PR Straight Talk

Michael Jackson was an artistic genius - and like many artistic geniuses of his calibre - he had a very sensitive inner child which in his case had become wounded by an abusive father, and the absence of a normal childhood.  Michael was used and manipulated by many barracuda types in his life - managers and financial advisors who were not only interested in cashing in on his mega-success - but people who did not truly care for him as a person.  He was surrounded by people who feigned caring about him, but they were disingenous - whether we’re talking about plastic surgeons, M.D.’s who overmedicated him, or close consultants including publicists.

Michael did have the wisdom to occasionally turn to spiritual teachers like Deepak Chopra and Rabbi Shmuley - but he did not have a close inner circle of centered, caring people who cared more about HIM than his image.  These were people who feigned concern, but their real motivation was monetary self-enrichment.

In authentic public relations, the “image” is an extension of the true person - the true being.  Michael’s image was tarnished by the failure of close confidantes who might have helped him work on his demons with expert counseling, and help him disassociate his conflicts from his true artistic self, allowing him to see himself for the great, caring and artistic person he truly was.

Instead, Michael’s conflicted self and unconscious desire for punishment - since the punishment he endured from his father as a child was the “price” he was made to believe was necessary for success - allowed terrible people to later come into his life, which exacerbated the poor choices he made, and his image.  Even this may have been exacerbated by an on-stage incident that burned his hair and scalp, and set in motion antidotes for the excruciating pain he experienced, as well as plastic surgeries that went too far.  It is also my belief that Michael was not a child molester, as echoed by his friends Deepak Chopra and Chopra’s son, and Donald Trump. 

If a wise public relations practitioner had come into his life, understanding his personal struggle and physical pain, and had become a true friend of Michael’s, working with him to gain permission to bring wise and caring people into his inner circle, this kind of support might have changed Michael’s course, may have prevented the myriad of crises Michael confronted, and supported an image that would have been truer to the extremely talented artist, shining being and spirit-filled, uplifting entertainer Michael Jackson surely was.

Today is Mother’s Day.  It’s about honoring the person who gave us life and unconditional love.  Mothers everywhere, whether human or animal, are God and Nature’s expression of nurturance, kindness and comfort.  They epitomize that which every living being on this planet cherishes - the need for love, the need for acceptance and the certain knowledge that there is someone in the world who makes us feel truly valued. 

The fact that mothers exist is a universal statement that God and Nature affirms Life, and the sacredness of Life.  Mothers are an affirmation of Life, and of the Feminine Principle that embraces Life.   Through so much of human history, this Feminine Principle has been in decline, and the Masculine Principle has been dominant.  For sure, the masculine ethos is vital in creation and building - but when it predominates to the exclusion of the feminine factor, we have a recipe for power struggles and war.

The majority of the Earth’s surface is water - a feminine element.  There is no subtle hint here that God and Nature designed a world that expresses the Feminine as the preeminent energy.  It is time for us on this planet to come together embracing the Feminine principles of love, tolerance, sharing, and of dialogue and understanding.  The Masculine principle complements the Feminine, but must not be overshadowed by it.  We must learn to live with both, and to move forward as technology, a masculine force, allows the Heart to combine in a fulsome way with it - so as to create true Peace on Earth. 

The great actor Spencer Tracy played Thomas Edison in a movie about the great inventor’s life.  At the end of the movie, a great Testimonial dinner was given to the inventor of the phonograph and the electric lightbulb.  In his acknowledgement, Tracy as Edison made a plea.  His exhortation was that we not allow technology to overshadow the human Heart - for that would be a recipe for catastrophe.  That was well before World War II and the rise of Nazism.

In other words, we must not allow the Masculine Principle to overshadow the Feminine Principle.  Advice from a great intellect - but also wisdom from a great sage.  Advice to be honored on Mother’s Day.

VALUES IN PR

This is a page you may not ordinarily see on a public relations site.  Many p.r. people are “invisible” when it comes to publicly taking a stand about their own values and what they believe in – or don’t believe in.  They hold a position of seeming neutrality in this area.

For some, this may be to maximize the field of potential clients they can attract, and consequently, to maximize the potential for doing business. The potential negative consequence of this decision is that it has created the perception of some p.r. professionals as “flacks” and “ambulence chasers.”  

