PR Straight Talk

It seems as though communication as an industry is growing, but communication as genuine and spirit-filled interaction between people is declining.  “Communication” as a means to an end – in journalistic reportage that appears in print or on-air with the scintillating, the gossipy and that which appeals to a lower common denominator of tastes in order to draw readers or viewers in in order to benefit from larger ad revenues – is on the upsurge.  Communication as what appears in film that focuses on violence, or sex, is on the upsurge.  Communication as to what some companies pay p.r. and advertising people to promote services or products that aren’t necessarily of quality, is on the upsurge as well.

Because big money is behind all these communications ventures, communications is booming; and sadly reflects that part of our culture that is all about bucks first, and reaching people’s minds and hearts with something worthwhile to say…a distant second.

Sadly, these values are reflected in the culture, and the culture reflects these values.  I see less and less real communication and meaningful connection between people in our communities.  I see, increasingly, more and more disconnection and fragmentation between people – even between neighbors.  I see people less interested in getting to know their fellows, within their neighborhoods and wider communities, than ever before.  I see more and more of people treating one another as a means to an end, and not as ends in themselves.  I’ve been noticing more of this within the last 20 years, and I’ve seen it regrettably grow within the last ten.

I see less of “community” – of people reaching out and caring about one another.  Less talking to one another.  I see less “listening” to one another – and less real sharing of one another’s lives and stories.  I see less caring and less heart.  Less authentic acknowledgement.

I see the art of conversation at dinner tables declining, even evaporating, especially with neighbors inviting neighbors to dinner to share openly and with a feeling of comeraderie.

I see more disconnection, more apathy, more distrust.  With every observation reflecting the above, there are hopefully notable exceptions – and people out there who do live in caring and connecting communities.  Hopefully.

So I see technology becoming more sophisticated and advancing rapidly, large corporate interests which seem to encourage the lowering of tastes and values, a media too often bought into the delivery of mediocrity in programming, and less heart in communications on a grand scale – and in one-on-one personal interaction.  The culture is declining not in technology, but in the quality of its humanity.  More technology…less heart.

It seems as though, too, that the emergence of the Internet is a double-edged sword.  Because while there is a revolutionary new opportunity for inter-human communication, it’s all electronic where the physical presence of others vanishes.   

If only all this were not so, but this is what I see.  Time for a cultural revolution of the heart, that reestablishes real communication about what’s important.  What’s most important, it seems to me, is seeing each other, and acknowledging each other, and meeting each other in our mutual presences, for the unique and extraordinary beings each of us truly is, connected to one another by the Web of Life, our common humanity, our need for love and recognition of our own and others’ precious lives.

Such a revolution…of the heart…can create an increased demand within the culture for a higher and more humane standard of values.  A culture so transformed would then reflect back on the quality of our individual lives.

Is this too much to count on?  In the end, it’s up to us.

More corporations should engage in global cause-related, and value related marketing.

Companies gain by supporting causes.  Most companies “invest” in causes that relate to the interests of the communities they do business in - to draw the support of their constituencies within those communities.  This is a good thing, because it creates a win-win for the company and the cause.

How many companies take an even higher road?  How many support causes that do not necessarily impact upon the communities they do business in - but impact upon the common good of us all?

Ending poverty on our planet would have a huge impact upon the common good, and the viability of a more peaceful world.

I’ve often wondered why a consortium of companies cannot come together in a kind of Marshall Plan to help rid the world of impoverishment?

This convergence could be organized and coordinated geographically and philanthropically; and specific companies could “invest” in targeted poverty-ridding measures in specific regions - such as microfinance and job training; literacy programs; AIDS prevention; agricultural self-sustaining programs, etc.

Global warming is another cause transcending any one part of the world, affecting us all.  Why cannot another consortium support projects that have to do with reducing our dependency on fossil fuels?  Beyond energy-related companies getting involved in such an effort, any company could rise to the occasion of good world citizenship and commit to public relations and advertising campaigns that educate our citizenry on the importance of this topic.

The new value has to be the preservation of humanity, and our planet. I’ve already spoken to the need for a new “Ten Commandments of Sane Public Relations Values” (see:  http://www.prstraighttalk.com/the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth-part-ii/).

