Duolingo CEO Luis von Ahn pointedly shared on LinkedIn what he usually communicates to new grads and hires for his company. This up-front information and guidance straight from the top is a smart approach and mutually beneficial.

For starters, von Ahn set a non-negotiable standard: “Don’t be a jerk.”

You would assume new hires would already be aware of it and take every precaution to not conduct themselves in such a manner or risk coming across that way. We know, of course, that assuming people are already properly wired and do what is wanted without directions can often lead to problems.

”No massive egos and no telling different people different things to get what you want,” von Ahn stated. “Duolingo has an allergic reaction to toxic behavior and our culture quickly identifies and rejects it.”

He just defined “toxic” for his company, what that leads to (individual and collective allergic reaction) and what the byproduct will be (not good!).

Whether that’s a zero-tolerance policy or accepted rare tolerance, the point is clear: get along with people for the benefit of the team and the mission. Of course, this has to be regularly enforced to be credible, trusted and become and remain commonplace professional conduct.

Secondly, von Ahn encourages his new hires to “build the solution” and he explained what he meant by that empowerment.

He told a quick story to illustrate his point, explain what he wants from people and to excite the go-getters.

“Early on, we didn’t have a company blog. Two engineers handled this differently:

”Engineer A: Spent months complaining to me. ‘We don’t have a blog! What are you going to do about it?’

”Engineer B: Came to me once and said, ‘I noticed we don’t have a blog, so I started one.’

”Engineer B did way better at Duolingo.”

You might be saying, “yeah, that will not fly in my organization. I’d get disciplined or fired. I’m not doing that.” And maybe you’d be correct.

Yet, von Ahn is saying that in his organization, he wants people to proactively and responsibly solve most of the deficiencies that they see.

In most organizations, asking permission is viewed as attractive, welcomed and superior to complaining. Of course, not all organizations and their leaders are this positively-oriented and at peace with that sort of initiative. That’s a fair rebuttal.

More organizations would benefit from the “Don’t be a jerk rule” and with a structured, agreed-upon approach, the “see problem: fix problem” responsiveness.

Credit: Thank you to David Murray’s top-notch Executive Communication Report email newsletter (highly recommended) for bringing my attention to this story.

Subscribe now

Share

by William S. Bike
Author of Winning Political Campaigns

Pundits and other media mavens are using terms such as “unprecedented” and “unbelievable” to describe the victory of Zohran Mamdani in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary. Not true.

We’ve seen this before, only not in New York. The Chicago mayoral election of 1983 was uncannily similar to that of New York City in 2025.

Both election cycles featured an embattled incumbent Democratic Party regular as Mayor: Jane Byrne in Chicago and Eric Adams in New York. While Byrne ran in the Democratic primary, Adams has opted to run as an independent in the general election.

Because the incumbent Democratic Mayor was unpopular, another party regular from a well-known political family decided that this was his opportunity to snatch the Democratic nomination.

In Chicago, that was Cook County State’s Attorney Richard M. Daley, the son of former longtime Mayor Richard J. Daley. In New York, that was former Governor Andrew Cuomo, son of former longtime governor Mario Cuomo.

In both cases, the family-and-party-connected candidate was expected to win and early polls backed up this perception.

They both racked up powerful mainstream endorsements, with former Vice President Walter Mondale and former U.S. Senator Adlai Stevenson endorsing Daley and politicians such as former President Bill Clinton and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsing Cuomo.

But in both races, there also was a left-wing progressive candidate on the ballot to whom both voters and the media gave little consideration early in the race: African American Congressman Harold Washington and Muslim Socialist and New York State Assemblyman, Zohran Mamdani.

There usually is a left-wing progressive in Chicago and New York Mayoral races, who ends up garnering few votes because he or she is a minister or community activist who means well but has no clue how to win an election.

Not so in the cases of Washington and Mamdani.

Seasoned politicians both, they knew how to win high-profile races and had done so before. They both understood how to build coalitions with constituencies other than their own: in Washington’s case, with Chicago’s white lakefront liberals and in Mamdani’s case with Jewish politicians and voters.

Most importantly, both understood that to win, they had to tap wells of citizens who do not normally vote.

In Washington’s case, he got the Black businesspeople who asked him to enter the race to run the “Come Alive October 5” campaign, an effort to get non-voters to register on Oct. 5, 1992, four months before the election.

This was both a highly public yet stealth campaign, as it was run in Black media such as the Chicago Defender to which the Democratic regulars paid little attention.

In Mamdani’s case, as the New York Times reported, “Mamdami drew tens of thousands of new voters to the polls with the help of an army of volunteers and small donors” — two groups to whom the Democratic regulars also paid little attention.

The closing days of each first-round campaign saw an 11^th-hour realization on the part of the regulars that the progressives to whom nobody was paying attention had the possibility of winning and in both cases their rhetoric became increasingly inflammatory, with fears of the possibility of a Black mayor in Chicago in 1983 and of a socialist Muslim Mayor in New York in 2025.

But in both cases, it was too late, with Washington and Mamdani scoring surprise upset victories.

Similarities Continue

As a leftist progressive winning a high-profile primary in a conservative Reaganite era, Washington became national news and suddenly was able to tap into progressive funding sources and to obtain endorsements from prominent liberals around the country. The same is happening with Mamdani.

The Republican candidate, often a non-factor, suddenly faced calls to drop out of the race. In Chicago in 1983, the Jane Byrne camp tried to get President Ronald Reagan to pressure former State Representative and Republican mayoral nominee Bernard Epton to withdraw in favor of Byrne. In New York in 2025, some are asking Republican Nominee Curtis Sliwa to step aside so Eric Adams can take his spot.

