PR Straight Talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

As some of you may have by now surmised, this is more than a public relations blog; for no human being is entirely circumscribed by his or her profession.  We are all citizens of Life, and we all share the events of birth and death – and in between we each experience the light of the same sun, the same moon, and we breath the same air.  Each of us partakes of  life’s blessings and challenges, each of us strives to fulfill our uniqueness, learn the lessons we’ve come here to learn, and if we’re lucky, we learn about love – life’s greatest gift.

A long time ago, as I was walking down lower Fifth Avenue in New York City, it occurred to me that the two greatest blessings are love and freedom.  It struck me that real “love” is a state of feeling and being that comes without condition, without attachment or obligation, without stress.  Love comes freely and it comes through the heart.  Inside love is a simple value:  kindness and reverence for life.  Not just my life, or the lives of the people I’m closest to, or people exclusively – but all life.  Love reflects an understanding that we’re all connected – humans, trees, blades of grass, dogs, cats, elephants, ducks, insects, whales and swans.  We’re all expressions of Life’s longing to express Itself.  We’re all of the One, as individualized creative manifestations of that One.

So love is a state of being where I recognize myself, and of my essence in you, and in all living things.

Freedom is the gift of breath.  Of breathing the breath of life easily and effortlessly.  Freedom is the gift of being naturally and organically myself, of self-acceptance and self-love.  It is the gift of tolerance for others, and their right to be their natural selves.  Freedom is about savoring each moment as one in which I can make my own choices without control or constraint from others – as long as I respect others’ rights to make their own choices. Freedom lived is lived without worry.  It is about complete and natural self-actualization, moment-to-moment.  It is a completely organic creative joyous state of being.

I think that to be blessed with love and freedom, coming to us from the inside out, is a high state of being.  Whatever your religion, it seems to me that in the essence of any spiritual practice are the messages of love, kindness and freedom as manifested by love for self, love for one’s fellows and all life, and the freedom to be our truest and most authentic unique selves as God made us.  True love will spiral up to love of God and the sense of “His” presence everywhere.

Whether you’re Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Muslim – or walking your own unique path – to the extent that you live unconditional love in your heart, and in a state of freedom from the inside out – then you hold the Keys to the Kingdom.

Surely, the child born in the manger came to be the bearer of the good news that unconditional love is God’s gift to all of us along with the freedom to be the precious beings we each are.  The essence of that same message must be at the heart of every religion, and to me that is the litmus test of authenticity.  That is why this is a season we cherish, whatever our religious or cultural affiliation – because the messages of love, kindness and freedom are universal, and embraced and recognized  deep in the hearts of all peoples – and all life – everywhere.

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.

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.

1.  “Vivekananda: Lessons in Classical Yoga” by Swami Vivekananda (edited by Dave DeLuca) is, in my opinion, a spiritual masterpiece.  There are two reasons for this:  first, one can recognize almost instantly that the book is universal, and has relevance for anyone of any religious persuasion; and second, it is simple at the level of profundity.  

I have never read a book that speaks to the reality of the great Oneness that permeates the Universe, existence and our lives, in such a compelling and inspirational manner as does Vivekananda in this wonderful compilation of the great Swami’s own speeches and writings.

I recommend this book highly for seekers and realizers alike.

2.  “From Diversity to Unity: Return to the One Spiritual Source” by Hua-Ching Ni, a great Chinese master who in his youth learned from highly achieved masters in the mountains of China.

The book endeavors to review the objective reality of the world’s great religions, but then works to reintegrate the flow of different cultures and present them as one universal culture.  It’s a wonderful read for people who honor humankind’s diversity, but also see the Unity that transcends diversity.

3.  “The Writings of Florence Scovel Shinn” by Florence Shinn.  Florence Shinn was a pioneer on the subject of the power of positive thinking, the power of the spoken word, and the power of treatments and affirmations.  What a wonderful book, with powerful affirmations and treatments that can make a difference in clearing the cobwebs of the mind, and manifesting abundance and fulfillment in your life.

“Self Matters:  Creating Your Life From The Inside Out” by Dr. Phil McGraw is the best self-help book, both written and audio versions, I’ve ever read or listened to – and I’ve read and listened to many.  Dr. Phil starts out with an essential premise:  we all come into the world with an “authentic self” – and that organic self, filled with natural God-given unique talents and attributes, becomes marred with negative programming and influences from key people in our external lives, at crucial points in our growth and development, that distort who we truly are in terms of how we see ourselves.  We develop a false self-concept.

Until we can break down these key moments, and key influencers in our lives, and the negative messages and belief systems about ourselves we’ve bought into – the path along the journey of life can be rocky and problematic.  Dr. Phil then provides exercises and questions we can give ourselves that help us isolate those moments, and allows us to come into contact with the false messages and false beliefs we’ve absorbed – and by becoming conscious of them – our path to releasing them, and coming into a healing realignment with our authentic selves, can begin.

It’s not that the information is glaringly new – but it is brilliantly and simply presented – from a man who’s obviously not only gone through the process in his own life – but who’s deeply thought through the cause-and-effect relationships, and presents his findings in an upbeat, confident, centered and inspirational style of delivery.  The book reaches, and has impact.

I recommend the book to anyone who’s been through therapy, self-therapy or no therapy.  Dr. Phil seems to be the therapist we all deserved, but didn’t necessarily get.

Some time ago, I realized why I probably chose public relations as a career, and publicity, specifically.  First, I was enough in touch with my “authentic self” to realize I loved to write, and loved to communicate.  I also enjoyed the art of persuasion.  Second, my false or inauthentic self had a great need for approval from the outside – beyond the norm.  Public relations provided a certain satisfaction for the fulfillment of my talent – and my need.  But the latter was somewhat out-of-whack.  I craved getting the approval of editors and producers on a story I had pitched.  And I felt a real down when the proverbial “rejection slip” came along – the “no, not interested.”

I think this is true for a number of my colleagues in this field, as well as literary and entertainment agents.  We live for the approval, and “die” when the rejection comes.  We confuse the approval or disapproval of our pitch, for ourselves.  We believe we’ve been rejected when nothing could be further from the truth.

The way out of this, for me, was to come into greater touch with my authentic self, and develop greater self-respect for who I truly was, and to disassociate rejections from rejection of “moi.”  Perhaps strains of this false belief, that I had to count on approval from journalists for my own self-affirmation, came from the fact that I am the child of parents who survived the Holocaust.  Perhaps I inherited a semi-conscious belief that we are “not good” because society once said so – and that we are embarked on a path where we constantly seek society’s approval.   

The story of how I moved through that is too long for this blog entry – but the turnaround comes from a moment, and recurrent moments – of realization that my self-concept is affirmed by me, from the inside out.  I don’t ultimately need anyone to approve of who I am, or what I’m worth.  My worth – and our worth – is inherently God-given.  I am – and we are – individualized creative expressions of a Higher Power; and so I am perfect just as I was created. 

That led to a moment as a publicist where I no longer invested my own self-definition or self-worth on the approval or disapproval of a journalist’s reception to my pitch of a story idea.  I became “unattached” to the outcome of that pitch.  And when I did that, I noticed that I gained increased respect from journalists – but most important, from myself.