PR Straight Talk

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. 

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.

Two postings ago, I wrote about the importance of being perceived as “real” and how this realness is conveyed through a candidate’s connection with his or her values and beliefs, and how “personality” is the prism through which  voters perceive not only the more superficial persona but these deeper attributes of self.

I also wrote that while I cannot teach a person how to be “real” - I can help facilitate a greater confidence about staying true to one’s core values.  This is true not only for political candidates, but anyone preparing for a media interview. 

The complication factor comes in when someone is preparing to act as spokesperson for his or her company or non-profit organization.  Here, they are not speaking solely for themselves, but for their organization.

Most media training workshops relate primarily to messaging.  The better ones help participants identify and learn to communicate essential communications objectives clearly, effectively and proactively.

In my 20 years of training executives about how to get their messages across, the one key area that has been more challenging to teach concerns presentational style, and more specifically, the “likeability” factor.

So…if you’re not a political candidate, but instead are speaking for your organization, are there tools you can use to enhance your likeability among viewers?  What if you are concerned you may not come across well?

While it is true that personality traits are inherent in the individual and not always conducive to pliability, the effects of the worst traits can be mitigated, at least in structured settings such as debates or television interviews.  Here are some points to consider:

“THE BETTER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE…”

Most human beings consist of both light and shadow.  Those of us who’ve done some work on ourselves have learned about our darker sides.  Often stemming from negative belief systems and unresolved conflict formulated in our formative years, tools are available to begin the process of healing these more negative aspects of our emotions.

Whether that healing process is well underway or less so, we can use our intelligence to keep them contained, at least in a debate or interview setting.  Some careful introspection and feedback from family and friends will allow us to identify the more extreme negative emotional patterns, and to consciously counter them with more positive substitutes.

For example, if one is an interrupter, the common-sense solution is not to interrupt.  Here, during the training session, work must be focused on the art of listening.  If we consciously intend to listen to the interviewer, or to the debate opponent, waiting for this person to complete his or her thought before responding, allows us to be perceived as considerate.

If volatility and extreme reactivity is part of our nature, learning the art of unattachment from another person’s positionality, allows us to address the opposing point-of-view without being perceived as hostile, or uncentered.  Opposing points-of-view must be addressed with rational and intelligent argument, explaining their lack of common sense, workability and potential adverse impact on human lives. 

On all counts, avoid insults or invectives.  If your interviewer or debate opponent insults you or your organization, you can simply reply, “I take exception to the way you’ve characterized me, my intentions and my company.  Then, go on to explain your good intentions and actions, and the positive trackrecord of your company.  This way, you’ve put the spotlight on the other person’s poor behavior, and highlighted yourself as a person who takes the high road.

Equally important – never get personal with the interviewer or your debate opponent.  Deal with issues, with arguments, with the validity and sense of the statement put to you – but never hurtle diatribes at the person him or herself.  You simply will be seen as an ogre, and unlikable.

Humanize yourself and your organization.  People don’t want to hear cold statistics or facts with the simultaneous absence of expressions of humanness.  Use statistics sparingly only to emphasize the strength of the point you’re making.  Make more use of anecdotes.  Tell a story.  Make the story human.  If you’re illustrating the work of your company, talk about people, about your customers, and about your employees.  Cite examples.  Let the audience know about your work within the community, about charities you support, and why you support them.

A smile is worth a thousand words, and remember to smile when appropriate.  Also, use the first name of your interviewer, or opponent.  When you transmit a smile, or use someone’s first name, you’re energizing the empathic cord between you and your audience.  You become more likeable.

Use humor when appropriate.  Humor instantly can relieve the heaviness of a moment, and illustrate to others that you can lighten up and put things into perspective.  However, for some of us, humor doesn’t come naturally, so don’t apply it if it isn’t natural for you to do so.

Admit mistakes.  If you or your organization has done a misdeed, ‘fess up.  Admit the mistake.  Apologize for it. If someone has been hurt, express remorse.  Let your audience know you or your organization will learn from the mistake and never repeat it.   Many people are inclined to forgive, if given the opportunity.  Give it to them.  You’ll be seen as a better person for so doing.