In Chicago, Byrne also toyed with the idea of running as an independent in the general election in 1983. Her 2025 New York counterpart, Cuomo, actually is doing so.

Between the primary and the general election in Chicago, the rhetoric became molten, with constant fear-mongering about what would happen to the city if a Black leftist candidate became mayor.

The rhetoric in New York is already becoming molten, with similar fear-mongering about what will happen to the city if a Muslim socialist candidate becomes mayor.

In 1983, Washington remained calm and focused on his plans for improving the city despite the fear-mongering and rhetoric, and was elected Mayor. Mamdani will have to follow the Washington blueprint if he hopes to do the same.

William S. Bike is the author of the book Winning Political Campaigns.

Publisher’s Note: The viewpoints expressed here are that of the writer’s and does not necessarily reflect that of Communication Intelligence.

Subscribe now

Share

There are times that companies seek qualities and skills in hiring that inspire the thought that they just might value more important value points. A Netflix call for a role in communications listed some unique desirable characteristics.

Let’s briefly look at the ones that most stand out.

“Apply critical thinking without making assumptions.”

A company actually mentioned critical thinking as a positive and desirable trait. It suggests it prefers its people bypass making assumptions in favor of smarter cognitive processing and I presume, poised curiosity.

“Courageous in asking questions when clarity is needed, showing curiosity and a willingness to learn.”

Netflix is saying, in print, that it wants people to assertively seek answers for clarity instead of remaining quiet and proceeding. It values curiosity for clarity (wise) from its people and for them to have a hunger to gain a clear understanding to do great work.

“Comfortable with taking and giving feedback, demonstrating solution-oriented thinking and emotional maturity.”

We all need to be able to accept feedback, if it’s constructive yet Netflix wants its new hire and all its team to be willing to give respectful feedback as well. You don’t see that every day being asked for an expected in a non-managerial position.

“Strong relationship builder, superior communication skills… “

This type of request is made in job descriptions, yet is not as plainly, clearly worded as it is done here. The company knows how valuable and necessary that strength of communications and relationship building is for collaboration, task accomplishment, meeting goals and driving the mission.

Netflix is showing that it values sound judgment, communication skills, competency with both and regular application of them. It’s the standard and the company is expressing the importance, need and its expectations clearly and concisely.

If Netflix is walking the walk once people are hired, as in the culture reflects its words in the above-mentioned job listing, then it is operating in a manner that most companies could benefit from learning from because they aren’t doing the same.

Subscribe now

Store

Communication Intelligence services

Advertise in any section of Communication Intelligence

Leave a comment

Our perceptions, especially if from afar, might be narrow minded as far as how people are or are not getting along and how well or not their relationship is going. We may not really understand the reality.

Decades ago, the Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant professional basketball work partnership was strained. It stressed the organization. Eventually there was a breakup.

The common narrative has been what if two historically great performers could have resolved their animosity and continued to be great together. As it was, their egos led to a failed relationship. Yet, was that a correct depiction of what transpired?

Virgil Villanueva recently wrote an article that paints the perception in a different light.

John Black, the Los Angeles Lakers vice president of public relations, reframed it in a way that he felt was more reflective of history.

"I've said this a million times to media guys: When it ended, it was portrayed as extremely disappointing and how could we let it happen that Shaq and Kobe couldn't work things out," he said via Bleacher Report.

Of course, that level of discomfort, anger and maybe, contempt should not be the norm yet organizations don’t always rid themselves of one or both star performers. They expect people to figure it out and work together at a high level, misery or not.

That’s what the Lakers did.

As Black astutely pointed out, O’Neal, Bryant and the franchise could have determined that they had irreconcilable differences and everyone was at a tipping point and point of no return. They didn’t though.

Through the emotional, psychological, relational conflict hardship, the “team” reached the pinnacle of the profession three times in the early 2000s.

That’s a successful organization. Maybe not on all levels, yet it’s achievement, despite how people felt or may have felt about one another and how the superiors didn’t like disputes taking place.

“I think it was pretty phenomenal that it did work out as long as it did,” Black said.

We learn not all relationships, professional or personal, are built to last forever.

What happens between the beginning and the end could be, in some instances and maybe after deeper reflection, judged as a net positive or possibly even, great.

People have to learn, as individuals and a team, regardless of the industry and workplace, how to find common ground that exceeds the negative energy and channel that intensity for productivity and good.

Sound leadership and unselfish people around the combatants may also significantly help overcome the costs of the personal grievances on the organizational mission.

Subscribe now

Share

This newsletter normally publishes Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, with occasional articles on other days. To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

• Writing Services, from Communication Intelligence: Learn more here.

• Communications Consulting, Advisory or Coaching services: Click here.

• Listening Calls, when you need someone to hear you communicate: Learn more.

• Advertise in the articles on Communication Intelligence: Learn more.

Journalists are like us: human and full of emotions, judgments and opinions, yet the expectation from much of the public is that media professionals will exhibit an elevated level of objectivity in reporting and yes, in social media posts. Not all journalists choose to willingly hold themselves to that kind of disciplined, ethical communication. They say what they want.

ABC reporter Terry Moran just did and it’s earned him a suspension by his employer.

"It's not brains. It's bile,” Moran said on X about White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller’s work. “Miller is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred. He's a world-class hater. You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.”

Set aside, for a moment if possible, whether what Moran said is accurate or not. The question is how can this type of communication by a journalist be interpreted as it relates to professionalism?