The question is, can corporations whose primary vested interest is in their own self-preservation and economic viability, see the “points” to be gained for their own reputations by rising above community self-interest to see the ultimate good by supporting global self-interest?  Can these corporations act first with an altruistic concern for us all, before they secondarily recognizing the benefits of public support and appreciation for such a commitment? 

Can wise and socially aware and conscious public relations advisors counsel the companies they represent to take this higher stand for the good of us all - but also for their own ultimate good?

Is there enough courage within the public relations community to do this?  Is there enough courage and commitment with the corporate community to listen and to act?

Must we rely only on our governments to take action?

Is there enough awareness of the emergence of a new global culture, and enough heart about our interdependence on this planet as one human family, for corporations to act with exceptionality?

There’s a question for the Age!

There are great things happening in this country and throughout the world all the time.  There are people doing great things everywhere.  Yet many great happenings, and great people, so often get missed – by the media, and by PR.

There was a time when Mother Teresa was helping the impoverished in the slums of Calcutta before anyone knew who she was.  There was a time when Jackson Pollock scraped for nickels and dimes to survive before his art was recognized as genius (Vincent Van Gogh wasn’t even recognized in his lifetime). 

Muhammad Yunus, a businessman from Bangladesh who thought the poor could be empowered and lifted out of poverty through tiny business loans called “microcredit” wasn’t recognized for his revolutionary strategy and activities for years.  Last year he received the Nobel Peace Prize.

These are people who ultimately became acknowledged, and famous.   Mother Teresa, whose vision to serve the poor was utterly pure, was also astute.  She was a great networker.   I once worked on an account called Americares.  It is a humanitarian organization that expedites the shipment of foods and medicines via jumbo jet to crisis spots in developing countries. 

Once, when I was in the office of its founder, a wonderful man by the name of  Bob McCauley, a successful Connecticut businessman, the phone rang.  “Yes Mother, I understand, no problem.  I’ll take care of it right away.”  It was Mother Teresa calling for a shipment of food and medicine.  Mother knew who to call, and how to get action.  That was one of her gifts, though perhaps not widely known.  And the impact of her deeds, combined with her networking and the eventual notice of the media catapulted her, but not overnight, into “stardom.”

Jackson Pollock wasn’t recognized until Life Magazine published a multi-page spread on his revolutionary-in-art drip paintings. 

Muhammad Yunus, aside from his gifts as an entrepreneur and a humanitarian, was also adept at making connections with the media.  In time, those connections helped achieve the recognition he deserved.

Yet there are thousands, perhaps millions, of remarkable, even great men and women in the world today who are less well known, or not known at all.

Great people, people with great ideas and visions, or people doing great things, are often not consumed about getting into the spotlight – or even necessarily becoming known as the great people they are at all.  Perhaps that is one of the earmarks of their greatness.

I currently represent a man who I am coming to sense is great.  His name is Anthony Abeson, the master acting coach who is regarded by some as the greatest living teacher of acting of his generation.  Anthony  is one of the few living master teachers of acting who studied with all the greats:  Lee Strasberg, Harold Clurman, Jerzy Grotowski, Peter Brook and Stella Adler.  Former students like Jennifer Aniston, who said about him, “…for any actor to just have a moment with Anthony or a class with him, or by luck, have his words to read and reread, one will be twice or three times the actor for it.”  Esai Morales said, “With Anthony Abeson, it’s not just about being good at what you do, but connecting with greatness.  He shepherds you to reach deep down and find things that might surprise and startle you.  For me?  Anthony Abeson is an endless well of inspiration.” 

Yet when I was first introduced to Anthony, I realized I had not heard of him.  Of course I had heard about those of his students who became famous – but not about Anthony.

I soon realized the reason for this anonymity:  Anthony cares more about the craft of acting, about cultivating talent when he finds it, about his students as “runways for the human spirit,” as he puts it – than his own reputation or notoriety.  His motivation is so pure that he will take on an economically disadvantaged student pro bono, if he can spot the talent.  Talent to Anthony is the precious jewel of his craft, truly something God-given, and he understands it can appear anywhere, through anyone of any circumstance. 

I hope to help Anthony become better known – first, because his greatness is innate and real; second because his values and beliefs are worth relaying to a wider audience.  People deserve to know and understand this humble yet incredibly inspirational and talented man. 

Too often, however, “PR” misses greatness.  Our profession is so often driven by dollars that we by-pass the truly great stories about great people or happenings. 

