February 7, 2012
Are you seeing the world through rose colored glasses?
This phrase has often been on my mind recently as we’re mired in divisive political discussions and this last week in the Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle. It has caused me to wonder if we can ever be unbiased, or ever read straight news stories. I realized we all have filters but they are often in our subconscious. It’s amazing we can hear the same words and listen to the same news story and come away with different interpretations.
When we read the paper, a magazine article, watch TV news or even (my favorites) Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, it is the reporter/anchor’s interpretation of a story; their version of an event. But what we actually hear is yet another version that’s colored by our own beliefs and background. It’s really not something we can control.
As concerned citizens and especially as public relations and communications professionals, we need to make sure we’re doing our best to remove those filters before advising clients or making decisions. I find one of the easiest ways to remove the filters is to gather information from many sources.
- Watch TV news on MSNCB and Fox.
- Read the local underground paper as well as the traditional daily.
- Listen to NPR and talk radio.
- Read a blog you like and then one that’s cited by that person as completely biased and wrong.
- Talk with – and listen to — people you know are on both sides of the issue.
One of the things I like about social media sites like Facebook is when people are excited about a subject, there are lots of posts/messages where I can learn. I suggest you read them critically. It may seem there are many different filters on a subject, but studies show we gravitate to people who are similar to us. It’s only natural.
So, while social media provides new sources, they might not present an opposing view. It’s easy to gain a false sense of security around an issue.
When next you are faced with learning about a subject, check your sources and add a few you might not normally review. Look beyond the normal websites and blogs to those sites, people and blogs you know will offer an opposing view. 
And for heaven’s sake, listen to what’s provided on all the sites, and from friends. If you read but don’t listen or learn, you’re just wasting your time. As a communications professional that’s a very dangerous road. You need to understand both sides if you’re going to offer advice.
If we’re going to make this world a better place we can only do this if we look at issues and situations through multiple filters. We will only be able to collaborate on an issue once we realize and accept the many different filters through which others see the same world.
How do you make sure you’re listening to multiple sides of each story?
July 14, 2011
Google+, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, Quora, YouTube, Pinterest…and the list goes on. Are you confused by the plethora of social networking tools available to you? You’re not alone. Last week Google introduced the long-awaited Google Plus – suggested by many to be a Facebook killer – or a Twitter assassin.
Communications professionals clamored for invitations to the Google+ beta version and to be first with their evaluation. I was right there with them on the beta invitation and am generally pleased with the tool. I haven’t published an evaluation though, and probably won’t for some time. These things need time to percolate and grow.
After all Rome wasn’t built in a day
As public relations professionals we’ve always needed to understand the trends affecting our clients and their audiences. That’s why we’re all exploring Google+ along with other social networking tools. But we have to be careful too, not to make judgments before their time.
It’s weeks like this that cause me to join other senior public relations professionals (I’ve been doing this for more than 30 years) in longing for the days before computers, faxes, email and cell phones. In those days we typed, mimeo’d and mailed (yes US Post Office) press releases or hand delivered them to local media. There might have even been a few so-called three martini lunches. We had lots of in-person meetings and worked closely with decision makes to help out clients succeed.
Much has changed since then, including the public relations and journalism professions. The world has gotten smaller and the 24/7 news cycle causes everyone to race to be first.
Responsibility to offer wise counsel
As public relations professionals, we have a responsibility to our clients and organizations to be thorough in our reviews and recommendations. We need to make sure we’re not just selecting today’s shiny new tool and, instead, choose the one best for each situation.
We need to teach our clients that you can’t join Twitter and change the world in one day. Instead these things take time. I’m having a hard time imagining the baby boomer women who are just getting used to Facebook – and the target of many brand programs – are going to move to a new shiny toy anytime soon…at least the ones I’m talking to.
Nothing’s set in stone
As proof that Google+ is not set in stone and still in beta, the company announced today it’s making some changes based on user feedback.
So, while I like the shiny new toy of the week, I’m going to use it and watch for a while. If you’re game to explore Google+ let me know and I’ll send you an invitation.