When Moran gave into his impulses, as we all can do, and put that commentary out on a social media platform for public consumption, he opened himself up to judgment, criticism, future distrust or scrutiny and professional risk.

Moran was unprofessional and unethical and didn’t have his employer’s permission to say whatever he wanted. In addition, he acted in a manner that gave off the impression that Moran thought, damn the blowback from a segment of government, media and the public.

Moran, reportedly, has a reputation for being too high on his intellect and analysis.

“Terry is a little pompous,” one source told the New York Post. “He would weigh in on things he had nothing to do with. He always wanted to voice his opinion.

The source said Moran going after Miller was “stupid.”

“Terry has always had a high opinion of his opinions.”

Miller didn’t let Moran’s comments go unaddressed. He came out reactively firing as expected, leaning into the narrative that has become all too common.

Moran fed the stereotype and made media’s job harder.

Of course, not all media is as Miller countered and Moran may not be fully on point about Miller. There is more nuance happening. Yes, there are those journalists who fail the test of objectivity and impartiality and yes, Miller can come across as very rough around the edges, angry and to some, hateful.

In this situation, Moran was selfish, arrogant and reckless. He gave into his emotional overload and his employer knew it had to do something about it that was going to be unpleasant for Moran. However, it was a golden opportunity to push back against the negative impression a part of the country has against “legacy” or “corporate” media.

ABC News relies on credibility, trust, reputation and consumer loyalty, so it did the correct thing as an organization, even if its views on the Trump administration and Miller may be more in alignment with what Moran stated.

It was also correct in suspending Moran for now, and it likely will be a relatively short time out, because it showed it was willing to do more than administer a slap on the wrist as an insincere, performative act.

A firing, it can be argued, may have been deserving yet that’s not would have created another firestorm for ABC News.

Notice how the news agency did not show defensiveness in its statement or side with Moran. That is a rarity in these times.

It instead made the intelligently ethical and strategic chess move if credibility, trust and a reputation for objectivity and impartiality matters.

Apparently, at least in this case, it does.

Subscribe now

Share

This newsletter normally publishes Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, with occasional articles on other days. To advertise, link to your business, sponsor an article or section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

Leave a comment

Most leaders and people likely know the importance of trust to connect effectively with other people yet let’s go further and use the word, “necessity.” That’s a more accurate word than importance.

Dr. Nia D. Thomas recently wrote about it at her smart Substack newsletter titled, Knowing Self-Aware Leadership.

Some illuminating points she made are ones worth diving a little deeper into today.

This is next-level social awareness because trust is fluid and that means, as the late Jack Welch said, its “creation” has to be “ceaseless.”

Maybe you too have heard that trust deposits in relationships are critically important in relationships, whether they are person or professional ones because, as we all know, we all make “withdrawals” in relationships.

A friend of mine, who passed away, once said something that I remember many years later, when talking about her marriage, she frustratedly mentioned that her spouse “was way overdrawn,” in their relationship as far as the insufficiency of his trust deposits. It was quite the vivid description of the state of trust, peace and happiness in their relationship.

The same goes, I contend, for leaders and their teams, organizations and their people.

Let’s touch on just some of what Thomas wrote about in her article. I will share what she explained and then provide some brief commentary in hopes of adding to the points.

Core Concepts

1. “If you want people to trust you, you have to be consistent. Acting one way in public and another behind closed doors will make people doubt you. People can smell inauthenticity a mile off.” This is extremely smart counsel. People respect honorable consistency and when we choose honesty and transparency.

2. “Nobody trusts a leader who falls apart under pressure and crumbles in a crisis. Managing your emotions and staying steady, especially in tough times, makes people feel safe around you.” Grace under fire. Emotional self regulation. Poise. Whatever you want to call it, people expect it of us if we want to be known as being strong and are expected to be such. I like what Thomas wrote, that strength, “makes people feel safe around you.”

3. “Every action counts. That’s why it’s important to do the right thing, even when no-one is watching. Integrity is everything.” Trust is not a singular entity. It’s made up of components: actions. Thomas wisely reminds us that “every” one “counts" because they make up the whole of trust. This includes when no one is watching, a lesson we will learn if we haven’t already discovered it.

4. “Leaders who own their mistakes and show humility gain more trust. Nobody expects perfection, but they do expect honesty.” Most everyone knows this, right? But does most everyone follow this knowledge? We know the answer. It’s hard to do for most of us, impossible in the minds of some people.

   I have long echoed what Thomas wrote, “Nobody expects perfection.” It’s not necessary to say or write, “I’m not perfect.” We know. We’ve long known. Neither are we. Honesty as an expectation, is in the human contract. That’s not always easy either. That’s what people want of us though.

5. “People need to feel comfortable speaking up, giving feedback, and making mistakes without fear of backlash. A culture of trust starts with leaders making that possible.” As humans, we’re emotional. Thus, it makes sense, that we need and want a certain level of comfort to communicate in a way that is mutually beneficial. With that “safety” big possibility exists. Without it, well… not good.

6. “People remember how you treat them. If you want to be seen as trustworthy, always keep your word, act with integrity and have your team’s back.” This requires social awareness, emotional regulation and empathy. Some people have developed these skills and habitually exercise them. Too many people, however, haven’t developed them and don’t apply them in interactions.

I don’t know if that says it all. I do assert it says so much that is beneficial and invaluable. Trust is fragile. It can take time and real effort, sweat equity, to build. It opens doors to success and opportunity or if you prefer, opportunity and success.

