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?
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
November 15, 2010
Note: This is the third in a series of election posts.
Your mom would be ashamed at what you said on Twitter during the election. In fact, if she was like my mom, she’d probably wash your mouth out with soapy water. Welcome to the third in my series of election posts about my experiences with Lisa Murkowski’s write-in campaign.
A lot has been written about the tone of people’s tweets and the fact many seem to feel they can say anything here without regard to others but I found the examples our group faced during the fall election cycle truly appalling. Some choice examples:
- “Lisa Murkowski said she regrets promising to honor the outcome of the Primary Election…I just regret that she was born.”
- “Legal does not equal right. Murkowski was wrong. She’s running counter to the democratic tradition and she’s an ass for it. “
- “Lisa Murkowski ought to be ashamed of herself. So childish.”
- “I’m trying to decide who I hate, loathe, and despise more: Barbara Boxer or Lisa Murkowski.”
- “Murkowski needs to shut her effing trap.”
There are those who may think this is okay but it seems to me that if this isn’t something you would say out loud and in public, it probably shouldn’t be said on Twitter or Facebook. And, if it is something you would say out loud and in public, maybe it’s time to think about how you interact with others.
It’s really pretty simple:
Do unto others as you wish others to do unto you.
I just have to wonder how the writers of these tweets would feel if someone spoke to them in this manner. As communicators, we have an extra obligation to make sure the words we put out are true. However, it shouldn’t just be communicators who are trying to maintain civil discourse.
Only through listening, respecting each other and working together will we solve the problems in our country and world. Only by caring about each other will we make the sacrifices we need to make in order to move forward and help others. Only by treating each other with the love, trust and compassion we expect from others will we build a better world for our young people.
So the next time you’re ready to launch off on a social network about someone else, take pause. It will likely save everyone embarrassment.
- Type the message and walk away.
- Come back in an hour.
- Only then hit the send button.
You probably won’t send messages like this:
- “Ladies and gentlemen, this woman is a snake.//insulting 2 snakes!”
- “Lisa Murkowski is an entitled sow.”
- “Really? That many people in Alaska can spell Murkowski?”
- “To the Murkowski person who just called my house and said my vote for McAdams was a vote for Miller. SUCK IT!”
- “Lisa Murkowski = the biggest idiot in the world. It is funny bc she lacks “intellectual curiosity” more than anyone. She’s jealous of Palin.”
As mentioned in part two of the series, my responsibility on the campaign included monitoring what others were saying in social media. It was interesting to watch those who disagreed with the majority of Alaskans and didn’t understand our state, trying to tell us what to do. Most mornings we reviewed social media, then discussed the campaign’s messages of the day with the communication team and then returned to another look at social media. A full evaluation through the lens of our strategy oftentimes meant not directly addressing the “antis” on social media.
What we found was most of the messages were originating from a relatively small group of individuals who were not aware of Alaska politics. While they did reach a few in Alaska, the majority of the messages did not have the capacity to affect our campaign. Obviously, we had to carefully and diligently monitor social media to make sure this remained true. As the final votes are counted this week, we’re fairly confident in our strategy. Time is of the essence in social media but sometimes it can be your friend as well.
How do you keep your cool on social media? Check your facts? Address inaccurate messages? Let’s all try to make sure our moms are still proud of all we do.
Earlier: This Election Was Personal For Me
Liar Liar Pants on Fire
Coming next: A Look at Strategy and Tactics…Sticking to the Message
November 10, 2010
Note: This is the second in a series of election posts.
This familiar phrase came to mind several times during this year’s political season. So does the image of Pinocchio’s nose growing in the famous children’s story. Candidates and their supporters often proclaimed outrageous statements without first checking facts. It seems the desire to make noise and create negative attention for an opponent was often more important than accuracy.
All this does is further erode trust in our public officials and the electoral process. Voters want to know why TO vote for someone, or what the person can OFFER. They tire easily when things get negative and especially sensational. Strong political campaigns and candidates tell a story about why the person or initiative will help the audience.
Research shows negative campaigning does work so that’s likely why it’s continuing but it doesn’t really explain why the untruthful campaigning continues. What I don’t think works is lying or embellishing. This is also becoming more of an issue resulting in the growth of websites such as factcheck.org.
Additionally, the tremendous growth in social media since the 2008 campaign means that virtually anyone can call themselves a journalist. Bloggers, candidates or individuals with some influence could send a message that was passed around social media circles in rapid-fire fashion without regard to the truth. As you can imagine, this could be quickly damaging to a candidate.
One of the roles I had on Senator Lisa Murkowski’s campaign was to monitor Twitter and Facebook. It quickly became apparent that individuals outside Alaska were attempting to influence the election through their accusations. One, especially, was so outrageous I won’t give it credence here. However, it was retweeted hundreds of times by the end of the day since the writer was “influential” among a group of conservative voters.
The challenge was in deciding which rumors merited a response taking us away from our strategy and message. Throughout the day, our team monitored traditional and social media to determine if changes in messaging strategy were needed. Interestingly, supporters addressed the vast majority of challenges on our Facebook page while the majority of untruths/rumors on Twitter did not reach most Alaskans.
As a result, we were able to stay mostly on message. What we did do, however, was modify emphasis based on feedback from research, more than from the social media universe. This allowed us to respond to what OUR audience wanted rather than the background noise.
I do feel, however, this may change over time as even more professional journalists turn to social media for information and sources. Just as professional journalists abide by a code of ethics, so should bloggers. Many rules are yet to be written for the free-wheeling community but I don’t believe this means slanderous writings should be left unchallenged. What do you think?
If you just cant’ get enough, check out these references for more midterm lies.
Coming next: Your Mother Would Be Ashamed if She Knew You Said That
February 2, 2010
“Do unto others as you wish others to do unto you.”
I’m sure you remember the Golden Rule. It’s one of the simplest and earliest “rules” I recall being taught by my parents. If you do good things to other people and treat other people well, they will treat you well.
When my boys were little, some of their first words were “please” and “thank you.” They pretty quickly learned if they said them and smiled, they could get things. The reverse was also true and even more quickly learned. It was a simple lesson that stands them in good stead today.
In today’s sound bite and online world, we often forget the power of words and the hurt they can cause. We get things off our chest without thinking about those on the receiving end. It’s time to take a step back and think before we respond. Organize your thoughts and think before you post.
Put yourself in the shoes of the person/company who will receive the message and maybe – or maybe not – hold off on hitting the send button. It’s also important to remember that social media messages are in the public eye so although you may design it for one audience, many more will likely see it and respond.
If we treat those who live and work in our communities with respect, they will respect us and treat us with respect. It may be rather Polyanna-ish but I truly believe it is true. How can we expect others to treat us well if we don’t handle them respectfully too.
This is true in our professional lives as well as our personal lives. If I treat my communication colleagues with respect and help them out, I hope they will also return the favor. It’s worked pretty well for 30 years and I don’t really see that changing. We’ve created a wonderful network of professional development, camaraderie and friendship because of that mutual support.
Chris Brogan had a wonderful post last month where he urged us to deepen our networks and devote two hours each day to strengthening our relationships. Chris’ post is specific to professional relationships but I suggest the same rules apply to your neighborhood, community, family and personal friends.
So, my question for you today is…have you treated those you run across with respect and kindness? What could you/could we all for that matter do to treat others more kindly? How could our respect and love improve the world in which we live? How do your share what you do with others so they can improve themselves? Share your thoughts here and we can build a better world for our children and future generations.
Photo credit: Clover_1
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.