I’ve been bookmarking some resources that may help you get started:
November 26, 2010
Note: This is the last in a series of posts about communications and the recent election.
This year’s Alaska Senate race has made headlines across the county as Senator Lisa Murkowski made history as the first to successfully win a write-in campaign since the 1950s. Unfortunately, it also resulted in some headlines Alaskans are a little more chagrined about. From a communications standpoint both issues point directly to the First Amendment of the US Constitution guaranteeing freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Here’s what happened:
US Senate candidate Joe Miller felt he was being unfairly targeted by the press who were investigating his personal life and background (CBS News). So, he told Alaska media after a debate on October 11 that he would no longer answer questions about his personal life. Just six days later, the candidate’s private security guards arrested the editor of a well-known online newspaper at a public event held at an Anchorage public school. The reporter said he wanted to talk with Miller but was not allowed to do so. (Anchorage Daily News)
Is the reporter protected by our Constitution? Should Miller’s private guards have arrested him in a public school? Did he have a right to be there? Did he have a right to ask the questions he wanted asked?
As the election drew near and discussions heated up over how the Division of Elections would interpret voter intent, chatter among Miller’s supporters increased about the need to have those with names similar to “Lisa Murkowski” register as write-in candidates in order to confuse voters and highlight the requirement for Murkowski’s name to be correctly spelled. Write-in candidates could register as late as five days before the November 2 election so chatter especially increased as the day grew near.
On, October 28, the deadline for write-in to register, right wing radio host Dan Fagan focused a good portion of his afternoon radio show on encouraging listeners to register as write-in candidates to confuse voters. He offered his listeners prizes (coffee mug and maybe a trip to Hawaii) for doing so, and especially if their name was close to Murkowski’s. The transcript was later reprinted by the daily newspaper. As a result of Fagan’s actions, about 150 individuals added their name to the write-in ballot. The controversy sparked was intense as many felt the show had crossed a line well beyond free speech by promoting chaos during an election to affect the outcome.
The station took the show off the air the following day. The following Monday, Fagan returned to the air along with his boss to discuss what had happened. Fagan admitted he had over-stepped his bounds.
But…did he? Was it really free speech? Or trying to fix an election? Did Fagan cross a line in using the airwaves to promote his message? Or is this guerilla campaigning at its best?
Earlier: This Election Was Personal For Me
Liar Liar Pants on Fire
Your Mother Would Be Ashamed You Said That
Message of the Day…Seems Simple but not always…
November 21, 2010
Note: This is the third in a series of election posts.
Numerous articles have already been written and I’m sure books will be written about Senator Lisa Murkowski’s write-in campaign and how it happened. I truly believe the campaign is a wonderful example of what a group of people can do if they put their minds to it, and work together for the common good. Sounds corny but it’s really true and I’m extremely proud to have been part of the team.
From the communications team standpoint, we were intensely focused on the job at hand – making sure Alaskans understood what Lisa Murkowski had done and would do for Alaskans and they knew how to fill in the oval and spell her name correctly.
Each day during the 8-week write-in campaign, the senior team (including the campaign’s communications director) met early to discuss polling, scheduling, word on the street, etc. Following that meeting, the communications team distilled the information to craft the message of the day, make assignments and move forward. That main message was broken into tactics including press releases, videos, tweets, Facebook posts, emails and text messages. Everything we did each day tracked back to the main message, even if we didn’t repeat that throughout the day. The intensity and focus of the 8-member team was incredible.
We planned communications to roll out throughout the day based on campaign messages, what we anticipated happening and the Senator’s schedule. This helped us stay on point and not be swayed by outside distractions. Eager volunteers wanting to tell us what they had heard, or the opposition spreading a rumor on social media were always out there to move us off point.
As a group, we were committed to a strict ethical sense. We would not respond to, or spread a rumor but instead took time to verify each story, lead or rumor. We were determined to run a positive campaign that talked about what would move Alaska forward and help those in need in our state. As long as we stayed focused on that we were confident we would be okay. Or, at least we knew we could hold our heads high.