Remember, you’re not really talking to your interviewer or debate opponent.  They’re just vehicles for your message.  You’re really talking to the thousands or millions of viewers or listeners on the other side of the television set or radio.  Remember that before you begin. 

Be yourself, but be your best self.  If you’re smart, don’t come across like a know-it-all.  If you’re impetuous, slow down and learn to think before you speak.  If you’re not a warm person, be conscious of ways to project more humanness.  Smile.  Use first names.  Use anecdotes.  If you’ve made a mistake, admit it and apologize.  Don’t overreact, and don’t get volatile. 

Think of someone you love or respect.   As you’re talking to an interviewer, think of someone you’ve been close to who you love and care about.  The interviewer will feel that positive emotion.  If you’re in a debate situation, think of someone you respect.  That respect will be felt by the debater, and possibly lessen the intensity of his or her opposition.  Most of all, the energy will be picked up by the audience – the people you’re really trying to reach.

Be strong, but allow some of the vulnerability you’ve been afraid to reveal, to present itself.  People will like you better for it.

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/

Media placement is an art.  Practicing it often requires as much attention to approach and style as it does to the focus of your story.

• Always tell the truth.  Make sure your product or service does what it says it does and your information is accurate.  If a question is put to you that you do not have an answer for, indicate to the reporter you’ll get back with the information.  If you don’t, the info will come from someone else–and not necessarily from a source that will help your organization.  Never “imagine” or “fudge” an answer.  Remember, candor equals credibility.  If your organization has taken an action that has reaped negative consequences, counsel your client to admit the mistake (unless the client is constrained from doing so by legal counsel).  Negativity can also be mitigated if you can anticipate a reporter’s tough question, and frame an answer that puts the action into historical perspective; or by developing a positioning statement that lessens the harshness implied in the question.  (For example, when a poisonous substance infiltrated Tylenol bottles, the company issued the statement that “we are victims too”).
• Know your outlet before you call.  Have you read the magazine or newspaper in advance?  Have you watched the tv program? Have you listened to the radio show?  With print media, do you know the specific beat of the editor or reporter you intend to make contact with?  Have you read his/her stories?  It’s fine to cold call but don’t cold call blindly (unless there really is vagueness about that person’s turf).
• Attitude.  There are some p.r. people whose emotional lives seem to count on an editor’s acceptance; and who feel like failures when the editor says “no.” “Unattachment” is the best attitude.  ”Unattachment” doesn’t mean “detachment” or “apathy.”  It means coming from a centered place, with self-confidence in yourself and your ability to communicate a story effectively - but without being attached to the outcome.  You’ll find this a liberating approach, one that disallows you from becoming intimidated by an editor or producer, and one that enables you to return to the same person in the future with no regrets. When an editor perceives that you are not overly emotionally invested in a story, you may actually get a better hearing.  Be warm & polite, professional…and clear.  See that individual as a peer and colleague.  If they’re brusque in the moment, they may be having a bad day.  Simply ask if there’s a better time to get back to them.
• That said, believe in your story and believe in yourself.  The best p.r. people see themselves as resources of news and information who work with journalists to fill valuable time & print space.
• Be more empathetic than sympathetic.  Being empathetic enables you to build on what was said and respond with alternate approaches.  Being sympathetic means you’ve agreed with the journalist’s conclusion and have foreclosed the possibility of an alternate approach.
• Get out of the reporter’s way.  When you’re providing a reporter, editor or producer information where the story is time-sensitive, relay the information and get out of the way. There’s a time for pitching an idea, and there’s a time for simply relaying information.  In the case of the latter, act like an editorial assistant. Do your job and get out.  You’ll earn the journalist’s respect when you do so.
• Don’t waste their time.  When you call, communicate in sharp and crystallized fashion, the essence of the story.  Keep it brief, respect deadlines and ask in advance if the moment is ok for that editor/ producer.  NEVER call when you know an editor is under deadline pressure.  Keep your message on-point and as brief as possible, but craft it in a compelling and creative way that will earn attention.
