LeeAundra's CPS Blog

Obama and Emotion - The Need for Pathos
December 30, 2009 - 07:29 PDT

Aristotle is perhaps most famous for his "rhetorical appeals." In order to persuade effectively, you must have logos (logic), ethos (credibility) and pathos (EMOTION!). I've talked about each of these in my podcasts a few years back but recent events have put a new twist on this last element.

When I would introduce these concepts in seminars, especially in corporate settings, I would get a lot of pushback on pathos. Emotion? Isn't it supposed to be bad to express emotion in argument? Aren't you supposed to be completely rational - committed to sound, calm, logical reasoning?

Well, yes. Overt emotion can undercut the perception of credibility, especially in the Western world with its emphasis on rationale and objectivity. But, I would argue back, appeals to pride of craft, rivary with a competitor, loyalty to a company, etc. are all forms of emotional appeal that are used frequently in business. in fact, we couldn't be very good managers if we didn't use these types of persuasion. They are subtle forms of emotion but pathos nonetheless..

Lately, however, a much more obvious display of emotion is being called for in our President. Obama, always vulnerable to accusations of being too cerebral, is being chastised by the media (good example here) for not appearing emotional enough when talking about the economy and, most recently, the terrorist attempt to blow up a Northwest airplane on Christmas Day.

Because here's the rub. Even in our level-headed, fact-based culture that idolizes Captain Spock, we still need to see that our leader cares about what he's talking about - that he has passion and most important, concern for the state of the world and the condition of Americans who are struggling with economic hardship and geo-political threats.

That's why his predecessor, Bill Clinton, was so successful. "I feel your pain" was highly mockable but also stunningly effective.

Without pathos, Obama, and we, if we fail to learn from this "teachable moment" will never be able to truly connect with our audience - the core of communication.

What Tiger's apology should've been...
December 04, 2009 - 05:49 PDT

Tiger needs help. Forced by pretty damning evidence that he strayed with not one, not two but THREE women, he issued an apology on his website. But the frenzy has not abated. Why?

Primarily, it's because he's one of the biggest stars in the world and has been treated like a god for years. We mere mortals like nothing more than to see our idols fall - it makes us feel better.

But I can't help feeling that some of the media would've heeded his calls for privacy if his apology had been better crafted.

His statement was less of an act of contrition and more of a treatise on his right to privacy. Yes, there is a basic human right to privacy but let's face it, he's been enjoying the privledges of celebrity and deification for years. It seems awfully like he's trying to have it both ways by saying he now deserves to be treated like the rest of us anonymous slobs.

However, what is unarguably true is that the intense media scrutiny has not only hurt him but innocent parties as well, namely his wife and chidren. They DO have a right to privacy and he should've called for it to protect them, not him

Second, he never took full responsibiity for his actions. This is an essential piece of the rhetorical art of "apologia." It's essential to admit the wrong but then you must own up to it and not try to excuse it or change the subject with a treatise on the principle of privacy.

Here is my edit of his apology:

I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I take full responsibility for my actions and for the pain these mistakes and the subsequent media scrutiny have caused my family.

Now I must work harder than I have ever worked to restore my family's trust in me and respectfully ask for some measure of privacy, without which it will be very difficult for my family to heal. For the last week, my wife and children has been hounded by tabloid media intent on exposing the most intimate details of our personal lives. The stories in particular that physical violence played any role in the car accident were utterly false and malicious. Elin has always done more to support our family and shown more grace than anyone could possibly expect.

I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of you who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology.

Celebrate season 3 of "Mad Men" with this FANTASTIC Speech!
August 12, 2009 - 10:11 PDT

I am counting the days until the season 3 premiere of my favorite TV show, "Mad Men." To celebrate this joyous occasion, I'd like to call attention to one of my favorite speeches which happens to be from the season 1 finale of this amazing show. It is a spoken essay on the power of emotion that also by its very example, gives us a masterful illustration of how to use this powerful rhetorical weapon.

The background: Ad man Don Draper is pitching Kodak for a campaign that highlights their latest technological innovation, a wheel for a slide projector.

The clip is only about 3.5 minutes long and well worth your time as is the entire series!

BTW: This is great example of a speech in which visuals are absolutely appropriate!

Don Draper Pitches Kodak

Words Do Matter!
August 3, 2009 - 11:31 PDT

This little cartoon says what I've been trying to say for years now in a simple and adorable manner.

The ending is a bit too sweeping. Delivery does matter because we can send mixed messages unintentionally with some vocal habit or non-verbal tic but the overall message is fantastic!