Of course, since we were running a write-in campaign, the message of the day always included the Senator’s complete name. Where other campaigns could use just the first or last name, we knew it was important to ALWAYS say “Lisa Murkowski” since that’s what we needed voters to write on their ballots. Further, they needed to fill in the oval next to her name for their vote to count. “Fill it in, write it in” became the mantra and there were numerous jingles and television ads to remind voters.
In the end, the quantity of material distributed over eight weeks is still mind-boggling but more important is we energized and engaged an electorate in the Democratic process. More than 100,000 people successfully wrote in one person’s name and filled in the oval.
As much as I can write about the campaign from a pragmatic and straightforward manner, I will never forget the moment when the first numbers were displayed on election night. There were tears and hugs. We did something that hadn’t been done in more than 50 years. But mainly…we did what’s right for Alaska and the country.
Earlier: This Election Was Personal For Me
Liar Liar Pants on Fire
Your Mother Would Be Ashamed You Said That
Coming next: Freedom of What?
Photo Credit: Creative Commons; Mag3737
January 25, 2010
Several people I spoke with are very concerned about the increasing use of media among what is now somehow dubbed the M2 generation (8-18 year olds). I understand the concerns, but, as the parent of two boys in this generation, I also take some exception of the brushing generalities.
I showed the Kaiser Family Foundation’s study to my 17-year old son and talked with him about his impressions. Thomas and James are pretty typical of this age group but also good students, active athletes with many friends. Some comments from my son:
“First off, I personally spend way more time ‘using media’ than was cited in the study, and I’m sure many of my friends use more. I use a lot less than my friends do.
“The study said that half of all youth do their homework while also using media. I believe it should be much higher. For example, classmates and I recently had a hard project due the next day and my friends’ posts were all along the same line ‘could you help me find this’ or ‘this project sucks.’”
“While I don’t spend quite 90 minutes per day texting, my little brother (nearly 15) definitely does. I don’t text near as much as my friends. My brother basically never stops.”
It’s a fairly accurate picture as you can see from this picture of them playing…and texting…but doesn’t mean the family is falling apart. For example, texting just does not happen during dinner at our house. It’s one of my rules as we have family discussions during dinner and we don’t allow the interruptions. (Yes, we do have dinner together as a family at least 5 times per week.) My husband and I fought the texting phenomenon for several (or it seemed like it) years but have succumbed to texting our kids when they are out. We understand it’s how they communicate with each other. Can they still have a conversation with us? Yes and we make sure they do on a regular basis.
Our “Internet rules” are based on trust with our sons. They know that we can check their history at any time and restrict their use/turn off their phones if there are any concerns or questions. Through family discussions we have taught them limits on where they should and shouldn’t go. We hope we’ve taught them to make good decisions.
We are “friends” with our kids on Facebook and I helped them set up on Twitter – now abandoned by them – and enjoy exploring the Web with them. When it’s time to do a school project, they first turn to the Web for research. Google search and the wealth of information on the Web mean they rarely use books as primary tools. But it doesn’t mean they don’t read. My eldest is a voracious reader but he also gets a lot of information from the Web and/or television.
“I had a teacher who purposefully made us use books as primary sources for a project because as he said, we do our research by going to Wikipedia getting a basis of knowledge and then ‘skimming’ five to ten sites for more in depth information. I thought it was a complete waste of time because it took so much time to read the book. I didn’t really see what was wrong with ‘our way.’”
Is our kids’ use of social media really that different than our talking on the telephone all the time when we were kids? Think back to your parents always telling you to get off the phone, limiting your phone use and such. Is this really that different? I have to wonder if those who are concerned about young people using so much social media are kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. We’re talking about how this is ruining society while using the exact same tools to spread the word about our concerns. We’re fueling the fire…or are we?
When we read the paper, a magazine article, watch TV news or even (my favorites) Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, it is the reporter/anchor’s interpretation of a story; their version of an event. But what we actually hear is yet another version that’s colored by our own beliefs and background. It’s really not something we can control.