When trust is unknown, weak or poor, it keeps doors closed or results in them being shut on us, if not forever or long term, then at least temporarily.

“Lead with integrity, honor your commitments and create a culture of psychological safety,” Thomas wrote. “In the end, trust isn’t just what you say, it’s what you do.”

Simple yet not easy to do at all times, whether that’s because of our emotions, beliefs, habits or circumstances.

The payoff is powerfully attractive and helpful though in relationships, as human beings, including that of being a leader in our professions or personal lives.

Subscribe now

Pain can lead people to act destructively and self destructively yet it can also result in some people being strongly led to help others who have suffered.

Robert Johnson is one of them. Wrongfully convicted and unjustly punished for nearly 30 years, Johnson was released from prison recently and his comments are notable and attention worthy.

Johnson’s conviction was vacated, in large part to the committed assistance he received from The Exoneration Project.

"I am just thankful that we got in front of a judge that was honorable, that was fair and finally put an end to this nightmare," he said. "This hell on earth."

Many will gloss over the specifics of what Johnson communicated. We assume, falsely, that all judges are ethical and honorable. No profession is immune from corruption. We, as disaffected observers, don’t see and feel the “nightmare” and “hell on earth” that it is to be wrongfully punished on multiple levels.

So we largely or fully ignore or dismiss it.

Johnson was 16 years old when he was arrested. Think about it, if that happened to us or a loved one or a good friend.

Why didn’t he speak up?

"I tried,” Johnson said, repeating what so many other people who end up punished for what they objectively, factually, didn’t do. “I screamed, with nobody listening to me.”

Imagine that depth of pain and lasting, excruciating trauma. You’re telling the truth and people not only don’t want to give you the time the day, not only don’t trust what you’re saying, they rigidly, arrogantly disbelieve you.

Until someone goes through that experience, they cannot know how it affects the mind and rest of the body emotionally, psychologically and physically. It is undoubtedly a critical injury and PTSD.

We’re taught to ask for help — and that truth and good people —- especially those entrusted to do the right thing, will be there for us. That’s simply not an absolute.

Sometimes, it’s worse, it’s a lie.

Johnson, however, didn’t give in and give up.

"No matter how many 'no's' I got, I got one ‘yes’ and that's when things started changing," he said. He kept trying, regardless of the past failures and odds to the often-corrupt nature of society.

Now freed, Johnson isn’t just thinking about himself. He’s not forgotten others.

"I would really like to start making the world more conscious of, there are a lot of people in prison for things they did not do," Johnson said.

Hogwash, most of society will say, especially if they or people they love or otherwise cared about have been victimized. “They all say they’re innocent.” That’s true, most all of them do. There are liars in prison and outside of prison.

There are violent people who belong in prison and violent, with authority and power, people living well in society.

Yes, there are those who are incarcerated who did do what they’ve been convicted of doing and many of them should not ever be released. Then, there is the highly uncomfortable truth there exists prisoners (and people not incarcerated) who didn’t do what they were convicted of doing.

It’s also true that there are individuals and groups outside of prison who long ago deserved to be incarcerated, yet they are not even on the radar of the legal authorities or the general public.

Megan Richardson, a staff attorney at The Exoneration Project, talked about Johnson.

"I mean, Robert's case is really stunning, because it really starts to make you wonder, how did he ever get convicted?" she said. "The state's entire case against Robert at trial was the incentivized testimony of a young juvenile defendant, and that's frankly it."

Witnesses implicated a different person in murder, a person that is now deceased.

Johnson's family knows what was taken from him and them.

"He missed out on a lifetime of experiences that he can never regain again... he can never get that time back," Johnson's aunt, Cynthia Booker said.

The punishment hurt on a granular level in many ways.

"The air is so much different. In prison, it’s suffocating, oppressive. It's dehumanizing,” Johnson said. “It smells like misery and death. Out here, in the free world, it doesn’t smell that way.”

Communication Intelligence column

Share

Anthony Scaramucci learned about the meat grinder that politics and the people in Washington are and can be, so he recently passed that knowledge and insight along to what he considers is another outsider, Elon Musk.

While Musk won’t care, maybe he could choose to be humble (no-joke zone) and consider the advice.

Scaramucci was ever so briefly — 11 days on the job — Donald Trump’s White House communications director. His time in Washington, no argument here, was a blip in history.

He had been “an unconventional choice for the role, coming from Wall Street with no prior experience in political communications,” wrote Polina Pompliano in her feature interview with him at The Profile.

Scaramucci, when asked in an interview, communicated a well-intended warning to Musk. “Stick to business. You’ve done great. You’ve made a couple hundred billion dollars since the election,” he answered to CNN reporter Wolf Blitzer.

Musk is going in blind to Washington and he doesn’t know the lay of the land and where the hazards are, Scaramucci said, sounding ominous.

“He’s just got to be very, very careful because he’s making enemies that he doesn‘t realize,” Scaramucci said of Musk. “And the incentives in Washington are totally different than those in business. And so everybody is incentivized in a different and sometimes irrational way.”

Musk may or may not know this yet. Yes, he’s been attacked before, both understandably and not, but he has not been in the dark, deep depths of Washington power. He may recognize his “enemies” yet he may not realize from which direction and angle the retribution may come.

As Scaramucci aid, politics and business aren’t exactly the same and people in power are different in their self interest.

When they feel their self-claimed territory is in danger and boundaries are breached — or will be — the players, so to speak, can react in an “irrational way.” Anyone who has been on the sharp end of the sword of irrational behavior knows first hand the realness of this punitive, entitled behavior.