Hat tip to Thomas Lee - Arceil Leadership

BBC's "The Speaker"
July 28, 2009 - 12:42 PDT

So I'm a bit behnd the times but it did happen way across the pond in the U.K. so I'm cutting myself some slack.

Turns out, last April, BBC aired a reality show called "The Speaker" in which they scoured the country for young, talented orators and took them through their paces in front of distinguished judges. The show is over but the website lives on. And there's some really interesting stuff there. You can see videos of the final speeches along with segments from experts giving tips on speaking...

Check it out! The Speaker

Acronyms in the Military
June 18, 2009 - 11:03 PDT

I have never been a fan of acronyms in communication. Sure, they are efficient but more often than not, most of your audience doesn't know what you're talking about. Even clients who assured me their audience knew "this one - it's standard in our company" were suprised to learn that one or two people didn't and were too afraid to ask. General rule: Don't use acroynms!

But I have completely given up the fight when it comes to the military. The sheer saturation of acronyms in their daily discourse is mind boggling and actually, highly admirable in a perverse sort of way. Here's a hugely entertaining story about this subject from PRI's The World. It's only 3 minutes long and you'll laugh, I promise. My favorite, which I will be using on a regular basis, is "ROOMA" - you'll have to listen to find out what it means!

Acronyms in the Military

Obama's Speech in Cairo - How Did He Do? What Can We Learn?
June 5, 2009 - 08:04 PDT

Surprise, surprise. People who like Obama thought his speech on American/Middle Eastern relations given at Cairo University in Egypt was terrific! His detractors rolled their eyes and said "Ho-hum. More of the same."

I liked it. But then again I am a fan, especially of his speeches. However, I think all of us, regardless of our opinion of Obama in general, can learn from one element of the speech that was particularly good. Obama knew his audience and tailored the speech to demonstrate this knowedge, empathy and respect for the people of the Middle East and Islam worldwide.

It began with his introduction which I thought was perfect: he began with a simple, eloquent tribute to his host city, ("the timeless city of Cairo" - beautiful!) and capped it off with the traditional Arabic greeting, "Assalamu Alaikum" - "May peace be upon you." Anytime a US President even attempts to speak something in the language of his host country, it's a crowd pleaser - JFK's "Ich bich ein Berliner", etc. In fact his speech was peppered with Arabic terms that effectivly conveyed the impression Obama knew something about the language, culture and religion of the Middle East.

Another line that was truly brilliant in this respect: "So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." Most writers would have said "where it was first born." But Obama knew that a critical tenet of Islam is that the the holy book of Islam, the Koran, was "revealed" to Muhummad. It was not "given" or "dictated" or "discovered by" - it was revealed. Obama used this subtle distinction to give his speech even more credibiilty.

The third tactic he used to to relate to his audience was quoting from the Koran extensively. This not only demonstrated his familiarity with the book revered by the majority of his audience, it also strengthened his arguments by supporting them with a source that is unassailable in the eyes of Muslims.

Many Middle Easterners are still skeptical but I'll wager that Obama's words cracked the door open just a bit!

Question: This display of knowledge and understanding of Islam will doubtless fan the fires those that believe Obama is a Muslim. Will this stick? Stay tuned...

For more on the Middle Eastern response: The Arab World Reacts

Frank Luntz: Upholsterer
May 24, 2009

Deborah Soloman does a cute interview every week in the New York Times Sunday Magazine. I say "cute" because she interviews serious personages but manages to get something cute out of them that you wouldn't find in a normal inteview. It is rarely earth shattering or even news breaking but it is usually... cute. Today's interview with Republican communications giant Frank Luntz offers the usual tidbit along with some great stuff on how he uses words to influence American opinion:

Link: Deborah Soloman Interviews Frank Luntz

If you want to read more of his insights, check out his book "Words that Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear"

Hat tip to Vanessa S. for reminding me of this book!

Shirtless Obama is culmination of the "Vulnerable Presidency"
May 15, 2009 - 09:00 PDT

The May issue of the Washingtonian feaures some unlikely cheesecake on the cover. President Obama appears front and (off) center wearing bathing trunks and little else.

Many Americans are shocked. Europeans are delighted. I was somewhere in between. The admiration I felt for his great abs was tinged with a slight feeling of unease. Is this really how we want to see our President? Is this what we've come to? Has Obama broken another media barrier (the first major one being his appearance on The Jay Leno Show)? And is this a good thing?