• Personalize.  I’ve seen too many impersonal, photocopied pitch letters, whether via e-mail or snail mail.  If you send something in advance to a call, or as a follow-up to a call, personalize.  Don’t be overly chummy (unless you’ve been on good terms with that journalist for a long time).  But keep sensitive to the fact that you’re a human being, and you’re communicating with another human being.  For e-mails, craft a provocative phrase in the “subject” area.  Too many e-mail messages get unread without a compelling lead.
• Get out from behind your desk.  If you’re in the same city as the journalist, take them out to breakfast, lunch or dinner, if they’re amenable.  If not, make sure you acknowledge them anytime they give your placement coverage - minimally by e-mail, best by snail mail card.  Occasionally, but sparingly, when you see them produce something not necessarily connected to your own client, but noteworthy, acknowledge them for the story as well.  Cultivate the relationship in a friendly and professional way - but do not inundate them or make yourself obnoxious.  Timing and tastefulness are key here.
• Listen to the editor.  It’s as important to listen as it is to talk.  Be sensitive to any verbal feedback, cues or clues that can assist you in fine-tuning your pitch.  Keep your antennae fully extended.
• Respect the ‘no’ and be prepared for it.  Ask quick, important questions: What is it about this story that doesn’t seem right for you?  Is there anyone else for whom this story might work better?  Suggest how the story can be adapted to the outlet’s needs.  Best of all, suggest three to five different angles in advance.  This reduces chances for rejection.
• But when you get your final no, let it go and release it.  YOU haven’t been rejected, just your story.  And if you’ve handled the approach professionally and cordially, you’ll always be able to come back with another story at another time.  Regard your list of cultivated contacts as resources and investments for the long-haul, not for quick fix purposes.
• Contact another editor with a different beat within the same outlet.  Sometimes, if you receive a “no” – you can pitch your story with another editor with a different beat at the same outlet, if the story you’re presenting has applicability to that person.
• Occasionally, pass along an item of interest that lies outside your own sphere of self-interest.  Be someone who’s not always out to get something.  Also, supply your most important contacts with your home phone number.
• Getting beyond voice mail.  I like to try to reach a producer or editor directly, live, on the phone.  If I’m able to reach them, I give myself less than 60 seconds to pitch the story.  Skill in encapsulating the story in very brief but provocative terms is essential.  Based on the feedback, if there is an opening, I then send an e-mail.  If I get voicemail, I leave the same succinct, provocative, targeted message, then follow-up with e-mail.  If I don’t hear from them in two days, I either send a forwarded e-mail back on top of the prior original e-mail pitch (“Tom:  did this story interest you?”) or I call early.  Sometimes I leave a message with an editorial assistant or colleague, live or by voicemail, and follow-up again in a day or two if the message was via voicemail. Call back that other person to learn if your message was received and if there’s a return message.  

When Opportunity International, a non-profit organization came to me in 1999, they had been in existence for nearly 30 years, rendering great humanitarian service in the developing world.  Yet, they were one of the world’s best-kept secrets, and the service they provided – microfinance – empowering poor men and women with low-interest business loans and training in basic business practices, which enabled them to become self-employed and freed from hunger and destitution, was virtually unheard-of by the media or the American public when I launched the campaign.

There are a wide variety of strategies I employ on behalf of clients, depending upon the nature of their services, products or issues.  For Opportunity International, I determined that the Op-Ed piece – the commentary articles which appear in major newspapers – was a powerful communications tool for this client. Not only would the appearance of an Op-Ed have an immediate impact upon a publication’s readership.  As thought pieces, the “reprint value” had perhaps even greater impact by leveraging the support of existing and potential donors and opinion leaders. 

In the four years I represented OI, I conceived, ghost-wrote and placed a large number of Op-Eds in major newspapers, and generated as well important stories about this NGO’s work in newspapers and magazines.  Virtually all of the Op-Eds were written on behalf of the two Chief Executive Officers I worked for during my tenure with Opportunity.

