Reflections on "news" v "messages"
The news is overflowing with talk of racism, taxes, relief packages, Roe-v. Wade, Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court appointment, pandemic numbers treatments and vaccinations. Each of the topics has relative merit, and to some extent, each gets lost in the turbo-vacuum of power rhetoric, power perceptions, power traditions, power righteousness and power imbalance.
Entrenched power, for centuries, has been the bane of ordinary*
people, for the simple, obvious and undisputed reason that those in power
consider their power to be legitimate and as ‘permanent’ as possible, and their
persons as “legitimate” holders of that power. Whether that power is embedded
in a misguided perception that only those with theological training, for example,
can be permitted to read holy scripture, as was the case for centuries prior to
the printing press, or whether that power is embedded in body, brain and heart
cells that declare unequivocally, that white race is superior to all other
races, it is the power that is embedded in the dominant culture, that
essentially and effectively rules.
Entrenched power, the self-imposed, and too often
complicity and sometimes innocently and even naively endorsed and supported by
ordinary people right to rule, is not nearly as clearly defined as it once was
in a monarchy, or a papacy or a tyranny. Single person rule, while offensive
and worthy of evolution, if not revolution, to erode such power, nevertheless,
was so clearly visible, identifiable and also removeable, should adequate
force(s) be brought to bear. With a single stoke of a pen a ruler could dispatch an army,
a navy, and any number of explorers, traders, conquerors, and empire builders.
With a single stroke of a pen, a single ruler could also impose any one of
multiple forms of tax, loyalty, feudal harvest, military service and even a geographic
boundary.
In the pursuit of that maintenance of single ruler
power, the lives of both the holders of such offices as well as many opponents
of those specific office holders have been lost. Similarly, when the tolerance,
and submission of those governed by tyrants grew too thin to be sustained, any
of a number of forms of protest, conflict and even insurrection have erupted. One
theory of leadership, deeply embedded in the North American culture, through
the writing of Chester Barnard (mid-twentieth century), is that the “governor” can
maintain power and authority and responsibility only with and through the
consent of the governed, the people over whom s/he has responsibility.
Over time, however, that theory of consent, so lauded
by the evolving and increasingly penetrating tactics of persuasion, influence-peddling,
classical conditioning of rewards and sanctions for specific and required
compliance (or its opposition) has been impacted, and perhaps even dimmed like
a sepia photo, through the work of other theorists like Maslow, and Mihaly
Csikszent’s “Flow”, Dr. William Ouchi’s Theory Z, (loyalty through a job and
well being for life), to some of the more contemporary leadership/management theories,
including transformational leadership, leader-member exchange theory, Adaptive
Leadership, Strengths-based leadership, and more recently Servant leadership.
Transformational leadership is where a leader works
with teams to identify needed change and seeks commitment to bring about that
change. Leader-member exchange focuses on the two-way relationship between
leaders and followers that develops through three stages. Adaptive leadership
attempts to facilitate how organizations adapt to change effectively.
Strengths-based Organizational Management (OBOM) focuses on maximizing
efficiency, productivity and organizational success through development of ‘strengths’
like computer systems, tools and people.
Servant leadership, as its name implies, posits that the main goal of the
leader is to serve through listening, persuading, conceptualizing, applying
foresight and stewardship…examples include Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer
and Mother Theresa.
Regardless of the relevant and currently deployed
theory and model of leadership, underlying all modalities are some critical
pieces of rebar that hold the organizational foundation in place: results have
to be attained, costs have to be reduced, profits have to be increased. How the
equation is framed and executed, including the relative significance of the “people”
to the relative significance of the “leader” nevertheless determines the level
of trust, compliance, integrity, openness and even effective and efficient “productivity”
(however that variable is to be measured).
Power in every organization is interminably shifting,
as the wind ripples, or erupts lake waters, dependent on the velocity, endurance,
direction and the wind-breaks of that force. Unlike the formal study of physics,
however, the flow of energy as political/leadership power and influence seems
to be elusive and so far beyond the ken of algebraic equation. Whether or not this
power/leadership/influence is amenable and expressible in an algorithm perhaps
has been discovered in some high tech lab. Naturally, if and when this
power/leadership/influence is finally captured as a finite entity, there will
be a tidal wave of highly affluent ‘leaders’ seeking to acquire whatever means
is more likely to make the achievement of that “finiteness”.
However, what is even less amenable to a kind of algebraic
or alorgithmic definition, is the culture, the mind-set and the degree of compliance/defiance
of whatever power and leadership they might be experiencing. Demographics have
evolved almost to the power at which “knowing” about others by those seeking to
know rivals or exceeds the long-time small-town attribute in which everyone “knows”
everything about everyone else. Only, through digital technology, the personal
information, collected, curated, compared and then sold and disseminated, has
become a marketable commodity. Those whose business, political, cultural,
philanthropic, educational, and even ecclesial goals and objectives depend on targeting
limited resources toward increasing “revenue” (participation, votes,
enrolments, trust donations, sales) rely on this personal “so-called” private
information as the GPS for their organization’s growth.
Leadership, in some cases, has devolved to a point
where, for example, knowledge of and interpretation of something called “analytics”
is more important in assessing talent (especially in professional sports) that
the former attributes like character, personality, work-ethic, and those old
formerly reliable “bromides” of litmus tests for those in the hiring and selection
business. Nevertheless, in whatever organization, corporation or whatever,
there is a growing trend toward enhancing and even gildening of the ‘rose’ of
the single leader, that is most offensive.
