What's the Message?

So here we are at the USA’s midterm elections, those between the national elections of presidents. The fever gripping American citizens over these political elections is altogether fascinating and exhausting. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Tea Partiers, Moderates, Activists…all are trying to capture the imagination of the electorate through popular issues. And due to the news cycles and marketing air time available, these messages are reduced to sound bites—reportedly just as we Americans like them. But what is the message?


I, for one, am having difficulty finding it, or recognizing it. Like others I can certainly see the various positions, e.g. government bigger or smaller, tax the rich or renew the tax breaks, universal health or not, pro-life/pro-choice, etc. But these are just issues and not a message that rings across the land or even overseas.

Who are we…what do we stand for?

I also hear and see a lot of the ‘what’ but not much of the ‘how.’ Assuming I represent the majority of Americans, e.g. not extreme in my views, I would love to hear how we are going to grow the economy, retire the debt and deficit, enable sustained job creation, and generally provide for the well being of our people. For sure we are witnessing and involved to some degree in the sausage making of democracy—we may not like watching it being made but we surely enjoy partaking in the product.

We the voters are being bombarded by a lot of stuff as incumbents and newcomers all vie to become everything to everyone. In NASCAR—“to finish first, first you have to finish.” In political parlance—you have to get elected before you can do any good. But what is missing from the discourse is the big message…what’s it all about?

Most in the political arena believe they are sworn to represent their constituents and do well by them. But I believe a bigger message is missed and the American people as a body are unsatisfied without it. Polls continue to measure our anger, frustrations, and anxieties about our elected officials are disconnected from us on the important things and that they are more responsive to party politics than to us. That is NOT a good message.

Regardless of the outcomes of our midterm Congressional and local elections, the one thing that is likely to be a given is we are not going to see that much change no matter who is elected. Some argue it’s likely because most Americans are centrists and, therefore, most politicians will govern generally towards that body whatever their party affiliation. Others argue our system of government itself is inherently designed to be obstructionist and extremes are checked in the process. Still others argue the seniority system within the halls of the Congress mandate only one way to get things done—“you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” Some even argue it’s not the system, it’s who is drawn to politics in the first place, e.g. moths drawn to the flame, and are predictable how they act once near the centers of power.

All of this is true to some degree. But the one thing missing is the strategic message that should be guiding us instead of the actors.

In this arena, I confess I do not have the answer but I do have a strategic communications perspective. My view of this is that there should be a strategic vision of what this country should look like from our politicians.

Then a series of planned steps to get from where we are today to that vision where actions and words are matched along the way. Then, metrics (measures of effectiveness and their subordinate measures of performance) should be developed and utilized to report on how it is going to the public.

Like in football, a player can’t make substantial gains on the field unless he knows where he is at relative to the goal line, has a strategy to get there, makes a series of plays to execute advancement of the ball, can adjust to stiff opposition, and never gives up. Oh yeah, and we usually like it when there’s not excessive endzone celebration after a touchdown (subliminal message to some politicians).

So, what’s the message? 
What do we want our country to be? 
How do we want to fit into the international community? 
What are the most important principles in taking care of our people—all the people? 
Where do we want this nation to be in years hence?

I believe Americans want to know what the message is. If we do not know what we want the future to be, how are we ever going to attain it? We want to have a vision for our kids and grandchildren, not to just make their lives better than ours but to deliver to them a world as an inheritance they can build on for future generations. Maybe the message should be given to politicians—and replayed back—something like this…

Desired End State

• What we want our nation to be—a country that is always improving and leading the world in providing for life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. 
• A government that continuously provides security conditions to enable the people to attain these sovereign rights. 
• And a people dedicated to the rights of individuals while guarantying the benefits to all.

Strategic Vision

• How do we get there—that this state exists 10 years from now and forever more. 
• That those who govern are dedicated to the people over party loyalties and naturally want and work to accomplish through compromise. 
• That we become a nation that does what should be done instead of waiting until we are forced to do it.

A Plan

• Steps from today to the desired tomorrow—citizens must continue to build depth of knowledge and passion as we are beginning to see now and raise the level of feedback to our officials. 
• We need to get our neighbors involved through peer pressure in voting so the entirety of our citizenry votes. 
• We need to be heard instead of our politicians so they respond to our needs and wants instead of money and votes.

I don’t believe there should be bi-partisan agreement on major issues but struggle that always results in compromise—just as our founding fathers intended. I also don’t care about the nature of politics, I care that those who govern deliver accomplishments for the benefit of us. We also need to grow beyond appearing to be satisfied with casting our votes for the best of the worst available which, if modern history is indicative or predictive, is really the worst of the best.



Measurement

• How we learn where we are in the progress of attaining our future.
• We demand to be kept informed how the country is moving toward that goal through measurable effects with policies, laws, reports, and the press. 
• We need to know just as business leaders in minding their companies do, where the country is, is it on track in meeting goals, and what are the obstacles to be dealt with.

Adapt and Overcome

• We take responsibility for our happiness and not allow ourselves to be beholden to others for it.
• As I head to the poll to pull the lever underwhelmed as to what I see, I am hearing a lot of stuff from politicians. 
• But I am not hearing the message and I want to hear it from them. 

This is what I will be calling for as we head from this exercise in democracy into 2012...

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

                                                             — John Adams

How to Negotiate with the Media

The recent furor surrounding the Rolling Stone magazine profile of the Afghanistan war U.S. military commander and subsequent change of leaders by the President is instructive on many levels. However, this post is not about the merits of whether the interview should have been granted, or whether it was a good reason for leadership change, or even if the article exposed valid concerns regarding the war. This post is about the imperative for anyone to negotiate the terms and limits of an interview with the media prior to granting it.