Not only did these placements generate significant donor support - they became the seeds for future major donor support, even after my tenure had elapsed.

The first Op-Ed listed, “Redeeming the Lives of the World’s Poorest Children,” was co-by-lined by television legend Art Linkletter, an acquaintance of mine and who I approached and who consented to enjoin his name with the CEO’s.  Such notables as General Claudia Kennedy (the highest ranking woman in the U.S.Army) [“Creating Wealth at Grass-Roots Level”], Jack Kemp [“Compassionate Capitalism”] and famed television evangelist Rev. Robert Schuller [“Small Loans Pay Off”], also participated in Op-Eds written for them and Opportunity’s CEO.

Here is the list of placements ghost-written for the CEOs, along with other placement in major newspapers:

Redeeming the Lives of the World’s Poorest Children, San-Diego Union-Tribune, November 27, 2003

Creating wealth at grass-roots level, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, October 31, 2003.

Compassionate capitalism, The Washington Times, August 27, 2003.

Nike helps empower the poor, The Oregonian, May 17, 2003.

Entrepreneur un-retires to head up micro-loan program, San Diego Business Journal, April 28, 2003

Overcoming the “Poverty of Dignity” with Microfinance, Monday Developments, April 14, 2003.

Giving a Lift, San Diego Magazine, April, 2003

Battling AIDS with trust, Chicago Tribune, March 12, 2003

More than a public relations payoff, San Jose Mercury News, January 2, 2003

The Payoff from Charitable Giving, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 27, 2002

Loans Ease Third World Poverty, Chicago Sun-Times, November 23, 2002

Aiding Mexico’s Poor with Microcredit, San Diego Union-Tribune, November 28, 2001

Program Recycles Trash Into Opportunity, Wall Street Journal, November 6, 2001

Poverty is Root Problem, The Chicago Sun-Times, October 10, 2001

Fighting for the Poor with Microenterprise Development, Assembly, West Point Academy Association of Graduates Magazine, June-July, 2001

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due, The Baltimore Sun, May 13, 2001

Saving the Planet — and Its Inhabitants, The Chicago Sun-Times, April 22, 2001

Microloans Yield Macro Help for World’s Poor, The Palm Beach Daily News, February 26, 2001

JFK and Jesse, Review and Outlook, The Wall Street Journal, January 19, 2001

Microenterprise: A Better Day for a Better World, Research News, January 2001

Small loans pay off, The Wall Street Journal (Europe Edition), September 14, 2000

Small loans can battle AIDS scourge in Africa, Chicago Sun Times, July 23, 2000

Microcredit for the Poor, Time Magazine, July 3, 2000

Microcredit: ending poverty on our planet . . . one poor person at a time, Vital Speeches of the Day, May 15, 2000

To fight global poverty, start at the grassroots, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, June 2000

Ministry makes small donations go a long way, Colorado Christian Chronicle, March 2000

Small Loans with Big Impact, Chicago Sun Times, December 1999

Building Blocks, Harvard International Review, Winter 1998/1999

Loans for Life, The Rotarian, November 1999 Aiming at a global gap with micro-credit, The Journal of Commerce, August 1999

Time Banks Gave Micro-Credit to the Poor, The Financial Times, August 1999

Little Loans go a Long Way in Third World, Chicago Tribune, March 14, 1999

Loans to the World’s Poor Can Enrich Everyone, International Herald Tribune, August 4, 1999

Oak Brook Agency Execs See Tragedy in Honduras, Chicago Tribune, November 26, 1998

Hey Big Lender, Lend a Little Sum to Me, Financial Times, June 28, 1998 

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.

The first biggest mistake made by p.r. people, especially beginners, is pitching a story to the wrong media outlet.  The reason is simple enough:  they haven’t previewed that outlet, whether print, broadcast, cable or radio, to determine if the story is appropriate to its format and audience.