“Lay off the gas on politics a little bit,” he added, “because these people, these people could hurt you. And it’s no, no need for you to get hurt. You’re doing so well in your life.”

Musk is powerful in his own right and that makes him dangerous too yet the powerful and dangerous in business aren’t the same as the powerful and dangerous in government. He doesn’t yet realize it.

If you are considered a threat, as Musk is, who knows the dangers that could occur. Is this overstated? I’ll give you that yes, it is, possibly. It’s unwise however to assume the presence and reliability of safety when it might not be as assured as one believes.

It’s easy for people to mock or dismiss Scaramucci, for different reasons. What if, however, he’s correct in what he’s saying that if you’re not careful barging into Washington, there are people there who are capable, willing and eager to “hurt you.”

Territorial, entitled people, especially those with any type of power in the context of a dispute or conflict (real or perceived), have dirty secrets: They are repeat-offender punishers with, figuratively speaking, bodies buried of those who challenged them.

“The cynicism in Washington and the protection of people’s power base and turf is like nothing I had ever seen before,” Scaramucci told Pompliano in a brief video.

He has witnessed the business and financial landscape but Washington opened his eyes to a whole new world as to next-level fighting over power bases and turf. It appears that what he saw and heard alarmed him.

Musk has ambitions to do good and earn praise for it. He’s supremely confident, of course. He’s idealistic in a world where that’s often discouraged and rejected.

"I think the problem for Elon Musk though, he’s got a little bit of Potomac fever,” Scaramucci said. “You think you’re going to go to Washington and change Washington, that’s Potomac fever.

“One of the symptoms of Potomac fever is that who has it does not know that he has the Potomac fever. I have had Potomac fever. I am speaking as a former patient.”

Musk is passionate and bold about his idealism. Maybe his work will exceed beyond imagination. Maybe he doesn’t get hurt. That doesn’t mean the landmines don’t exist.

Musk is like a soldier excited to go into hostile, deadly territory to fight for what he thinks is right. He’s excited and courageous. He feels a rush and if he doesn’t feel invincible then he is driven by the allure of the danger. It’s exhilarating.

Maybe Musk doesn’t get physically injured or killed as in a battle and war yet that doesn’t mean nasty, unwanted and painful experiences and outcomes can’t possibly develop and hit him hard and where it hurts.

It’s possible that the risks are small, almost minute. It’s also possible that Scaramucci might know what he’s talking about. He didn’t and doesn’t have Musk-like power. Very few in the world do. That might not make a difference however.

Subscribe now

Share

This newsletter normally publishes Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday, with occasional articles on other days. To advertise, sponsor a section of the newsletter or discuss your affiliate marketing program, contact CI.

A lot of concern, disappointment and warnings have been communicated this past week by certain people regarding Meta’s decision to no longer utilize fact checkers.

Mark Zuckerberg stated that the company’s agreement with third-party fact-checkers had come to an end, explaining that "censorship" and "political bias” were a big part of the reason. Meta will now move to community notes, as is used on the platform X, to monitor what is being posted.

This has bothered or angered some people.

“… fact-checkers are pushing back, calling Zuckerberg’s move a transparent attempt to curry favor with the incoming Trump administration at the expense of truth,” reported Ali Veshli at MSNBC. “Critics argue that (community notes) can't keep up with the volume of misinformation.”

Some of the fact checkers expressed their displeasure in different ways.

“Aaron Sharockman of PolitiFact says that fact-checking isn’t about censorship, but about adding context to misleading content. … Chris Richmond, CEO of Snopes, questions the timing of Zuckerberg's decision, saying, ‘If Kamala Harris had won, would Zuckerberg be making these same moves now?’” Veshli reported.

There are more people disillusioned yet Sharockman and Richmond are a sample.

Meta’s decision inspired the article “What’s a Fact, Anyway” by Fergus McIntosh, the head research editor at The New Yorker. This Communication Intelligence column will address most of what McIntosh stated.

“Checkers are not infallible,” McIntosh wrote. “Every tribe has its myths, and journalists are no exception.”

This is an uncomfortable topic: Humans are flawed. They make mistakes and, even in objective-driven professions, show bias. That failing impacts trust. It’s cause and effect.

Societal standards demand more and it’s not happening in people’s minds.

What Sharockman and Richmond said are reasonable arguments. Many will agree too yet, many won’t. The media conviction that Zuckerberg is capitulating or ingratiating himself to the incoming president may well have merit and yet, it may be overstated.

The media issues regular strong statements. It doesn’t realize that it believes those conclusions more than the people to which it is supposed to be serving.

“Trust in many institutions has fallen over the years, but in journalism it has plummeted,” McIntosh wrote. He details how much, and the findings are striking.

“The numbers used to be highly favorable — in 1976, more than seventy per cent said they had a lot (of trust), and very few reported having ‘none’ — but in 2024, a plurality of respondents (thirty-six per cent) said that they had ‘none at all.’

“A survey of how highly Americans rated the ethics of various professions found that only a fifth believed journalists’ standards were ‘high’ or ‘very high.’ (That is a) better ranking than car salespeople and senators, but worse than bankers and chiropractors. (Almost half said that journalists’ standards were ‘low’ or ‘very low.’)”

Those numbers are way too large and a black mark. They are nowhere close to what they should be, as in the relationship trust between media and its’ consumers.

That 36 percent distrust the media and only 20 percent (that’s a failing grade) believe journalists have high standards, should be determined as disturbing and not, instead, rationalized.