For others, withholding a statement of values and beliefs is necessary in order to spotlight their clients’ values. They rightly hold that the mission of public relations professionals is to create compelling communications programs on behalf of their clients’ positions – not their own.  They believe that the most effective p.r. representation, therefore, is to represent virtually any kind of client, while remaining personally detached from that client’s point-of-view (even while exhuberantly presenting that view to editors and producers).   Some of the professionals in this latter grouping may even believe that by adhering to this position, they support the constitutional right of freedom of speech (on behalf of their clients).

While I believe there is merit to this latter position, if it is sincerely held, I come down in a slightly different place.  I believe that, for me, the times we live in make it necessary to enunciate a basic personal and professional declaration of “What I believe and what I value.”   For while I see myself as an advocate for my client’s core values and fundamental self-interests, as a citizen of my country and the world – like yourself - I also see myself as an advocate of core values that guide the decisions I make about who I  represent.

The first experience I can remember as a public relations professional that layed track for this position was just prior to the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in Pennsylania.  I was a young rookie, working for a major public relations agency (my first p.r. job).  I was asked to be part of a strategic brainstorming meeting with a new client, a major corporation involved in energy and electronics.  The client informed us that its nuclear power plants were one hundred percent safe from any mishaps, and asked us to craft a communications program that boldly enunciated that position.

When I raised my hand and asked the question, “Can you back up that position with sound scientific proof and evidence?” - I noticed that some of the more senior staffers in that meeting seemed to cringe, annoyed I had asked this question. I also suggested that a “crisis media plan” be developed in advance in case the client was confronted with some sudden catastrophe which required damage control.  I explained to the client that it was necessary to take a “devil’s advocate” stance, in order to build a stronger campaign which anticipated the tough questions that would inevitably be posed by adversaries of nuclear power plants, or in case of human error “in spite of  the client’s insistence that nothing could go wrong.”

The client “laughed me down,” saying that the proof was so “self-evident,” it wasn’t necessary to further research the issue or to prepare for a problem.

Two months later, the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant accident occurred. That plant was owned by this particular client.  When the media tried to approach the client for a statement, it took days before the client was ready to make an intelligent statement to the press, let alone answer tough questions.

It was at this moment that I realized four very important things:

(1)    It is the public relations professional’s responsibility to help the client anticipate problems in advance – and counsel the client on how to deal with      problems when they occur.

(2)    Clients can make mistakes, and should admit mistakes when they occur.

(3)  A good public relations professional must have the courage to follow his or her gut instincts and intuition, as long as they are honest and sincere – even in the face of raising questions the client may find unappealing.

(4)    Public relations agencies and professionals should think twice before representing clients they consciously know have services, products or ideas that may undermine the quality-of-life or higher public good, irrespective of the fees that client may be willing to pay the agency or professional.

In subsequent years, I developed a list of such “value statements” that ultimately turned into a kind of credo.  Here’s the rest:

*    Be open to representing clients which have services and products that minimally pose no hazards to public safety.  Just as a potential client will investigate whether  you as a public relations professional are right for them, you have every right to investigate whether they are right for you.

*    The world is in a critical stage in its development.  It needs advocates who embrace the values of both the American Declaration of Independence, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…advocates who are  willing to take a stand for the enrichment of life – and public relations advocates who represent   clients that enhance the quality of life with a view of life’s sacredness…clients that enrich the environment, human health and well-being, human rights (and animal rights)…clients that promote the advancement of human economic, creative and social potential, especially children’s potential…clients that advance human understanding, tolerance and respect      for the richness of, and differences  in, cultures, religions, genders, races, ethnicities and ideas…clients who if they       advance technology, also advance the progress of the human heart.

*    Take a stand for the Earth and the “wholeness” and intelligence of Nature.  Take a stand for the advancement of world culture while equally respecting the  uniqueness and sacredness of every individual human being, and the healthy, enriching uniqueness of  regional and national cultures.

*    Be suspicious of any group, organization or individual who believe they, he or she have “all the answers” or who wish to impose or project these  “answers” onto others.  Veer instead towards those who present creative solutions to specific problems; and judge these solutions on the basis as to whether they expand human human happiness and fulfillment

*    Consider groups, organizations or individuals who have creative or innovative ideas, services or products that enrich human life; or that have winning ideas, services or products that can help empower the poor or heal the sick.

*    Represent businesses that conduct themselves ethically, that deliver products or services that help, and don’t harm; that are businesses that invest in their people and contribute to the health and well-being of the communities in which they do business, both domestically and internationally; and that are sensitive to  the promotion of the human and civil rights of women and minorities, especially among their own employees and the customers they serve.