But then it hit me. This picture is just the culmination of a process begun more than forty years ago when, in front of photographers, Lyndon B. Johnson raised his shirt to show off the scar from his recent gallbladder operation. This moment is what many presidential scholars say was the beginning of "The Vulnerable Presidency" - the point in time where the deference and respect with which the press treated the office of the Presidency and the President himself began to change in a very fundamental way.

The upside? The press has the confidence to scrutinize the president and unearth some stuff we the people should know, Watergate, Monica, torture.

The downside? The President is now just a man and his ability to inspire, lead by example, his bully pulpit has been compromised. Maybe it's a wash. But in any case, it is a startingly different world.

How Language is used to Manipulate YOU!
May 3, 2009 - 06:48 PDT

Throughout my career, I've not only wanted to teach people the simple skills needed to communcate effectively, I have also been passionately committed to educating others about the tremendous power of language. Orwell's "1984" had a tremendous impact on me when I first read it in high school. I thnk I can safely say we are living a part of it now and in fact have been since way back before the 80's.

I've posted a few bits here on the power of words and how they elicit reactions in us. Now, the New York Times provides us with a powerful illustration of how the enviromental movement deliberately uses language to manipulate public opinion.

I hesitate to call attention to the article because I am a proud, dyed in the wool "green, green lima bean" (as G.W. Bush once referred to enviromentalists) and don't want to do anything that might discredit the movement but the essential dynamic is so clearly pictured here, I can't ignore it.

Link: Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus

I Want to Know What You’re Having for Dinner – Why Trivial, Banal, Stupid Tweets are Good
April 29, 2009 - 09:14 PDT

Every week or so, I read a tweet that bemoans the trivial nature of other tweets. Usually, it implores Twitterers to stop telling us what they had for dinner and instead share important, profound, useful musings on life and the world around us.

But the simple fact is I like knowing what my friends and colleagues are doing. And the more I think about it, “real world” conversations aren’t all discussions about weighty matters. Most of our daily interaction with people consists of casual chit chat – what we did last night, what movies we watched, and yes, what we had for dinner. Twitter simply mimics that exchange (in 140 characters or less.)

And why is this a good thing? We build relationships by learning about a person on a very personal level. Even the most mundane details give us valuable clues to the make up of that person and help us decide if we like them, do we want them as a friend. In fact, those personal, often trivial, details are often the most compelling elements in our selection process.

This is a crucial element of persuasion and influence. To have credibility you must have expertise AND a relationship with whoever you want to influence. To put it bluntly, most of us, most of the time, have to like someone on a personal level if we are going to listen to them. Seemingly trivial tweets allow us to create relationships with others, hence they allow us to ultimately influence.

At it’s most elemental, Twitter is base information transmittal. But in practice, Twitter is whatever you want it to be: a form of self expression, a useful marketing tool, the ultimate editing challenge. What is most interesting especially to communication fans is that at the core of all of these things, Twitter is about connecting people. In an increasingly fragmented society, these are the tools that are helping us maintain a sense of community. This is not to be sniffed at.

That’s why I want to know what you’re having for dinner. You can tell me @leeaundra

The Rhetorical Lessons of Swine Flu - More "Word Power"
April 28, 2009 - 04:37 PDT

Yes, I am such a rhetorical geek, I can find communications lessons even in a potential pandemic.

We may not know how to stop the virus, but we sure know what to do with the name - get rid of it!

Apparently, the American Pork Producers are lobbying to change the name so people will not associate the virus with their product. Sound silly? Maybe not. Thailand, China, Ecuador and several Balkan states have already banned imports of pork products from the U.S. and Mexico even though top health officials have asured us there is no way to catch the disease from eating pork.

Meanwhile, in Israel, health officials want to change the name to Mexican Flu because they don't want to offend the religious sensibilities of Jews and Muslims who are not allowed to eat pork products.

This is another illustration of the power of words and how they can affect behavior. Don't let anyone tell you that only sticks and stones break bones. Words can hurt too.

Obama's First 100 Days - Media analysis by GWU
April 27, 2009 - 08:58 PDT

As much as I'd like to sit in bed, eat bon bons and watch TV all day, I can't. So I leave that task to the extremely wise folks at the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Washigton University in D.C.

What they found in their latest study of the press coverage of Obama during his first "100 Days" is not really surprising but it is interesting.The full text of the press release is printed below. Here are the highlights:

Obama garnered more press attention and more positive coverage in his first 100 days then either Bill Clinton and George W. Bush
The New York Times likes him the most - Fox news, the least
He personally gets more positive coverage than do his policies
Domestic issues like health care and stem cell research attract the best coverage. Foreign policies are the most negatively covered.