“... it can seem, in both parties,” McIntosh wrote, “that many people turn to the news more for affirmation, than for information. What passes for truth often depends on where one falls on the political spectrum.”

He did say, in both parties. That doesn’t necessarily mean you, the reader, yet it could mean people that you know. This habit is not party exclusive. That makes trust hard on media to be taken seriously and it may not be entirely its own doing.

“Networks such as NBC and the BBC have launched units dedicated to fact-checking what other people say — as opposed to checking their own work,” McIntosh wrote.

I would presume that networks do check their own work — for facts, yet not bias. The latter seems to be deemed acceptable because of the self-assigned duty of moral arbiter and the trend of more reporters (nowhere near a majority) being allowed to build their outlet’s brand while working in hard news.

“Whether rooted in service or business strategy, this sort of ‘political fact checking, which spotlights specific claims and seeks to confirm or disprove them, is hardly neutral,” McIntosh wrote.

“Setting out to counter inaccuracies, it often takes the form of rebuttal, and necessarily entails editorial decisions about what to cover.”

Neutral is considered passe or abstract it seems. Some reporters have expressed this, just not in those words. This is not the way, or at least it should not be, as it will come across to a segment of consumers as unprofessional (and at times, defensive).

“Checkers are not infallible,” McIntosh stated.

No matter how much they present themselves to be near flawless, they do commit errors, more often than they’d like the public to know and believe.

“For journalists, as for anyone, there are certain shortcuts to trustworthiness, including reputation, expertise, and transparency — the sharing of sources, for example, or the prompt correction of errors,” McIntosh suggested.

There seems to be a large disconnect regarding the presence and quality of transparency, responsibility, humility and correction of errors in the minds of the media and consumers.

What the media contends, large swaths of the public (on both sides of the political spectrum) is not recognizing.

“Some of these shortcuts are more perilous than others. Various outfits, positioning themselves as neutral guides to the marketplace of ideas, now tout evaluations of news organizations’ trustworthiness,” McIntosh wrote, “but relying on these requires trusting in the quality and objectivity of the evaluation. Official data is often taken at face value, but numbers can conceal motives...”

He’s asserting that what is said to be neutral may or may not be that in practice and for us, as consumers of media to know with greater certainty, we have to ask whether we trust the quality and objectivity of the reporting and media personality communication.

Maybe too often we gladly extend trust more than we should. Motives, not always honorable ones, as part of human nature and self interest, exist.

Shaky, questionable ethics come at a high cost to the benefit of the doubt and relationship quality, even if only a segment of the media participates in that conduct.

Subscribe now

Share

By William S. Bike
Political historian and author of “Winning Political Campaigns”
Dec. 29, 2024

In Season 4, Episode 21 of the television show, The Simpsons, when Springfield’s Mayor Quimby unveils a statue of former President Jimmy Carter, somebody in the crowd yells out, “He’s history’s greatest monster!”

During Carter’s presidency and in his immediate post-presidential years, many in the government and media establishment certainly treated him that way.

However, once he established the Carter Center and started building homes for poor people, the establishment narrative morphed to “Carter was a lousy president, but he had the greatest post-presidency career of anyone.”

The part about Carter’s post-presidency is certainly true.

The part about his presidency is not.

Although historians and most of the establishment talking heads do not place him there, Carter should be ranked among the near-greats.

Carter may have been no Franklin D. Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln but his record compares favorably to those whom historians rank as great in their own way, such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Dwight Eisenhower.

What makes a president great

Historians judge presidents on such factors as: their vision, economics, public persuasion, crisis leadership vis a vis foreign affairs, commitment to equality, diversity, working people and the powerless, relationship with Congress and, in recent years, ability to help the environment.

In retrospect, Carter should get high marks on all of these, even foreign affairs.

Vision: Carter not only had a vision for peace in the Middle East (and what president since the 1940s has not?) but he actually fulfilled it. It was Carter who sat a reluctant Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel down and made a peace treaty, the Camp David accords, happen — something than no president before or since has come close to doing.

It was Jimmy Carter who more than anyone was responsible for ending a 31-year state of war between Egypt and Israel.

Economics: In the late 1970s, Carter was telling Americans to conserve energy and to switch to solar power and other renewable fuels. Had America done so, it would have been energy independent years ago, instead of paying $3 per gallon for gasoline as Americans are doing now.

But what about the recession of 1980? As Harry Truman said of Herbert Hoover, “He didn’t create the Depression; the Depression was created for him.” Likewise with the economic woes of 1980; the Federal Reserve he was stuck with believed in tight monetary policy to fight inflation, triggering the recession.

The Federal Reserve did the crime, but Carter did the time.

Public persuasion: Establishment media critics ridiculed what they called Carter’s malaise speech, in which he asked Americans to unite and sacrifice to deal with the energy crisis.

However, at the time, the public’s reception to the speech was overwhelmingly positive, resulting in thousands of positive phone calls and letters to the White House.

Members of the media lauded presidents such as FDR, John F. Kennedy and George W. Bush when they asked Americans to unite in a crisis. They laughed at Carter when he did the same and worked to turn the public against him.

Crisis leadership vis a vis foreign affairs: Until President-elect Donald Trump brought the Panama Canal into the news again, anyone remembered how Carter avoided war in Central America through the Panama Canal treaties. But they were a resounding success that at the time were lauded even by such prominent conservatives as John Wayne.

And, as usual, none of the dire predictions of conservative opponents as to the horrors that would befall the United States if we signed the treaties came true. Not one.