The second biggest mistake p.r. people make is pitching a story to an outlet that doesn’t reach their client’ most important public(s).  That’s not to be confused with contacting an outlet that reaches a general audience, where a particular sub-group may be part of the larger viewership or readership.

Here’s mistake number three:  not respecting a reporter or editor’s deadline.  You not only won’t be heard – you may never be able to come back because you’ve lost that person’s respect.  If you’ve caught a journalist who informs you he/she is on deadline, simply ask about a good time to get back to them - and leave pronto.

Number four?  Pitching a story with a buried lead.  Why would you lead with the meat of the story in paragraph four or five?  Why would you waste a busy news person’s time?  The basic format for a news release is an inverted pyramid, with the fattest facts on top.

The same for pitch letters.  The “meat” should appear on top – or minimally, something provocative should appear on top to catch the journalist’s attention.

Number four-and-a-half is writing a release or pitch letter that is simply too long.  If you’ve grabbed the attention of the editor you’ve approached, and he or she likes what you’ve written, you can always fill in with less important details later, after the story is on its way to placement status.

The fifth mistake is approaching the right media outlet, but the wrong person.  If you approach The Wall Street Journal, why would you bring a personal finance story to someone covering institutional investment?  Why would you bring a lifestyle story to the Today’s Show’s travel editor?   

The sixth mistake is not cultivating a relationship with an important contact.  If you live in the same town, try and meet that person for lunch, breakfast or dinner.  Not always possible, but worth the try.  You may also occasionally let the journalist know about a noteworthy story that isn’t one you necessarily represent, but that might interest them.  If you’ve seen something interesting and notable written by a reporter, or produced by one of your producer contacts, send them an e-mail.  Let them know.  Acknowledge them.  When holiday season is upon us, send your contacts a card.  Let them know you’ve appreciated their consideration and time during the year past.  Sometimes, Thanksgiving is a better time for acknowledgement than Christmas.  People are inundated with cards during December.

The seventh mistake is writing a boring lead in the subject area of your e-mail.  Sometimes you only have that one shot for your e-mail to be open.  This is an editing exercise in saying little but meaning much.  Yes, “laconic” is the way to go here.

The eighth mistake is in bombarding the journalist with too many e-mails, or too many calls.  Bombardment means “bombing out.”  That’s why considerable thought and strategy should go into every e-mail, and every phone call.  If you do make the call – and I like to try a call first, even a voicemail message, with an e-mail follow-up – THINK before you call.  Have the pitch crystallized in your mind.  It should be brief, but content rich, and speak to that outlet’s format and audience.

Once you’ve pitched a story, don’t call later the same day or even the next day.  Wait a couple of days before your next approach.  If you’ve sent a strong pitch via e-mail, follow-up with an e-mail that says (in the subject area) something like, “Tom – did this story work for you?”

If, however, you’ve received a “no” – let it go.  Save your contact for future stories.  Also, if you get “silence” after a couple of follow-ups, you may need to let it go as well, rather than present yourself as obnoxious.

But don’t hesitate to reach other outlets with the story, or even other journalists at the same outlet, if his or her beat allows for the story.  You may even ask the editor or producer who vetoed your story if there’s someone else within the organization for whom the pitch may be more suitable. 

Television has not yet actualized its potential nor realized its responsibility to humankind. The most powerful medium on the planet, the medium that has the greatest impact on individual and collective consciousness, has fallen far short of its ability to enrich and empower our lives. If someone would argue that this is not television’s mission, I would then ask them to please explain what they think constitutes that mission. Surely, it must be more than purpose as a description of function. We all know that television transmits programming; and that this programming is generally intended to entertain or inform.

To paraphrase MacLuhan, it’s not just that the medium is the message. The medium and its messages are also powerful imprinters on the human psyche. In this context, the medium of television not only transmits programming; it is also, by its very nature, in the business of programming minds. It is, therefore, a decisive activator and determinant in the condition of human consciousness and human behavior.

To be sure, thanks to PBS and programs like Nova, or programs such as those presented by Dr. Wayne Dyer, and talks shows like Oprah, not everything on tv today is vapid.  But the suppositions of network television programmers leave much to be desired.