One of my clients, Anthony Abeson, the great acting coach, wrote a commentary which I placed for him in the Outlook section of the Washington Post on June 8th.  It’s such a splendid piece, I thought I would post it here for your edification.  In case you may wish to see other of Anthony’s articles and interviews with major film sites, you can find it at:  www.AnthonyAbeson.com.   Incidentally, Anthony was coach to such actors as Jennifer Aniston, Esai Morales and Ian Somerhalder, among others.  This particular piece was picked up by other newspapers, such as The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Miami Herald and The Christian Science Monitor.

By the way, Anthony originally headlined his piece, “Anne Frank Wasn’t Hot.”  The Washington Post changed it to “Face It.  It’s Not About Talent.”  I think I like Anthony’s original best.

washingtonpost.com  

By Anthony Abeson

Sunday, June 8, 2008; Page B02

FACE IT.  IT’S NOT ABOUT TALENT. 

“Artists are the antennae of the race,” Ezra Pound once said. He was referring to the way that turbulence in the arts — the rise of dissonance in music or distortion in painting — has often preceded and presaged major upheavals in society. But today, that dynamic has been reversed. Instead of artists reflecting what’s about to befall the people, it’s the people who reflect what has already befallen the artists.

As an acting coach, I’m writing specifically about actors, who today are being cast more and more on their looks and less and less on their talent. The continual display of perfect bodies on television and movie screens has contributed not only to an epidemic of eating disorders, but also to spiritual disorders that increasingly lead young people to evaluate all humanity as either “hot” or “not.”

A while ago, I had a conversation with a 12-year-old girl about “The Diary of Anne Frank,” which she was reading for school. I asked how she liked it, and she replied, “She was a liar.” “How can you say that?” I asked. “Because she said that a lot of boys liked her. No way.” “Why not?” I probed further. Because, the girl replied disdainfully, “she wasn’t hot.”

I’m convinced that this extreme fixation on appearance represents one of many canaries fluttering their last breaths in our cultural coal mine, warning us of the toxic atmosphere we’re inhaling from television, film and computer screens and all manner of publications: a world of “hotties,” wearing hot clothes, riding in hot cars, drinking stuff that makes you look cool (even though you’re hot), wearing make-up and jewelry that famous, hot people wear, reading cool magazines that tell you who and what is hot (and what to buy so that you too can be hot), while watching music videos of other hot, cool, glamorous people.

These irresistible images, in high-def and Dolby, are going directly into people’s bloodstream and consciousness, clogging our arteries with prurience, arousing rather than inspiring, hardening our hearts and dehumanizing us. This constant bludgeoning of our sensibilities damages our souls and leads us astray, toward the material and ephemeral and away from the eternal.

Surely we can lay much of the responsibility for this on the criteria and values of the entertainment industry. Where once casting seemed to strive for a combination of looks and talent, the equation now appears to have shifted radically toward the former, particularly with regard to film and television aimed at the youth market. Not long ago, I coached a young woman on a screen test for a television project. Afterward, the casting director told me that she had been “hands down the best actress of the bunch” but they had decided to go “another way.” “Why?” I asked. “Because the girl we went with is a Victoria’s Secret model,” he said, as if that were the most obvious explanation imaginable.

Or consider this breakdown, or character description, for a film audition: “Just beneath her ivory snow exterior is a babe-a-licious ready to unleash her inner hottie.”

Nor is this limited to young women. Turns out that what a network really wanted to see wasn’t the two monologues that a young actor named James and I had prepared, but rather what he looked like with his shirt off, holding an automatic weapon.

This degraded perception of the actor has steadily permeated the acting culture, from the casting director who told a talented young man, upon his arrival in Los Angeles, to “whiten your teeth and bulk up in the gym,” to the actors who, getting the message loud and clear, are tempted to exercise their bodies more than their talent.

This takes a terrible toll on young actors, who are led to perceive their looks as the route to success. “Wow,” said an actor to one of my students at a screen test for a soap. “You do real acting. When I go back to L.A., I’ll be doing the ‘pretty-face-six-pack-abs’ acting.” This sort of self-image condems them to being treated as throwaway rather than renewable. Consider the ever-faster cycle of gobble-’em-up-and-spit-’em-out with which the industry feeds its insatiable hunger. Who can remember all the once-hot stars of “Beverly Hills, 90210″ or “Baywatch”? And the cycle is self-perpetuating. The more entertainment options, the greater the need for “hotties” who — internalizing the industry’s confusion of beauty with talent — try to market their looks right into employment, often without any training at all.