Carter negotiated the SALT II arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union and established US diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China.

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Carter easily moved into a global leadership role in organizing the opposition. He cut off American grain sales to the Soviet Union, deeply hurt the Soviet Union’s international prestige by boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics and supported Afghan opposition forces so well with funding and arms that they eventually beat the mighty Soviet Army.

Throughout his presidency, Carter made human rights central to his foreign policy and helped spread democracy around the globe, something that in hindsight appears even more valuable, as in 2024 we are in an era in which democracy is in retreat and fascism on the march around the globe.

But Carter’s foreign affairs Waterloo was the hostage crisis in which more than 60 Americans were taken captive and held in Iran for 444 days. But in retrospect, did Carter really do so badly?

Most presidents would have bombed Tehran or the Iranian oil fields and started a war that would have resulted in the deaths of the hostages and thousands of innocent civilians.

“If we had bombed Tehran, I think Jimmy would have been re-elected, even though the hostages would have died,” Rosalynn Carter, his wife, was quoted as saying in a 1990 New York Times article.

Carter instead was willing to move at a snail’s pace using boring tools such as economic sanctions and diplomacy. The result was not one American hostage’s life lost, all hostages returned home safely — and no war. Carter’s behavior wasn’t macho — just effective.

Environment: Carter signed into law a ban on the dumping of sewage in the ocean, the Strip Mining Control and Reclamation Act, and the Alaska Land Act, which set aside 104 million acres in national parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas.

All of these, it turned out, had to be done in the Carter Administration, because the subsequent Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and Trump Administrations would not even have considered these pro-environment moves and the subsequent Clinton, Obama, and Biden Administrations could not have passed them.

Carter also proposed a comprehensive energy plan that did not pass; had it done so, America would have been energy independent, instead of foreign energy dependent, for the next 40 years and the United States never even would have gotten into the two Iraq wars and the war in Afghanistan.

Under Carter, America imported 30% of its oil. Today, the figure is 76%.

Commitment to equality, diversity, working people and the powerless: Carter routinely appointed — and got the Senate to confirm — minorities and women, usually with extreme liberal views, to Federal posts and Federal judgeships, often the types of liberals, such as the strong opponent of firearms, former Congressman Abner Mikva, to a Federal judgeship) that subsequent Democratic Presidents would not even consider trying to appoint because they knew they would never be confirmed by the Senate.

As for working people, Carter’s labor secretary, F. Ray Marshall, told the New York Times in 1990 that “The Carter administration had the best labor record of any president since FDR,” with “the largest relative job growth of any postwar (World War II) administration,” with collective bargaining strengthened, work safety laws passed and job creation programs created.

Carter also pardoned Vietnam draft evaders, an act that served to heal the lingering wounds of that unpopular war.

“Carter was unreservedly committed to the egalitarian ideal,” said New York University law professor Bret Neuborne in a 1990 Newsday article.

Relationship with Congress: Congress did not love Jimmy Carter. As the first President without prior Washington experience since Woodrow Wilson, Carter was an outsider with whom the Congress had no relationship.

As a student at DePaul University in the 1970s, I remember Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, coming to speak to one of my classes and complaining that Carter didn’t drink, noting that many Presidential initiatives’ passing were lubricated with negotiations over liquor.

Lyndon Johnson, for example, bought Cutty Sark by the case for his meetings with Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. And Carter wanted policy based on information and the public good, not on political deals.

But despite Carter having all this going against him, the fact that he got so much legislation passed, legislation that could never have been passed since, shows his skill in dealing with a reluctant Congress.

“He spent an extraordinary amount of time talking with members of Congress, more than his two predecessors or successors,” said Jody Powell, Carter’s press secretary.

The election of 1980

Popular with the electorate and successful in treaty-making and in passing legislation, Carter was sailing along to re-election. In the fall of 1979, in a theoretical matchup between Carter and Ronald Reagan, polls showed Carter winning by an unprecedented 70-30 margin.

But Washington politicos and media still did not like this born-again Christian outsider who “provoked the establishment,” as the Chicago Tribune wrote in 2002, and was shaking things up for the good of the people.

Senator Ted Kennedy, the very embodiment of the Washington insider establishment, decided to challenge Carter in the Democratic presidential primaries — literally for no reason Kennedy could ever articulate.

Carter beat Kennedy, but not without spending a lot of money and people power that could have been better saved for the general election, had the arrogant Kennedy not decided to challenge a sitting President from his own party.

The Washington media jumped on every chance to criticize and ridicule Carter.

As Carter himself said, “My family was depicted as hillbillies, with straw sticking out of our ears.” To the establishment media, everything small became a big story, whether it was Carter being attacked by a rabbit on a fishing trip, one Democratic county chairman in Florida deciding he wasn’t going to back Carter or the Mayor of Chicago switching her support from Carter to Kennedy.

Ronald Reagan, whom many Americans and most Republicans consider a great president, wasn’t looked at that way during the 1980 campaign.

His gaffes as the Republican presidential nominee, such as saying trees cause pollution but oil spills don’t and promotion of states’ rights (long a code phrase for racism) had people wondering if the Gipper had enough mental capacity to do the job.

But once again, the Washington insiders stepped up to help get rid of Carter.

National hero and Watergate prosecutor Leon Jaworski, who had once called Reagan an “extremist,” suddenly became honorary chair of Democrats for Reagan. A one-time lefty liberal hero, former Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy, endorsed not Carter, but Reagan. The late journalist Walter Karp called Carter a “partyless president.”