Too often, the media misses out too.  The “Catch 22” is that so often the media doesn’t take note of a story until it appears on the media radar screen.  And who would it be that can bring that story to that screen?  The PR practitioner.  Perhaps someone on the PR side with an eye for exceptionality. 

Thankfully, there are those on the media side who’ve been caught by exceptionality too - call it the “enlightenment bug” – people like Oprah or Bill Moyers.  But very often, it takes someone who acts as a conduit to the media to get the “bug” first. 

As for those who hire us to communicate their stories – about their products, services or ideas – hopefully we will refrain from taking on their stories unless we perceive there is genuine value to the public interest.  Too often, however, stories are manipulated to look good, but as one probes more deeply, they are simply vapid and lacking meaning. 

Let’s have less of that, and more stories of great evolutionary and revolutionary products and services; or of great people with great vision doing great things in the world. 

Al Gore won The Nobel Peace Prize today. The Nobel Committee’s decision was a powerful acknowledgement of the urgency of global warming, a crisis that evidences itself by severe glacial meltdowns in the polar ice caps, and with many scientists predicting irreversible rises in ocean levels that in 50 years or less could mean catastrophe for the world’s coastal cities.

The announcement, flashed around the world today, means something else – and perhaps something connoting a certain hopefulness. It reminds me of the sense of global coming together that occurred when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, and humanity palpably and viscerally experienced the words that came out of Mr. Armstrong’s mouth upon putting his foot upon the lunar soil: “That was one small step for a man – one giant leap for Mankind.”

An evolutionary next step for our species. Neil Armstrong, in that one act, represented every human being becoming extraterrestrial. Our species had lifted itself to another orb, to experience a view of the wondrous blue ONE planet – Mother Earth - that birthed it. Which was more miraculous – a sense of humankind reaching another level on its evolutionary trail – or the profound realization that our home is one world, without boundaries – proof beyond words that our separation is an illusion.

The announcement about Mr. Gore’s Nobel Prize brings to the fore, in a different yet similar way, the consciousness that we live on one planet, that we are one human family, and that the peril we face environmentally is OUR problem – not an American problem, or a European problem, or an Asian or African problem, or a Republican or Democratic problem - but our problem.

This awareness has the potential to bring humanity together, to work together, to help heal the planet, and to bring it back into balance. Technology, and communications through technology has already been creating a convergence on our planet. Humans’ ascent into outer space was one major starting point. The Internet as one powerful expression of this coming together is another. Television via satellite has created still another. A global warming crisis and a prestigious award to highlight the challenge for all of us takes it a step further. The potential exists for increased dialogue and understanding of our common problems, of our common humanity, and for a decrease in tensions that separate and divide us.

The potential exists. But there is a danger. Without a rise in an individual and universal spiritual experience of the human heart – without more kindness and cooperation – the evolution we experience technologically can take us into directions too terrible to contemplate.

We need to work together creatively and shed our competitive tribal instincts while honoring our cultural, religious, ethnic and gender diversities. We need to experience a growing reverence for all life, to work towards uplifting communication – including communications in public relations and advertising that honors and upholds a universal value system that reveres our planet as the precious home it is for all of us – and that the beauty of life, and the great positive potential for creative growth inherent in life – can be that which guides us and sustains us.

That, it seems to me, is one of the key signs of hopefulness in the Nobel Prize Committee’s announcement today.

When I was a student in at The University of Vienna, I took a course on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein - who was of course one of the world’s greatest philosophers.

Wittgenstein used to say, “words are pictures, and pictures hold us captive.” There is much truth to that statement.

If I am a Liberal and I am told you are a Conservative, or if you are a Conservative and you are told I’m a Liberal - we already form pictures in our minds about who we think the other is. Isn’t that so? Can these pictures keep us from truly knowing one another as human beings?

Can they block our appreciation of one another as living, breathing, intelligent, creative, emotional and sometimes fearful, fumbling beings? Can pictures based on words block our experience of one another in all our glorious multi-dimensionality? Can they block our experience of each other’s commonality?

Can words, or labels, keep us from experiencing Life - from one another’s aliveness and the true presence of our sheer beingness - and ultimately, from recognizing our deeper connection as Americans - and beyond that as inhabitants who share the same space and breath the same air on this one planet?

I think it happens all the time. Hopefully, we can respect the differences in another’s point-of-view and allow our experience of each other to transcend these limitations - for there is so much more beyond the words and pictures. Actually, if you dig deeply enough, you may actually find…yourself.