MEDIA BOOST OBAMA, BASH HIS POLICIES

Study Finds President Fares Best in New York Times, Worst on Fox News

Attracts More Early Coverage Than G.W. Bush and Bill Clinton Combined

The media have given President Obama more coverage than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton combined and more positive coverage than either received at this point in their presidencies, according to a new study by researchers at George Mason and Chapman Universities. But the study also finds that Mr. Obama’s positive media image hasn’t precluded heavy criticism of his policies.

This research was conducted jointly by researchers at George Mason University in Fairfax VA and Chapman University in Orange CA, and coordinated by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). It covers all news about Barack Obama’s presidency that appeared on the ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox evening newscasts (the first half hour of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report”) as well as front page stories in the New York Times, during the first 50 days of his term in office (January 20 through March 10). We examined all evaluations made by reporters and non-partisan sources, i.e., those not affiliated with either political party. For additional information on our methodology see http://cmpa.com/about_methods.htm

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama’s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama’s.

The networks varied in their attention to the Obama administration. CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush’s presidency.

In addition, the first half hour of Fox News “Special Report” (which most closely resembles the broadcast network newscasts) devoted 10 hours 24 minutes to the Obama administration, nearly as much airtime as CBS gave him. And the New York Times devoted 115 front-page stories running 3385 column inches, the equivalent of over 28 full pages of text, to the Obama presidency.

Mr. Obama has received not only more press but also better press than his immediate predecessors. On the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news, fifty-eight percent of all evaluations of the president and his policies have been favorable, and 42 percent were unfavorable. CMPA’s previous studies of network news found that George W. Bush received only 33 percent positive evaluations by sources and reporters during the first 50 days of his administration in 2001, and Bill Clinton received only 44 percent positive evaluations during his first ten weeks (70 days) in office in 1993. (As noted above, these figures are based on judgments by reporters and sources not affiliated with either political party.)

The three networks have evaluated Mr. Obama very similarly – 57% positive comments on ABC, 58% positive on CBS, and 61% positive on NBC. But he fared far better in New York Times stories, where nearly three out of four evaluative comments (73%) by sources and reporters were favorable. And he fared far worse on Fox News, where only one out of eight such comments (13%) were favorable. Examples:

Positive Example: “I was blown away by President Obama’s grasp of the subject. How he connected the dots. How he answered the questions without any script.” -- George Stephanopoulos, ABC, March 5

Positive Example: “President Obama has done more in one week to reduce oil dependence and global warming than George Bush did in eight years.” -- Environmentalist, New York Times, Jan. 26

Negative Example: “The [employment] numbers the Obama administration is throwing around are absolutely inaccurate… a gross exaggeration.” -- Economist, Fox, Feb. 20

While Mr. Obama’s personal qualities and leadership abilities have drawn mostly praise from the mainstream media, his policies have not fared so well. On the broadcast networks fewer than two out of five evaluative soundbites (39%) praised his policies and proposals. ABC’s policy coverage was relatively balanced (48% positive), while source and reporter comments ran over two to one negative at both CBS (32% positive) and NBC (31% positive).

TV news coverage of the president’s economic policies, which focused mainly on the economic stimulus and the various proposed and enacted industry bailouts, garnered support from only 37% of evaluative soundbites. He fared better on domestic issues other than the economy, where praise for his health care proposals and new stem cell research policy brought balanced coverage overall (50% positive). But only one out of four comments (24%) praised his foreign policy decisions, including the war on terror.

Negative Example: “The Obama administration is paying too much money to the wrong people.” – Economist, CBS, March 20

The New York Times policy coverage, while less positive than its personal coverage of Mr. Obama, was about evenly divided between praise and criticism (48% positive). Although similar to the broadcast networks in its treatment of economic policy (40% positive), the Times portrayed other domestic policy areas relatively favorably (60% positive), and its 39% positive coverage of foreign policy domains was still more favorable than the networks’ 24% positive coverage.

Positive Example: Mr. Obama’s actions “reaffirmed American values and are a ray of light after eight long, dark years.” – ACLU executive, New York Times, Jan. 22

By contrast, Fox News coverage was even more negative toward Mr. Obama’s policies than the Times was positive. Only one out of twelve evaluative soundbites (8%) praised any of the president’s policies, including six percent positive judgments on the economic matters, seven percent on other domestic issues, and 17% on foreign affairs.

