in her five colleges, so why couldn't she improvise a few publications? And then she appeared on the news a few days later with John McCain, much like a father accompanies his teenager in traffic court for support. That was an unsettling image for anyone who aspired to be back-up to the Leader of the Free World.
Yes, the Tina Fey imitation was damaging. But the worst part of that was that Fey used Palin's own words! Didn't anyone ask how those same words sounded coming from the Governor's own mouth?
By Election Day, all polls -- too numerous to list here -- showed hat approximately two-thirds of voters thought Palin was not qualified to be President. She was given the bully pulpit and failed to make her case.

WORST COMMUNICATORS -- Winners

Wow, the CEOs of the Detroit Three were really remarkable this past year. There they were, asking you and me for a handout to prop up their sorry excuses for companies, and they apparently forgot the power of words OR symbols. Just as Senator Ted Kennedy fumbled the question of why he wanted to be President, these Three Kings of Disorient are unable to tell us what they will do with our money. And then traveling to the hearings in separate private jets? Just stunning.

BEST COMMUNICATOR -- Runner-up

Colin Powell was the epitome of articulation and grace on the October 19 edition of Meet the Press. However, I am NOT speaking of when he endorsed Barack Obama for President. He spoke to a much larger issue that morning: When did it become acceptable for the American public to disqualify a candidate for religion? My blood boiled when I heard people say privately and publicly that Obama should not be elected because he was a Muslim. Powell gave the right response to that charge: "What if he is?" I have heard denigrating remarks about Mitt Romney's membership in the Mormon Church and John Travolta's adherence to Scientology. What's next? Joe Lieberman is unqualified to hold office because he's a Jew? All of it is wrong, all of it is inexcusable. And despite my admiration for Barack Obama himself, he gets demerits for not raising that question himself during the campaign.


BEST COMMUNICATOR -- Winner

Okay, despite the comment above, there is no one who came close to Barack Obama for his ability to communicate in 2008. How do I love thee, Barack? Let me count the ways:

1. Despite the fact that I thought you were overreaching when you won the Iowa caucuses, you still set a high standard for inspirational speech when you treated your victory as an epochal oment.
2. Your response to the Jeremiah Wright issue at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia will go down in American history as one of the major statements on race.
3. I know people who were gunning for you in the debates against McCain, convinced that without a prompter, you could not articulate your positions. The poll after each debate proved them wrong.
4. While candidates over the last 48 years won with mastery of television, you engaged the nation with that new-fangled Internet thing. That is a sea change, Mr. President-elect
5. Let's see: an African American, one-term senator who was known primarily for making one speech at the 2004 Democratic convention beats the well-funded, well-oiled Clinton machine and a worthy candidate in the Senator herself, convinces the American people that he is qualified to be President. And your consistently calm demeanor made you a tabula rasa on which the public imposed the image of leadership. If that's not an achievement in messaging, I can't think of a better example.

Okay, let's look for new role models in 2009. As this new administration gets underway, I can't wait to see how they do in a difficult global environment.

I wish you a year replete with clear communications. I look forward to hearing from you in 2009.