Symbols are pictures too - and symbols can create limitations - if we let them. Last night, Lou Dobbs of CNN criticized those who are critical of those of us who wear the pin of our American flag on our lapels.

He referred to recent remarks by Katie Couric of CBS, and Bill Moyers of PBS. He referred to their inferences that the flag thus shown is often an earmark of those who are intolerant of those who are critical of the war, or who criticize the right of freedom of expression and the right to dissent.

My own view is that if the symbol of our country has become so narrow as to attach itself to that kind of point-of-view, then more people who stand up for the Bill of Rights should wear the flag on their lapels - so as to make the point that we must never hold this precious symbol captive to any singular ideology or attitude that is contrary to the larger truth of who we are as Americans by Constitutional right and the rights expressed in the Declaration.

Words are pictures and pictures hold us captive - and symbols can hold us captive if we allow them to.

The flag of our country stands for our freedom, our independence and our fundamental human right to express ourselves as individuals; and to be tolerant of one another for our different points-of-view and for all those who peacefully exercise this right. It is a symbol that stands for something that brave Americans have fought and given their lives for throughout the decades.

This symbol should hold no one captive to any point-of-view, or as an argument that demeans another’s right of freedom of expression. Any American, of any political party or point-of-view, should feel free and proud to wear and display it, if he or she so chooses, as a symbol of its deeper meaning and significance for us all.

(The Whole Truth And Nothing But The Truth/Part II)

by Mike Schwager

[excerpted from PR Week]

Recently, a young man was interviewed on CNN about what he and other young people would be looking for in the responses of presidential candidates on a YOU-TUBE debate. He responded, “One word – authenticity.”

People want authenticity. The truth. It’s the truth that is needed for a democratic electorate to make intelligent decisions. It’s the truth that is needed for a consuming public to understand the truth of the products and services that are arrayed before them in the marketplace. It’s the truth that is required for donors to make effective decisions about the charities that appeal to them for money.

The media has a solemn responsibility to do their best to report the truth – the truth of facts and events as they happen, and to uncover the underlying truth of policymakers’ intentions and motivations that propel facts and events into being.

Truth in journalism is a standard sometimes actualized; but not always. It can become a “version of the truth” by not always reporting accurately enough, or deeply enough, on what lies behind facts and events in terms of what motivates decisions. It can also be guised as journalism, yet in actuality foster propaganda – as we know from so many of the talk show radio hosts who have a clear agenda of their own – often a neo-conservative agenda presented as truth by exploiting, for example, people’s sense of patriotism.

Moving from journalism to PR, public relations had its roots in those who were masters of creativity, but also of manipulation. That’s the truth too.

I believe that creativity and honesty can be mutually compatible bedfellows in public relations. This is not to say that public relations professionals aren’t advocates. Of course we are. We represent clients who’ve hired us to communicate their services, products, books or issues to the public through the media. To the extent that we represent clients with legitimate products and services that minimally don’t hurt anyone, and optimally are useful, we can help contribute to the public good. Gaining goodwill for our clients is our purpose. When we represent a stance on issues or information that enrich public understanding, we contribute to the public interest.

If we practice our craft with the conscious intention to deceive, to manipulate public opinion with false or specious information, or unworthy products or services, we do not contribute to the public interest or welfare. Public relations then becomes something inauthentic, something not deserving of our respect.

When Edward Bernays, one of the fathers of public relations, wrote in his famous 1928 book Propaganda that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy, he was certainly arguing for an understanding of the truth of how social psychology worked, and the machinations of the human unconscious – but he was certainly NOT arguing the objective truth of “straight shooting” in communication based on facts. I also doubt if he was a big fan of the democratic process, which it seems to me must honor the inalienable rights of the individual as one who is entitled to make decisions based on a clear and centered understanding, either rationally or by intuition of the objective facts and of candidates’ and politicians’ stance on issues.

Bernays’ uncle was the great psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. From Freud he learned about the power of the unconscious – and formulated strategies designed to manipulate the unconscious.

I met Edward Bernays. It was in the late ‘80s when he was quite an elderly man, but still amazingly sharp, even brilliant. I hosted a show on WOR Radio in New York City called Mike Talk, which aired Sunday nights. It was clear to me that Mr. Bernays felt that manipulation was needed in society, to mold the irrational herd mentality that characterized it.