Negative Example: “It’s easy to spend someone else’s money…. It’s not only irresponsible, it’s unethical.” President, Peterson Foundation, Fox, February 20

Across all outlets, the ten most frequently debated issues were: 1. Economic stimulus -- 287 stories; 2. Industry bailouts – 114 stories; 3. Budget/deficit – 74 stories; 4. Terrorism -- 64 stories; 5. Healthcare – 61 stories; 6. Taxes – 45 stories; 7. Economic conditions – 38 stories; 8. Afghanistan – 31 stories; 9. Defense – 16 stories; 10. Iraq – 12 stories.

CMPA is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization which is affiliated with George Mason University. It has monitored every presidential election since 1988 using the same methodology, in which trained coders tally mentions of candidates and issues and evaluations of candidates. For CMPA findings on the 2008 elections: http://cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election08.htm

Overused Words
April 21, 2009 - 13:03 PDT

Philip B. Corbet, a deputy editor and keeper of the The New York Times Style Manual, has collected a set of overused words. Very illuminating and a good guide for all communicators. Here's an excerpt:

"Icon/Iconic: Times editors have waged a long battle of attrition against the trite overuse of these terms. We’re losing.

Hardscrabble: This description is overdone, along with its cousin “gritty.”

Schadenfreude: I lamented its explosion of popularity in a previous post. Foreign terms wear out quickly because they draw extra attention to each use.

Arguably: A sneaky way to say something without having to take full responsibility for it.

Famously: If it’s so famous, do we have to say so?

Storied: Ditto.

Jump-start: Colloquial. Often “start,” “restart” or “revive” would serve.

[Blank]gate: Troopergate was the latest. Yes, it’s overdone.

Preternaturally: It is surprising how often this appears.

Toxic: As in “toxic assets.” This has indeed become ubiquitous, but I’m not sure that’s our fault; it really has become the standard term to describe the troubled investments at the heart of the fiscal crisis.

Go Missing: Many readers have expressed strong aversion to this expression, but I’m not really sure why. It seems to be a Britishism originally, but has become common. Yes, “disappear” can also serve, but “go missing” seems unobjectionable to me."

You can read more from Philip B. Corbett here at After Deadlline.

The Handshake, the Bow
April 20, 2009 - 11:24 PDT

On Obama's recent travels, he bowed to Saudi King Abdullah. Later he shook hands with Venezeulan President Hugo Chavez. These are standard protocols of greeting in these countries so why the big deal? Why is the press obsessing on these gestures? Because Obama is the President of the United States and everything he does is under a magnifying glass, right? Well, that's partially right. The President's actions are highly significant but the hoopla also illuminates something very valuable for mere citizens like you and me.

Non-verbal cues are perhaps the most influential element of all communication. I am so in love with content that it pains me to admit this, but when push comes to shove, people will listen to what body langauge tells them over what the content of the conversation is. This is evidenced by the fact that very few of the pieces of Obama's actions in these two instances included any reportage of what he actually said.

What did the handshake and the bow actually mean? Body language is incredibly complex and I am still pondering the implications of what was perceived in those actions, but for now, I can easily say, your actions speak louder than words and deserve the same care and thought. When preparing high stakes communication, don't forget to look at what you are doing, not just what you are saying!

What do Clarence Thomas and I have in common?
April 17, 2009 - 07:13 PDT

United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a very polarizing figure in spite of the fact he is a bit of an enigma. And I admit, I have sometimes fallen prey to the urge to criticize a man about whom I know very little. That's why I was fascinated by a piece in the New York Times last week about one of his rare public appearances off the bench. You can read the piece here but what I wanted to highlight in today's blog entry was a surprising bit of insight. Clarence Tomas and I have something very profound in common! We both love reading great speeches and in fact, he and I share a favorite - General Douglas MacArthur's Farewell Speech to West Point Cadets given in 1962.

It is a beautiful example of speechmaking for the modern era and one that is well worth reading and emulating. It is supremely eloquent without being grandiloquent, brief but filled with meaning and substance, and it contains messages that are important to hear again even if we have heard them before.

I think you will enjoy it too:

Link: Douglas MacArthurs Farewell Address To West Point

Thinking of pirates and the power of words
April 12 , 2009 - 07:58 PDT

I've been fascinated with what's been unfolding off the coast of Somalia. The stand-off between the United States Navy and Somali pirates holding an American hostage is certainy compelling drama in and of itself but I'm wondering if language isn't playing a role as well. The word "pirate", thanks to Blue Beard, Errol Flynn, and Jack Sparrow, has a certain evocative power that shouldn't be underestimated. We have always been fascinated with pirates and even ascribe a certain amount of (seriously misplaced) romanticism to their exploits. I posit that we are more compelled to read a story on "pirates" than we would be if the copy simply read, "Somalis Ransoming Ships."