But the dragon eats its tail: Undeveloped talent used is talent used up. Even if an individual achieves some initial “success,” whatever personality trait or look seemed to have worked the first time will be milked unceasingly until it gives out and the industry goes looking for a replacement. The discard is then abandoned to the mercies of the marketplace, ill-equipped to repackage itself, because the actor has been fused into a self-portrait that’s no longer marketable.

In a recent interview, I was asked this question: “Director Elia Kazan hired Vivien Leigh for ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’ because of her beauty. So what’s wrong with beauty still informing casting decisions today?” I pointed out that while Leigh was indeed beautiful, she was cast just as much, if not more so, for the luminous quality she radiated, the fragility in her eyes and her ability to animate her character with those qualities — which is talent. And the public responded to that. No one perceived her as merely “hot.” Her exterior expressed her interior. As T.S. Eliot said, we are “joined spirit and body,/And therefore must serve as spirit and body/Two worlds, visible and invisible/Meet . . .” in us.

But nowadays, the industry’s call to serve involves more of the flesh and less of the spirit. And this is not lost on the young, as that seventh grader can attest. Beauty, in a grotesque distortion of the old saying, has indeed become “its own reward” — while warping the values, hearts, minds and spirits of our youth.

aabeson@ptd.net

Tim Russert died today.  He was 58.  When I heard the news, it was felt as a huge loss.  My eyes filled with tears.  Tim was a presence, a force on television and in the news.  He was indelibly etched in our consciousness - certainly in my consciousness - as someone who could be trusted to ask the kinds questions that would get us closer to the truth…a journalist whose research and thoroughness could be counted on to reveal the wider and deeper aspects of any given issue. 

Tim was also was fair and balanced, and a superb listener.  He was the most brilliant and savvy interviewer on tv or elsewhere.  It wasn’t just that watching Meet the Press every Sunday morning was part of my morning staple - it was my morning ritual. 

I never knew him personally, but I counted on him to make sense of the news by digging underneath it with his perceptive and probing questions, as only Tim as anchor of Meet The Press since 1991, could do.  No one could outshine Tim as an interviewer and interrogator. 

What impressed me as much as his great skill as a journalist was his humanity, and his deep abiding affection for his son Luke and his Dad, Big Russ.  He wrote a book about that relationship with his Dad called “Big Russ and Me.”  Big Russ, a World War II veteran from Buffalo, Tim’s hometown, a former sanitation man, and a man who Tim depicted as the salt of the earth and as someone whose simplicity and wisdom helped Tim in his upbringing and even during his years as a famous journalist. 

Tim just put his Dad, Big Russ, in a nursing home - and now the thought of Big Russ learning about his son’s passing is almost too unbearable to contemplate.

Tim Russert was an honest man.  He had a big heart, as many charities on whose behalf he diligently supported, will attest.  He was larger than life.  He was a patriot.  A devout Catholic and spiritually humble.  He loved politics and saw that discipline as the essence of Americana.   He was a huge fan of Buffalo, his hometown, and his favorite team, the Buffalo Bills.  He was a family man and loved his family deeply.  He was a great journalist - and perhaps the greatest broadcast interviewer of our times.

Fifty-eight is too young to go - but what a life Tim lived…to the fullest.  The impact he has left on journalism, and on the American Spirit, will be treasured and endure for a long time to come. 

I am the son of German Jewish refugees who escaped Hitler.  My father lost most of his family in the Holocaust.  My parents came to America to survive.   As I grew up, I became aware of the magnitude of the horror of what had transpired in Nazi Germany.  That the human mind could descend into tyranny, evil, domination and control - and unspeakable atrocities.  That leaders could sway and control the masses  based on the fixation of an ideology that offered hope amidst economic depression and national despair by scapegoating and annihilating the lives of minorities.

Out of this experience it became my fervent desire to become an advocate for a better, kinder, more tolerant, more hopeful world for all.  As a boy, I remember looking out the window and imagining people of all ethnicities, creeds and religions encircling the globe, holding hands together in peace and love.  I saw the possibilities inherent for humanity if every human being was encouraged to realize his or her potential to the fullest.  I saw people of different races, religions, genders, orientations speaking to each other, dialoguing with each other, understanding each other, tolerating and even loving each other.  I saw them celebrating their differences, united in their common quest for life, freedom, fulfillment, prosperity and happiness.  I saw an end to poverty and a new era of abundance for every man, woman and child on our planet - material abundance, and creative, spiritual abundance. 