Single leaders, provide clarity and simplicity in a world
seemingly gone nuts with the overflow of information and opinion, multiplied by
the armies of dispensers of information and opinion (websites, podcasts, blogs,
newsletters) to the point where opportunistic power-seekers, (themselves highly
needy of adulation and attention) have even administered a kind of political
thalidomide to the formerly trusted and reliable public news sources, defaming
them as ‘fake news’.
So, one of the first and foremost tasks of ordinary people,
is to be able to discern the difference between information demonstrated and verified
to be accurate and the layers of opinion that is embedded in the presentation
of every piece of information. And because this discernment is becoming
increasingly complex, given the subtlety and ubiquity of much of the flow of
paid advertising, marketing and political messaging, and unvarnished hard news.
Just recently, Susan Delacourt wrote in The Star, a
column that took note of the difference between “messages” and “news”. As a
long-time highly regarded columnist based currently in Ottawa, Ms Delacourt is
growing frustrated with the plethora of “messages” that are being churned out
as a method of ‘branding’ a political messenger. Is that messenger a “right” or
“left”-leaning public figure? Is the (likely) press release inevitably devoid
of hard information, and full of blathergab that reinforces the nudge the
author (and/or his/her publicist) seeks to put on the scales of public opinion.
Telling the people of a constituency the ‘brand’ the political operative knows
will resound favourably among the ‘locals’ is another way of gobbling up free
media coverage, given that many local media outlets themselves gobble up press
releases from Ottawa, in their relentless pursuit of their own readership, who
are themselves, ready and pliable consumers of the latest ‘gossip’ of the life
of their candidate. Feathering that local nest is also like a saving account of
public acceptance, anticipating a time (again almost inevitable) when the party
or the candidate him/herself will stub a toe and will need to draw on that
reserve account of public acceptance as an antidote to the bad news.
Some 40% of the American voting public in about to
cast a ballot for trump, in the upcoming presidential election. Many of them
are proudly attired in t-shirts blaring the epithet VOTE YOUR FEELINGS! This, to
remind others that, regardless of whatever the president utters, does, or does
not do, how one feels about him (as ordinary, a doer not a talker, a
judge-factory, an abortion warrior, a health-care destroyer, as plain-if-vulgar
speaker) matters much more than anything else. The obvious and indisputable facts
that that he lies, that he defames everyone including American allies, that he
fails to implement measures that would prevent thousands of unnecessary deaths,
hundreds of enchained children separated from their parents. The feelings of
those voters, apparently, take precedence over such glaring features of his
tenure including a denial of knowing David Duke, a denial of knowing the Proud
Boys (while ordering them to stand back and stand ready), the denial of empirical
science, even if it is continuing to evolve) while exhorting governors to open
schools and businesses, thereby threatening thousands of lives.
The “messaging” is an expression that comes from the corporate
world, a world so dominating, ever so subtly, that much of North America hardly
recognizes, and certainly would mostly deny the seduction we have permitted.
Even the churches and the universities now boast or complain, depending on
their relative affluence and attendance numbers, of needing to “serve” those in
their orbit, or to “gather” new recruits in order to maintain or to grow their
value. The public relations business is the heart and mind of the messaging
business. How to manage a crisis, especially, has taken on a whole vocabulary, a
methodology and a contractual relationship between the practitioners of the new
business and the organizational or individual resident of the crisis. Corporations,
and by default, individuals seeking to reclaim a public trust and reputation
turn to the professional “message-makers” whose task it is, for considerable
fees, to transform a public debacle into an easily forgiven or forgotten
mis-step into a ‘win’ another of those “measureable” turning points in the life
of an organization or an individual.
News, like the numbers of deaths and mental defects
that will remain with the children in Flint Michigan, for example, are so painful
and so tragic, that their capacity to continue to impact the life of the nation
has faded, partly through the deluge of other competing headlines, and partly
through the cultural tendency and proclivity to deny really painful
information. Similarly, the encased and separated children at the border is
another piece of news that has faded from public consciousness, in the tsunami
of emotive sludge pouring through the president’s twitter feed, and into the
Fox “news” channel.
There is an oxymoron, if I ever heard one, “The Fox
New Channel”….no longer a channel for the dissemination of news, it has become
the no longer alleged, but now openly agreed, official mouthpiece of the
occupant of the Oval Office. The capitulation of Fox to the Oval Office, rendering
Sean Hannity a literal subject to be channeled by the president, in pursuit of
re-election, has effectively elevated propaganda to the level of formerly diligently
researched, objectively confirmed, and articulately reported news. And once
propaganda is indistinguishable from news and reliable verifiable news, in the
minds of millions of voters, regardless of the reasons for that merging, the
healthy pulse and the energetic breathing of a democracy, in medical terms, has
to be considered in danger.
Whether that democracy can be judged to be ‘on life
support’ or merely ‘in a coma’ or perhaps ‘under the influence’ (of a seduction),
or even ‘infatuated like an adolescent’….the diagnosis seems irrelevant so long
as the lifestyle choices, habits, perceptions and attitudes of that forty percent
continue to be locked inside the cult.
Can the other sixty-odd percent provide the needed naloxone
(opioid antagonist) to render the American body politic recoverable from this
nightmare?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home