Many have already looked at the relationship of violent programming and violence in our society. How many have looked at the tendency of too many programs to anesthetize its viewers with vapid material that merely fills time slots and tranquilizes people into deadened passivity instead of engaging, enlivening and opening their minds and hearts? How many have seen a relationship between the increasing number of shows dedicated to what I call “negative creation” - to tabloid mania and the lowering of consciousness? Just what is it that programmers and producers think they’re doing? Do they think that these kinds of magazine and talk shows, characterized as they are by violence, vicious gossip and the baser side of human behavior, bring out the best in people?

It’s much clearer that these programs depress our spirits and undermine and violate our deep yearning to rise above separatism, greed, selfishness, vulgarity and self-hatred. ”

There is the argument that these are the shows that people want; these are the programs that pull in the ratings [and whatever pulls in the ratings pulls in the bucks]. Television executives are adept at noticing what works. What works is what is entertaining and what gets attention. What gets attention is what seems enlivening. They’ve made the choice to create a kind of enlivenment packaged as entertainment that presents the baser side of human experience, knowing that humans, out of their boredom, self-doubts, or lack of fulfillment, can be attracted to the negative if they don’t have the option of turning to the positive that’s packaged in an equally entertaining fashion. Humans are attracted to negative or positive creation, because humans are creative beings.

These tv executives have chosen to ignore the possibilities for entertaining, enlivening programs that not only captures what’s real (for surely many of the suffering souls who expose themselves to national TV audiences on the plethora of current talk shows are having “real” experiences) - but they’ve also chosen to ignore that which points to truth.

The feeling of anxiety is real, but actions based on anxiety are about the future, which is illusory since it is a moment in time which has not yet occurred. The feelings of guilt are real enough, but actions based on guilt come out of a memory of something done in the past. The past is gone forever and, like the future, is an illusion in the context of the here and now. Therefore, actions that emanate out of anxiety or guilt are not true; nor are most actions that emerge out of fear, since fear is almost always a distortion that stems from some conditioning.

While we must always acknowledge as real what people are feeling, we must set our sights on looking for the truth. The truth is always illuminating, and when the truth is spoken, it clarifies that which is distorted, no matter how “real” the distortion feels. The truth is that we as humans are struggling through the negativity of this world, the negativity that is a condition of duality, to find what’s really true. What’s really true has to do much more with what lies in the deepest recesses of our hearts:  love, understanding, insight, inspiration, and all that is connected to a fuller, richer dimension of human consciousness. The struggle to reach and access higher truth, the struggle through negativity, is a noble story worthy of telling, but we must always be mindful of its contextual underpinning, of the truth that lies waiting to be revealed in the deeper recesses and on the higher planes.

People who feel fundamentally powerless, depressed and/or frustrated will turn to programs that represent pure escapism or depict scenarios that portray a reality uglier than the one we live in, especially when there are few other options; and when programmers have turned away from the creation of material dedicated to what is true. Egos need reassurance, but this is a reassurance that negates the nobler possibilities and potentialities of human nature.

Television as a business is money-driven, pure and simple, some would argue. The pattern shows that what makes money is what represents the lower aspects of the human condition. This is distorted, unclear and irresponsible thinking.

The pattern exists because it is a pattern that shows itself to work, to the detriment of a newer, more positive pattern that has been undertried because it has been harder to think of programs that inspire us, encourage us, and lift us out of our negativity that are also entertaining. The reason it’s been harder is because we tend to stay with what works.

The human mind can be manipulated to exercise curiosity, attraction and addiction for lower forms of energies out of an external environment that intentionally or unintentionally supports these conditions. Humans seem to be attracted to the energy of negative drama, or negative creation; but I would argue that at the deepest level they are attracted to what enlivens and brings meaning to their lives. Sadly, television executives seem adept at not noticing this truth.