This Dream is not unique to me.   Millions of people around the world yearn for the realization of that Dream.  I believe that a point has arrived in human history where a critical mass of people have emerged, wanting unity, reconciliation and a better world for all.   It has taken millions of years for humanity to arrive here, for consciousness to have reached a point in numbers where something spiritually and culturally unique and exceptional may be on the verge of actualizing in reality.

The yearning has been there for a long time.  It was there at the outset of the war for American Independence, and seeded in the Declaration.  It was there towards the end of the Civil War, and seeded in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.  It was there after World War I and seeded by Woodrow Wilson in The League of Nations, and later seeded in the creation of the United Nations, and in the Declaration of Human Rights architected by Eleanor Roosevelt.

I also believe that that is the yearning of the millions who have responded to the message of Barack Obama’s inspirational rhetoric.

What the huge response to Senator Obama’s messages reflect is a great hunger for a nobler, finer kind of society and politics - one that brings us together, that reinvokes the better possibilities among and between people, that allows for the actualization of human potential in every person, that ushers in a newer more humane world - one of peace, of an end to wars and conflicts, of reconciliation between peoples, of economic prosperity here at home and in the world, of an end to poverty - of lasting hope and promise.

Senator Obama has tapped into this great need and hunger.  He has become, in his rhetoric, an eloquent and skilled spokesperson for our nobler aspirations.

Perhaps my own vision emerged from the tragic circumstance of my family – from parents who suffered through the Nazi era and came to America in search of relief from persecution, of freedom and the right to be.   I learned from their experience that words such as “freedom” - “human dignity” - “equality” - are sometimes fought for, and hard won.  I learned from them and through the trials of my own journey that there are people who would deny us our freedom and our right “to be”.

There have always been ideologues of the dark side, people who need to control and dominate others, who wish to suppress the light and the natural God-given right of  human beings to flourish and self-actualize in freedom.

And so we have a paradox.  One the one hand, humanity wishes to move forward towards the realization of the Dream.  On the other hand, we must be aware – and our elected leaders must be aware – of the dark forces wishing to suppress the Light.  I believe we are in this era now – and that the forces of Islamic extremism must not be underestimated in their desire for tyranny, domination and control.   They would have the rights of women entirely suppressed.  They would have those of other religions – should they not convert to their extreme ideological “religious” positionality – wiped out. 

We need to learn from the lessons of the past, when we discovered that this kind of radical tyrannical ideological determination has no heart, and cannot be accommodated.

I believe we CAN hold onto the Dream – and move forward with the Dream – but should not be naïve in our thinking that we can negotiate with terrorists.  We must hold onto the Light – but also realistically confront the forces of darkness with steadfastness and resolve.  It is a different time than the Cold War.  When John F. Kennedy said “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate,” he was dealing with people who were not attached to extremist religious ideological positionality.

My concern about Barack Obama is that while he articulates the Dream that people yearn to see actualized, he may be more naïve in his readiness to dialogue and negotiate with the forces of darkness.  It would be a terrible mistake for him, as President of the United States, to hold one-on-one negotiations with a man who stupidly says the Holocaust did not exist, and who, along with his Mullahs, is determined to destroy the State of Israel.   To give stature and weight to this man and his positions, without preconditions, could be very dangerous.  One must question the naivete of such a proposition, or whether there are darker elements lurking in Obama himself.

Robert Kennedy spoke of the Dream – and I believe he genuinely touched upon it in his awareness and his rhetoric.   The difference, I believe, between Robert Kennedy and Barack Obama, is that RFK would have soberly and without naivete seen today’s threats for what they are – as impediments to the flowering of the Dream.   As to Obama, one has the right to ask, does naivete and lack of experience cast a shadow on his intentions?  Does something darker lurk behind his motives…and his rhetoric?

As we aspire to the Dream, a vital lesson is that we not ignore the Shadow - for Light and Shadow dwell in humans - and we must be discerning as we yearn for the former while allowing ourselves to clearly see the latter.