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it?”

Mr. Bernays wrote about this in his trailblazing books, Propaganda and Crystallizing Public Opinion, and in an essay entitled, “The Engineering of Consent.”

A favorite technique of his was to use third party experts to influence and establish credibility for his clients in indirect ways. To make the case for the promotion of bacon, he ran a survey of doctors who agreed that people needed to eat hearty breakfasts. He sent these results to five thousand doctors, along with information about bacon and eggs as a hearty breakfast.

Edward Bernays did not view his manipulativeness as unethical. Just the contrary. He said that a public relations counsel “must never accept a retainer or assume a position which puts his duty to (his clients) above his duty to society.”

He believed that the p.r. counsel must act for the common good of society. In Propaganda he wrote: “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.”

Yet Bernays was depicted by some, like Marlen Pew, as the “Young Machiavelli of Our Time.” He was seen by others, however, as a genius in combining social science with psychology.

Interestingly, Mr. Bernays, who was Jewish, was horrified when he learned that the head of Nazi propaganda, Goebbels, had diligently absorbed and applied the content of books such as Propaganda and Crystallizing Public Opinion in Hitler’s campaign against the Jews.

I believe we’re in an age where a view of humanity as dark and “herd-like” should not govern public relations. While human nature has the capacity for both good and evil, and while humans can be persuaded by many forces, both conscious and unconscious, I believe we must take the high road by simply telling people the truth about the products, services and issues we represent. That presupposes that we are in good conscience representing nondeceptive, truthful clients.

This is not to exclude the use of creativity and creative techniques in communicating messages on behalf of our clients. But creativity should not be employed to manipulate through lies or deception. It should rather be used to energize and make more interesting the story we convey.

My own view is that manipulating the darker forces of human nature is inappropriate. Instead, as public relations professionals dedicated to truth in communications, we must and can take the higher road. What is that road? Here are my Ten Commandments of Sane Public Relations Values:

1. All human beings are intelligent. Create campaigns that honor this intelligence.

2. Tell the truth. You can be creative and tell the truth. The two are not mutually exclusive.

3. Appeal to people’s better instincts – to the “better angels” of our nature.

4. Understand that we are one human family on this planet – and that among our highest values, all humans cherish: the air we breath, wholesome food on the table, comfortable living habitats, a good job with good wages, their children and the health and well-being of their children, a good education, love, respect, the ability to fulfill one’s unique potential, a sense of caring community, the right to be free as long as we are also responsible.

5. Talk to people as you would want to be talked to yourself. Create messages and campaigns that help, support, inform and entertain people as you would wish to be helped, supported, informed and entertained yourself.

6. Represent companies, organizations, associations, governments, authors and celebrities who operate legitimately, in the best interests of the public interest.

7. Every human is entitled to basic human rights – the right to live without intolerance, persecution or control; the right to a decent living income; the right to be treated with respect; and the right to fulfill their dreams.

8. Encourage your clients to support in spirit and actuality causes that uplift humanity: that alleviate poverty, that affirms human rights for all, that advocate a clean environment, that espouse reverence for life, that help children, that promote healthier lifestyles, that fight disease, that unite us rather than divide us, that promote education and literacy, that encourage creativity and the fulfillment of human potential.

9. Represent life-affirming companies that make good and healthy products, that provide services in the public interest, that are ethical and honest.

10. Life is precious. Respect yourself, your neighbors, all other humans and the other life forms on our planet. Don’t hurt anybody. If you know a potential client is manufacturing an inferior product, or rendering a faulty service, or promulgating an issue that is de facto or potentially harmful to people, don’t represent them. Period.

To those in our profession – or outside our profession – who say this is too naïve a view about the values necessary to support our business or conduct ourselves – I say, “You’re outmoded. Time to embrace these values and make public relations the honorable profession it can and should be.”

The world is converging through the miracle of technology. Let’s not let the human heart, or the human right for the whole truth, run behind. Is journalism performing its highest calling when it does not probe more deeply for the truth behind events or challenge questionable policies? And what good is public relations if it promotes inauthenticity and a world that doesn’t work?

Mike Schwager is a writer and veteran public relations/public affairs counselor, practitioner and media trainer based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Websites: www.mediamavens.com, and www.TVtraining.tv. E-mail: moschwager@aol.com