Television must do more than mirror the state of consciousness in our society. If people feel isolated, powerless, frustrated, unexpressed and suppressed, is it socially conscious and conscionable to present programs that sustain and reinforce the status quo? To my way of thinking, it’s just as ugly to present sleazy gossip as it is to present violence for violence’s sake. Both kill the human spirit and the human imagination.

At the core of the problem is a severe underestimation and/or underwillingness to recognize the capacity and need of human beings to be seen and to reach for their higher potential and promise. Humans need to grow, to love self and others, to create, to express, to build, to connect, to cooperate, to imagine and to be challenged. Every human being who comes into this world, at the deepest level wants to make a difference in this world.

New and more programming with a human potential/spiritual dimension must also focus on programs that inspire people to go out into the world to do something constructive.

Programmers must find ways to engage people in their real lives, and to design viewing as a step towards that lively creative engagement, not merely to sustain the disempowering energy of passive “viewing.”

What has been insufficiently supported in television programming is the idea that people can rise from mere existence to a sense of being intellectually, emotionally and spiritually alive. What has also been insufficiently supported is the idea that television can enrich, empower, expand, inspire, inform, educate and entertain. Instead of descending into programming that reflects the lowest common denominator of attitudes, tastes and proclivities of our collective viewing population, television can pull and raise content to the highest values of human aspiration. In so doing, a whole new kind of energy and presence can be achieved on the screen, lifting and guiding and challenging individuals and society to new heights and new vistas.

None of this is to say that the “shadow” dimension will be ignored. On the contrary, we want to shed light on the parts of ourselves that we repress out of guilt, shame or our sense of inappropriateness in society. It may be that some of the popularity of so-called “sleaze” programming is based on people’s projection of their own shadow onto the shadows of people they see on the screen. If so, there may be some purpose to these shows. What makes more sense, however, is to consciously reveal the energy and aliveness contained in the shadow, and offer people the hope and promise that this energy can be transformed and moved in constructive, even spiritual ways.

Television can support the driving force of evolution and the ascension of consciousness in every man, woman and child. It can support what moves forward. The greatest lesson yet to be learned is that television as a for-profit enterprise need not preclude television as a vision-driven force for good in the world. What supports the best in people supports our highest values. What supports these highest values has value. We need to move towards a society that values this kind of value above all else. When we do, the money and marketing considerations will flow out of vision. The reverse can never be true.

We need to stand ready to say NO to the horrors of this past century and say YES to a brighter, more enlightened future for men, women and children everywhere. It’s time to create a kind of television that supports E Pluribus Unum : “many out of the one” and individuals within community; a kind of television where every human being can be inspired to grow, to enrich their lives and to fulfill their missions in the world. That’s what will create true social empowerment and the kind of global interconnectedness that will make the 21st Century filled with unimaginable hope and possibility.

Is it relevant?  Does it have impact?  Is it immediate?  Is it novel?

Anyone who’s worked in a newsroom knows that these are among the four leading criteria editors use for determining whether it’s a story or not.  Relevancy.  Impact.  Immediacy.  Novelty.

Media relations practitioners who want to place stories with news editors, producers and reporters know either overtly or intuitivelythe significance of pitching stories based on these criteria.

Sometimes, there’s an overemphasis on “novelty” that sacrifices the integrity or depth of a story for shallowness.  Both journalists (some of them) and some p.r. people take this leap.

There should also be a fifth word - for journalists and public relations professionals alike: responsibility.  With the proliferation of media today, and the plethora of gossip-type formats, including Internet (websites and blogs) and cable tv and radio (the latter having to do with too many shows that are more about propoganda than information) - so much, and I believe too much, of what we see and hear is irresponsible in the guise of journalism.

I believe more p.r. people would be respected by journalists if they took the time to check the veracity of the stories they pitch. 

“Novelty” may sell papers and boost ratings.  It can also land a p.r. person a placement.  While it doesn’t enhance the quality of life or grow the amount of our gray matter, it passes if it’s truthful.  But if it’s also a false or distorted story - then ultimately readers and viewers will move away - and p.r. people will lose their credibility.

So let’s add “responsibility” to the above four criteria for journalism and p.r. that works.