PR Straight Talk

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.

I’ve provided media training to hundreds of companies, non-profit organizations and  associations.  At least half of those trainings were to help executives prepare for a crisis before it happened.  Sometimes, I’ve had to step in while a crisis was at-hand.

The four most important things to know, in preparing for, or dealing with a crisis, are:

(1)  Admit mistakes
(2)  Express and exhibit compassion for victims
(3)  Put the problem into perspective
(4)  Create effective positioning

ADMIT MISTAKES:

Unless your organization is constrained by legal counsel from admitting a true mistake, you’ll find that most people are very forgiving of the admission of an error, if the admission is quickly forthcoming.

It’s important to tell the truth.  Deception, in the long run, ruins
reputation and standing in the community - and ultimately your bottom line.

EXPRESS AND EXHIBIT COMPASSION FOR VICTIMS:

We’re all in the people business.  You count on your various publics - all composed of people - to support you, to buy your products and services, to embrace your stance on issues.  If you’ve made a faulty product or rendered a service that hurt people (or worse) - express compassion for those victims.  Do everything you can to back up your expression of compassion with tangible acts of compensation, if at all possible.  Make sure you rectify the problem so that it will never happen again, and let your publics know it’s been rectified.

PUT THE PROBLEM INTO PERSPECTIVE:

It often occurs that an organization has to deal with a crisis that somehow has the potential of tarnishing its reputation to the extent that the public perceives this is not a one-time occurrence, but a pattern of negligence.  Usually, this is not the case.

Put the problem into perspective.  Explain your long history of good citizenship, of trustworthiness and ethical behavior.  Put this particular problem into the “untypical category” - of an incident that doesn’t typify your actions.  When contextualized within the larger picture of upstanding behavior over a long period of time, the problem diminishes in scope in people’s minds. 

The use of “perspective” will help you get through a crisis.

CREATE EFFECTIVE POSITIONING:

Remember or hear about the Tylenol crisis of years ago?  A case of product tampering, where some Tylenol capsules were laced with poison.  People died.

The eventual solution was the creation of tamper-proof product sealants.

What did Tylenol’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, do to cope with this situation?  A simple positioning statement helped neutralize opposition to the company:  “We are victims too.” 

In one fell swoop, this statement helped put the company on the side of the victims.  It worked and ultimately was part of a campaign that brought the product back into mainstream acceptance.

Achieving “rapport” with a television interviewer is an essential component of any media interview. 

Good rapport on the interviewee’s part includes a perception that he or she is likeable and caring. One way interviewees can establish good rapport with the audience and the interviewer is to humanize themselves and their organization. This can be done by relating personal anecdotes that enhance their point of view. Interviewees should talk in terms of people rather than statistics, and speak in personal terms. It helps viewers identify with the person speaking, and in turn, identify with the message. 

Another route to good rapport is by way of conversationality and first names. Think about the warmth and charm of the late President Reagan. Whether you agreed with his policies or not, his soft but charismatic style, his likeability, his conversational tones and his ability to communicate in simple yet graphic imagery – all of this “reached” viewers and “scored points” with them.

Think about the late Egyptian prime minister, Anwar El-Sadat, whose skill in conducting the warm and human interview greatly increased the prestige of his office and affection for him. Why were Mr. Sadat’s interviews on television so believable?  Quite simply, because he succeeded in identifying himself in the minds of the audience as a friend of the interviewer. One way he accomplished this was by skillful use of first names - by calling Barbara Walters “Barbara” and Walter Cronkite “Walter.” This subtle recognition of the interviewer as a person creates the image of a warm, caring, courteous individual. There’s a suggestion that the interviewer and the guest are friends.

Interviewees should use their judgment in applying this suggestion to specific cases.  If in doubt, they might ask the reporter or host before the interview begins whether he or she would mind being called by his or her first name.

One very important aspect of “rapport” is to achieve “presence.” Being present during an interview means being as relaxed as possible – in body, mind and spirit – while ALSO being focused and alert. How is presence achieved?

Here are eleven simple yet powerful ideas:

1.  The point of power is always in the Present Moment!  This moment is all any of us have, and it’s in this moment, and in the mastery of this moment, that anything and everything happens. When you really “get that” – that you have power, and you realize that you have choice, then you realize it’s up to you as to what you do with this moment.

2.  Be unattached.  When you’re unattached to outcomes, to stop worrying what people think of you, to stop worrying what the interviewer or your audience is thinking of you, it frees you up to be yourself, to be more centered, to come more from “the inside out” instead of allowing yourself to artificially construct yourself based on what you “think” other people want from you.  Over the last 20 years, I’ve seen so many people obsess around constructing a false self, based upon what they “think” other people want them to be. The paradox is, is that when you’re overly attached to being someone else, people see through that veneer and lose respect for you.

3.  See yourself as the Expert.  In virtually all cases, unless you’ve failed to prepare for the interview, you must remember that YOU are the expert. It’s rare where an interviewer will know more than you about your organization, and about the issues you came into the interview to discuss. When you really get that, it should boost your self-confidence level considerably.

4.  Relaxation techniques.  Look for a way to relax the morning of your interview, or an hour or so prior to the interview. What works for you? Perhaps it is meditation.  Just several possibilities:  TM as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; or the technique taught in a book, “The Relaxation Response” by Harvard’s Herbert Benson; or simple breathing techniques, involving following your breath from inhalation to exhalation; or saying an out-loud “treatment” affirming your peacefulness, calmness, expertise and self-confidence; or just reading your favorite most inspirational poem.