Below is a letter I wrote to Daphna Ziman of StandWithUs, after I read her testimony about the anti-Semitic statements of the head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who afterwards denied he made the statements.  This is the link that gives her testimony and the Reverend’s denials:  http://standwithus.com/app/iNews/view.asp?ID=350 

Dear Daphna:

It was not only horrifying to read your account of the vitriolic vituperatives hurled against the Jewish people by Rev. Eric Lee, president & CEO of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, but even more disturbing to read his letter of denial, affirming his solidarity and respect for Jews and unbelievably refuting that he made the remarks you and others so clearly heard. 

May I suggest that you get corroborative statements from others who were present with you, especially Assemblyman Mike Davis and Senator Mark Ridely Thomas?

Rev. Lee should be fired as head of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference.  He does not deserve to stand in Martin Luther King’s shoes.  Dr. King was time and again an eloquent supporter of Israel and the noble struggle of the Jewish people for social justice – not only for themselves, but often for the struggle of African Americans.  It is a fact, as you undoubtedly know, that Jews stood with Blacks at the forefront of the Civil Rights crusade.  Some Jews like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered alongside African American James Earl Chaney on June 21, 1964.  As young members of The Congress of Racial Equality who courageously came to the South to stand up for the rights of African Americans, these three martyrs stand forever emblazoned in history as champions in the struggle for freedom and the rights of all Americans.

Dr. King was no hypocrite, hiding his true feelings for different audiences.  He spoke with the same eloquence, passion and convictions in front of Black audiences as he did in front of white audiences.  He was a friend of the Jewish people and for Israel – and he would express this support at any time, to any audience.

What kind of affrontery to intelligent people of goodwill of all races and religions has Rev. Lee committed!  How can he think he can blatantly get away with his egregious hypocrisy, denials and lies?

This is the problem we as an electorate face with Senator Obama and his relationship with Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan.  Obama speaks to the American people denouncing these men’s bigoted words, but he has not severed his relationships with them.  He spends 20 years as a congregant of Rev. Wright’s Church, and says he never personally heard a bigoted sermon?  This is the same lying and hypocrisy displayed by Rev. Lee.  It reveals a hidden agenda – an antiseptic agenda of inspirational rhetoric dished out for a largely white public; but a hateful and venomous truer attitude that gushes up for constituents.

We don’t know the true Barack Obama, because he constantly “feeds” the media and the general public with what he knows they want him to say, while he de facto surrounds himself with advisors and mentors who belie these statements.  General Merrill “Tony” McPeak, Senator Obama’s military advisor and co-chair of his Presidential campaign is a case in point. McPeak is a longtime anti-Israel critic who has slammed Israel harshly during his career.  And yet Obama utters strong unqualified support for Israel in his public pronouncements.

Just as in the case of Rev. Lee, Barack Obama has two voices:  one for public consumption designed to gain power and the Presidency; and the other what seems to be truer darker feelings evidenced by his close and important relationships.

If I can support you in revealing the hypocrisy and lies of Rev. Lee, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Mike Schwager

C-Span interviewed Roger Mudd this past week, former CBS News weekend anchor and Washington bureau chief for CBS.  During the interview, the subject of Eric Sevareid came up.  Mr. Sevareid was the highly respected commentator on The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite.  His commentary came at the end of the broadcast, and ran for just a few minutes. 

Sevareid was a sage.  In running a snippet of the last interview with him on C-Span, Eric said the following about his mission as a commentator on the nightly newscast, which then was the preeminent network newscast, reaching 25 million viewers on an average night.  I’m paraphrasing.  Sevareid said:  I saw my role not as a judge, but as a teacher.  My mission was not to advocate, but to enlighten.

There is no one like Eric Sevareid in television news - or for that matter, in radio news - today.

Sevareid was like a beacon of light amidst the turmoil and seeming chaos of the daily news.  He was able to shed light on an event, a crisis, a national or world leader - not so much as a critic, or a loudmouthed tattler and gossip-monger - but to put a situation or person in context, revealing the underpinnings of an event, unravelling the complexities of a situation in historical perspective, looking at motives, evaluating a happening or utterance from the standard of high-minded universal, humane and respected values.

Those few minutes with Sevareid was something millions of Americans tuned in to absorb.  He was an illuminator and an integrator.  He helped make sense out of seeming nonsense.  He crystallized complexity into profound simplicity.  There was no one like him.