Can a simple word be powerful enough to drive a story in the media? My hypothesis (alas, unproveable) is that words and their ability to inspire feelings in the public do in fact create stories that are more widely followed because of that language.

An example that supports this point is the controversy over arsenic during the first term of George W. Bush. Shortly after he was inaugurated, the EPA issued new guidelines that would allow incrementally more arsenic in the nation's water supply. The story went instantly viral. Everybody covered it and it was front page material in many outlets. Why? Again, it is an important story but how much attention would it have garnered if the element has been say, "ricin", or "shigella" or "tetradotoxin"? All of these elements are found in many things we eat and drink and are far more toxic than arsenic. However, they do not have the same poetic resonance as arsenic. If the headline said "EPA Ups Limits for Ricin in the Water" - would we have been grabbed as quickly and completely as a headline with "arsenic" in it? I certainly wouldn't have.

Back from Washington DC and reminded of great speeches!
April 1 , 2009 - 10:18 PDT

No April Fool's joke here - Just honest admiration for Honest Abe!

The one stop I always make when I'm in DC is the Lincoln Memorial to read the text of his second inaurgural address which is carved into the walls.

Considered by most scholars to be the best speech in American history - it is also a beautful example of simplicity and brevity. Lasting only about 7 minutes, it is well worth reading or listening to. Here's one interpretation by actor Jim Getty:

Link: Lincoln's Second Inaugural

More on Lincoln's Second Inaugural in this terrific and (short!) book:

Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural

The Economist Style Guide - Unnecessary Words
March 24, 2009 - 07:10 PDT

"The Economist" is my favorite news magazine. It has comprehensive coverage of the world, a unique "outside of the US" perspective and it is beautifully written.

That last point is not inconsequential. To be a good communicator, you must have a firm grasp of language. The Economist exemplifies the three elements I most admire in excellent communicators. The writing is clear, vivid, and concise. The test of its excellence? You can read its articles aloud and they sound as good as they look. Often, written text sounds stiff when vocalized because we use much higher standards of grammar and more sophisticated words when we compose language for the page then when we speak.

The Economist manages to maintain impeccable standards of grammar and word choice without being stilted and overly formal. It is my gold standard for both oral and written communication - a rare feat.

If you are interested in learning from what I consider to be the best writing out there, you can access The Economist Style Guide - available for free on-line. For a taste of its wisdom, take a quick look at this segment on unnecessary words

Link: The Economist Style Guide - Unnecessary Words

Obama Gets Good Reviews for Leno Appearance - Barrier Broken Gracefully
March 20, 2009 - 12:04 PDT

I wasn't sure how the first appearance by a sitting president on a late night talk show would go over. It would either be a beautiful example of American democracy and egalitarianism whereby Obama demonstrated his mastery of new communication OR... a desperate attempt to grab attention that would certainly debase the Office of the Presidency.

Frankly, I was too much of a wimp to predict which of these outcomes was most likey and chose to wait and see. The day after, it seems we have our answer.

Obama's appearance was well received. Aside from a few bobbles, notably a tone deaf remark comparing his bowling abilities to those who particpate in the Special Olympics, he made the most of this new outlet. Here's the most thoughtful assessment I found on the web:

Link: Heeere's Barack!

ADDENDUM: Over the weekend, the blogosphere latched onto the Special Olympics remark and wouldn't let go compeling the mainstream media to focus on it meaning it became an issue. Such is the reality of new media.

Obama's New Year's Address to Iranians
March 20, 2009 - 10:59 PDT

Great little tidbit in today's NY Times on Obama's video outreach to Iranians:

Link: Obama, Peres and Colbert on the Persian New Year

Beautiful example of how to relate to your audience. Referencing a "revered Iranian poet" is a brilliant communications strategy because it accomplishes three things for Obama:

1. It shows his audience he cares enough about them to learn something about their culture

2. It shows the audience he is educated.

3. It calls up vivid, eloquent images that resonant deeply in the audience. Widely known quotations are hugely effective because they act as "shorthand" - with a few words, you can evoke powerful feelings that would otherwise take paragraphs.

###

More opinions, insights and excess verbiage...

» The Daily Beast, February 19, 2009 - "Oscar Speech Dos and Don'ts"