5.  Exercise.  If you can take a mile walk, or jog, or do aerobics, two to three hours before your interview, you will release stress, unify your good energy and feel more of your presence in time for the interview.

6.  Smile.  The cliché is true – one smile really is worth a thousand words. Of course, smile when appropriate and if it feels comfortable.

7.  Listen – and try to be considerate.  For example, if the interviewee tends to be an interrupter, the common-sense solution is not to interrupt.  During the training session, work must focus 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.

8.  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 track record 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.

9.  Never get personal.…with the interviewer or your debate opponent.  Deal with issues, 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.

10. 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.

11.  Empathy.  Good rapport is also promoted by previewing the interviewer. Doing so teaches the interviewee about the interviewer’s style and point of view. The interviewee will then be prepared for the interviewer’s position and will be able to empathize. Empathizing and acknowledging the other person’s viewpoint, without necessarily agreeing with it, is a great way to eliminate communication barriers.  If interviewees create a cordial comfort zone with the show host, the “vibes” will be picked up by the people on the other side of the screen - the people they’re really intending to reach.  Interviewees who let reporters upset them only promote unfavorable impressions in the minds of the thousands - or millions - viewing.

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. 

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

The whole truth and nothing but the truth: in media and PR

by Mike Schwager

(Part I) [excerpted from PR Week Magazine]

Remember that hilarious movie, “Something’s Gotta Give,” starring Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton? He plays a character by the name of Harry Sanborn who stumbles into a one-night affair at the Southhampton home of his girlfriend’s mother and “possible” soulmate, a successful playwright played by Keaton, known as Erica Barry.

One scene finds them days later accidentally meeting at a Big Apple dining spot, with Erica horrified to find Harry at a table with a beautiful young blond. As she runs outside onto the street feeling betrayed and in a state of anguish, she exasperatingly confesses her love for him. The conversation turns to “truth.” He declares, “I have never lied to you. I have always told you some version of the truth.” To which Erica replies, “The truth doesn’t have versions, okay?”

Or does it? Is the “truth” the communication and comprehension of facts and events as we see them? Is it the objective reporting of what is seen, as journalists are obliged to do? Or is the “truth” not only what is seen as observable and confirmable, but does it in addition include the underlying motivations of what drive facts and events? “The whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

During the Vietnam War, when day in and day out the events of the war were reported to us on the nightly network newscasts, what about the underside of these events? What about the much-hailed “Domino Theory” as being the raison-d’etre for the war? As the theory went, LBJ went to war to keep South Vietnam from falling to the Communists, and to keep other surrounding countries from doing the same.

What kind of integrity is it to base foreign policy on a game of dominos? Yet, to the degree that a games theory drove a war, was the reporting of that war, without the sufficient reporting or challenging of its underlying motives, a communication of “the truth?” Or did the “truth” have versions depending upon whether you were looking at external events, or their cause? Wasn’t the media responsible for more in-depth reporting of the “whole truth?” Wasn’t it responsible for challenging what seemed to some to have been specious reasoning?

Now in Iraq, the U.S. initiated a war with a country that had not attacked us, based on a preemptive policy designed to thwart possible future attacks by those countries who don’t like us. Sounds a little bit like that movie, “Minority Report,” starring Tom Cruise, doesn’t it? Remember? Tom Cruise belonged to a futuristic police department that apprehended “potential criminals,” relying on crimes “about to happen” predicted by psychics lying in a pool of water.

And what about the people who did attack us? Al-Qaeda. Doesn’t it seem strange to some that its leader, Osama Bin Laden, has not yet been captured after all these years post 9-11? Is it possible that 9-11 was the excuse to attack Iraq? That the American people were manipulated out of their sense of patriotism and love of country, to too easily buy into attacking anybody that didn’t like us?

Remember the “surface” excuse of the Administration? WMD – weapons of mass destruction. That was false. Iraq didn’t have them. There was sufficient evidence to show that Iraq viewed Al Qaeda with disdain; and that it was an enemy of Iran. What became the rhetoric and justification of the Administration was based on faulty evidence and on patriotic appeals. Yet the barrage by the Administration, using WMD, patriotism, love and survival of country as the reasons for going to war in Iraq worked. Though now without the WMD excuse, the patriotism factor works less well.

And the real reason for going to Iraq? Oil? An end to “nuisance” governments who don’t like us? A vision of American dominance in the Middle East? If any of those are true, why wasn’t any of that communicated to the American people? One other excuse given was to free people – to establish democracies in non-democratic countries. But was that the truth? If so, why didn’t we overthrow the Sudanese government that has been committing or allowing genocide for years?

So here, beyond the “truth” having versions, there have also been lies. And when there are lies, or when there are “versions” of the truth, we clearly aren’t getting the truth – the whole truth and nothing but the truth – whether the communication emanates from our government, or through the media relaying external facts and events, but at times underreporting the motives and truth behind events.

Somehow, we’ve been subject to an obfuscation of the truth based on appeals to our patriotism and the survival of our democracy. This Administration has been masterful at this kind of manipulation. What about the media? Has any “underreporting” and a meek willingness, for too long a time, to challenge the Administration about the truth, reflected its failure to its Fourth Estate responsibilities? When did the media vigorously challenge the probable overarching cause of the war – a new policy based on the right of preemption?

In a democracy, the people are entitled to more. How else can intelligent decisions be made, especially when it comes time to pulling the switches in the voting booth?

Continue to part two