We need a man or woman like that today, especially in the world of ratings-driven network or cable news.  But there is no such person.  Instead, we have news mixed with commentary.  We have Lou Dobbs, an intelligent and able news person turned advocate, mixing it all up simultaneously, in a soup of both news and vigorous, passionate and often angry commentary.  Objectivity has been thrown out the window.  And we have the plethora of talk show commentators, with their highly subjective and biased views hurtled onto the American consciousness, as if their utterances were gospel.  They are not -but the effect is to turn minds without providing context, objectivity, sanity.

We need to have more objective reporting, and respect for commentary not so much as advocacy, but as enlightened teaching.   Will another Eric Sevareid ever grace our experience?  The way things are going, it doesn’t look good, at least as far as the money-driven news rat race is concerned.

Undercover video released by the Humane Society, and just shown on national tv, of sick cows in a meat processing plant, just prior to slaughter, made national headlines – but not out of compassion for these poor suffering animals.  The focus of concern by the news media was about the meat of sick animals entering the food supply.

When I saw the footage this morning, of animals too sick to stand, stumbling helplessly on the slaughterhouse floor, and lifted mercilessly and callously on a fork about to be taken for slaughter, I realized that my long interest in becoming a vegetarian had been realized. Where is our compassion?  I speak not only for the sickly cows, but the healthy ones too.  These are feeling, thinking beings.  The cow is a benign animal.  But the fate of tens of millions each year, who suffer by never seeing the light of day, in closed warehouses and cramped conditions, only to be cruelly slaughtered in the end – is a mark of a society and a culture without feeling, without compassion, without understanding or caring of the suffering of these docile creatures.

Mahatma Gandhi always felt that animals should be protected from torture and cruelty.  “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way it treats its animals,” he said.

“Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives,” wrote humanitarian and Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Albert Schweitzer.

Where is the national campaign and the voices of outrage that decry the suffering and cruelty of such animals – that decry their suffering in the manner in which they are housed and treated, and in the fact that they are slaughtered in inhumane and merciless ways?  Ultimately, where is the campaign that calls for an end to the slaughter of cows, period?  Where is the campaign that is rooted in a true embrace of reverence for life – all life?  Where is the campaign that decries the suffering and slaughter of pigs in a similar manner?  The campaign that decries the inhumane caging of chickens who live out their lives in cages without room to move in? 

The list goes on and on.  Has anyone ever considered that the pain and suffering we inflict on all these creatures, when ingested into our own systems, transforms into our own pain and suffering?  Think about it. 

This irreverence of the lives of animals extends to the treatment of dogs and cats in so many of this country’s County shelters –  killing institutions dedicated to the “euthanasia” of beautiful, healthy and adoptable dogs, cats, puppies and kittens, instead of a dedication to increasing community awareness, traffic and adoptions as our highest priority? 

What kind of a society is this that ends the lives of creatures who come into the world to give us the unconditional love we so sorely need?   What kind of a commentary is it about us that we so devalue these precious lives?  Is it any wonder that so much cruelty abounds in man’s treatment of his fellows?

If you are reading this and are moved in any way, reach out to animal advocacy groups dedicated to reversing all of this cruelty and suffering.  If you can’t find a group, start one yourself.  Get help from local public relations professionals who resonate with these sensitivities.  You can start by seeking them out on Craigslist.org – or by contacting the local PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) chapter in your city (www.prsa.org).

If the challenge seems uphill and insurmountable, remember the answer to the question posed in the Talmud:  “Where is the center of the world?” To which the response came, “Where each human being stands – there is the center of the world.” 

Television again showed its power and impact after the winners of the Iowa Caucus were announced, and the leading candidates made their election-results speeches.   All major cable and broadcast networks covered the speeches of Senator Obama and Senator Huckabee, the Democratic and Republic winners, respectively, and in that instant, they became nationally known as never before.

As a regular follower of C-Span, I am following the more extensive and in-depth pronouncements and remarks of all the candidates, so I had been aware of Senator Obama’s gifts of oration and inspiration.  C-Span, however, reaches a more limited, politically focused audience - and does not impact upon the national electorate in the way of the combined power of all the commercial news networks.

In one instant, Obama and Huckabee were on the national stage as never before - and became national celebrities as never before.

It made me realize, once again, the power of television - and the power it has not only to raise awareness, but the potential power to act as a force for raising consciousness.

See my earlier post, “Why We Need to Transform Television,” to get my fuller view in this area:  http://www.prstraighttalk.com/why-we-need-to-transform-television/