Believe me, I speak from experience, if you give an interview that is not previously negotiated for terms or limits you will NOT be in control—the reporter will—and you may be very unhappy with its outcome.

To be clear, this is also not advice about giving a media availability or press conference but participating in an interview that is usually one-on-one though many of the steps can be germane.

Below is my simple 5 Step Process for How to Negotiate with the Media:


Step #1 – You may have friends who are reporters but a reporter interviewing you is not your friend.

Reporters have jobs to do and are often assigned by editors or producers to stories, sometimes ones they would prefer not to do. Reporters have specific things they are expected to get including information and/or imagery and they are under tight timelines, especially television and radio reporters. They do not have time to waste; they have to get their story, have them edited and approved, and make deadlines.

Reporters are most often pleasant people, even friendly, because they know in dealing with people, defenses will be up when they call and they need your help. But they are not your friends regardless of how they come across to you. They must get their story and you may or may not be part of that or the subject of it—in any case, you are a means to an end for them.

Whether acknowledged or not, every interview is taken with an agenda by the reporter. Sometimes it is “to get at the truth” or “find out the other side [of an issue]” and sometimes it is even nefarious. But it is never open ended or objective because human beings by nature want closure and are subjective. Any individual, company or organization must believe this before giving an interview.

This is not to say that if one does not submit to an interview everything will work out fine or the story will be dropped. The issue is how important to the story is YOUR input. You need to find this out.

There is a common misperception that reporters will not negotiate any kind of terms or limits on anything regarding their interviews. I have heard responsible people relate “they are going to write what they want anyway so why should I get caught up in it.” This is a mistake because while true for some reporters, most professionals will negotiate with you as it is important for them in getting the story and negotiating makes it easier for you both. The ones that will not negotiate do not get interviews with me. Most of the time it will be important for you to contribute to the story by granting an interview but do not believe the reporter is your friend during this process regardless of how pleasant he or she is.


Step #2 – You need to know what the story is going to be about and what your role in it is expected to be.

While reporters will rarely, if ever, give you their questions in advance they will almost always tell you what they are working on. You need to know this because you do not want to be part of any story that is not something you are intimately familiar with or work around. “Stay in your lane” is what all bosses want, as should you.

Going on the record about something out of your lane is courting disaster including potential of dismissal or lawsuit. Therefore, you must find out what the story is about and what the reporter wants from you. The only way to do this is to find out in advance of agreeing to grant the interview.

Step #3 – You must dictate the terms and limits of the interview.

If you do not state up front what you will and will not talk about or allow — e.g. define the limits — then the reporter is free to do so. I believe this was the case in the Rolling Stone interview. This is not the reporter’s fault or devious ploy, it is a business rule.

And, you must dictate the time limit or else it could go on for days as it did for General McChrystal and his aides with this reporter on board a bus. You should always allow only a short time for an interview if only for the reason to keep yourself from going on.

Get to your points as fast as you can in as few words as possible once being interviewed. But set the limits in advance.


Step #4 – Always assume you are being recorded even when negotiating.

I was told early that if I can see a camera it can see me. If ever you see a pen and pad, a camera, microphone, recorder, or you are on the telephone, irrespective of what anyone says, you must assume that you are being recorded.

There are plenty of “off camera” gaffs on YouTube which attest to that. The little red lights on the front of cameras do not mean a thing to you; they can be turned off while the camera rolls. Even if the camera is not on you it will still pick up your voice. And though you must give your permission or be warned for a phone conversation to be recorded that does not mean it still will not be when you are called. Reporters need accurate notes and small digital pocket size recorders are just too convenient to do without.


Step #5 – Always treat reporters with respect.

Being a “tough guy” with a reporter or trying to put one in his or her place may feel emotionally satisfying at the time but usually backfires. How do you like being talked down to in any environment or situation?

Reporters are people too and have an important role in our society—getting us information—whether we appreciate it or not. So, if not acknowledging this, treating every reporter with respect at least puts you on the best possible footing for a better outcome than acting otherwise. Reporters certainly know how to treat you unfairly if they want to—do not give them an undue reason. Instead, think of what you want readers or viewers to think of your responses and not the reporter’s questions. If ever you do meet a particularly nasty reporter or one who is asking particularly nasty questions you can always, politely, end the interview. Always treat them with respect.

So, how does one negotiate with a reporter? Simple…just take or return their phone call and ask the questions noted above. Then assert what you will and will not talk about. Include what is off limits and put a time limit on the interview. It is a reality that reporters will inevitably ask what they want even if it violates the limits you put down. But it is also within your power to answer only what you agreed to beforehand or should. That keeps you in control and a good reporter will respect you for it. When you negotiate this in advance, neither of you will be surprised.

Sooner or later you will find yourself being asked to grant an interview. Most of the time it will not be for a ‘feel good’ piece. The reporter found you because of a lead, your position or known expertise, or awareness inside the story being developed for the news. You must decide whether to grant the interview or not but dismissing the opportunity without knowing the reason for the story could end up with a poor, or worse, story than if you had. When you find out what the story is in advance and what your part in it is, you are now empowered to make an informed decision.

So, your mindset should always be “maybe” but not before you negotiate with the reporter. This puts YOU in control and not the reporter.

There are a few more things to consider in negotiating with a reporter for an interview but these are the main ones, the most important 5 steps, from my experience. And, for the sake of simplicity, I like to do things that do not exceed the number of fingers on a hand.

*BOTTOM LINE:  Never agree to grant an interview with a reporter without negotiating the terms and limits of what you will do.