Liberal Republican (yes, those existed at the time) Congressman John Anderson did his part, running a strong third-party campaign, which cut deeply into liberal support for Carter.

The East Coast media stepped up, too. ABC-TV began a nightly TV show called The Iran Crisis-America Held Hostage, which held up Carter’s alleged failures in the crisis to public exposure every single night.

James Reston of the New York Times called Carter “morbidly conscientious.” And generally, coverage of Reagan was more favorable than that of Carter, as media salivated over how interesting it would be to have a personable, avuncular actor in the White House instead of a church-going tee-totaler.

Despite all this, deep into October Carter was actually leading Reagan in the polls. It all came down to their one debate in Cleveland, where tragically Carter fumbled the one big question on everyone’s mind — what to do about the hostages in Iran.

Carter answered the question by talking about his daughter and about nuclear weapons. Reagan, meanwhile, answered every question adroitly, quelling America’s fears about him. After that debate, America’s undecideds broke 16-1 for Reagan — an unprecedented percentage — and the Republican candidate was elected President.

But in what the establishment media called a “landslide” for Reagan, the Gipper tallied only 50.8 percent of the vote.

The little-remembered Anderson put the final nails in the coffin of the Carter campaign, garnering 6.6% of the vote, most of which would have gone to Carter and turned the election into a squeaker.

A sea change

In retrospect, Carter’s was the last New Deal Presidency. Like every President since FDR — even the Republicans — Carter proposed liberal legislation and got it through Congress.

As author and radio talk host Thom Hartmann has said, during the Roosevelt-to-Carter period, national legislation routinely benefitted the average American. Since then, the vast majority of national legislation has benefitted the special interests, with the average American forgotten.

As Hartmann also has written, Reagan-ism brought America the collapse of the middle class, student and medical debt that is largely impossible to pay, predatory charges from health insurance companies and for-profit medical providers, political manipulation by corporations and billionaires, an explosion of homelessness and untreated mental illness and a proliferation of guns and mass shootings.

None of which would have happened under Carter.

In November 1990, I attended the conference “Keeping Faith” at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY, about the Carter presidency.

Many members of the Carter Administration were there: Powell, Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Bert Lance, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Strauss and Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter, among many others.

There was a sense of vindication, as Carter was riding a crest of public popularity at the time (Newsday did a two-panel cartoon of Ronald Reagan towering over a dwarflike Carter in 1980, but Carter towering over a dwarflike Reagan in 1990), but also a sense of unfulfilled promise.

Time and time again administration officials talked about their plans for a second term that would have been the fulfillment of the New Deal, Harry Truman’s Fair Deal, JFK’s New Frontier, and LBJ’s Great Society, with social programs and laws designed to make life better for all Americans.

The best post-presidency

While most recent presidents have spent their post-presidency playing golf and collecting fat speaking fees, Carter spent the last 40+ years serving humanity.

He established the Carter Center, which actively works to alleviate conflict, reduce suffering, promote democracy and fair elections and promote cooperation among people all over the world.

The center has helped produce medical prostheses in China and taught African farmers to increase grain production.

Through Global 2000, he helped establish and improve health and agricultural services in developing countries. Through the Carter-Menil Human Rights Foundation, he helped protect human rights globally. Through the Task Force for Child Survival, he facilitated immunization and other health efforts throughout the world.

He is the person in history most responsible for almost wiping out Guinea Worm, a debilitating parasitic disease that used to cause blindness and untold suffering in the undeveloped world.

He spent decades building homes for the poor through Habitat for Humanity.

Carter continued achieving policy victories as an ex-president. He convinced Daniel Ortega to accept losing a presidential election in Nicaragua. He got the Ethiopian government to meet with Eritrean rebels to sit down and discuss a settlement, at the Carter Center in Atlanta. He facilitated a détente between the George H.W. Bush administration and Syria. He helped negotiate a peace agreement in Haiti and brokered a ceasefire in Boznia-Herzegovina.

Carter’s list of awards won since his presidency is huge, and includes the International Mediation Medal, the Martin Luther King Jr. Nonviolent Peace Prize, the international Human Rights Award and the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism.

As The Nation wrote in 1990, “Carter used his presidency as a stepping stone to higher things.”

“No other president in our history has done anything at all comparable,” Yale University historian Gaddis Smith was quoted as saying in Newsday at the time.

Several references in this article come from 1990, which was one of the high watermarks of Carter’s post-presidency popularity. After ten years of Reagan and Bush cutting social programs and engaging in questionable clandestine adventures in Iran, Nicaragua, Grenada and other countries, Americans and even the East Coast media and establishment started to realize that Carter had been a good president and a good post-president.

U.S. News & World Report gave Carter its 1990 Excellence in Government-Best Social Advocate Award, and Hofstra University held its conference on the Carter presidency.

Carter’s popularity has waxed and waned with the media since then, particularly since the rise of conservative media that began with Fox News in 1996. Conservative media has praised Carter when he criticized Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, or helped out Republican Presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump but suddenly acted like he was history’s greatest monster when he praised those Democrats or criticized those Republicans.

A great human being and yes, a great president

But other than the most ardent Fox News viewers, the world has generally respected and admired Carter for enthusiastically doing good, meeting what he believes are his moral obligations and working with people different from himself — over four decades in which such idealism in action generally has been met with more derision than praise.

The Nobel Committee understood this when it awarded Carter the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. When the Carter Center announced that the former president was going into home hospice, even Fox News commentators recalled that Carter promised he would never lie to the American people and said, “that’s what we need today.”

As for a presidency once met with more derision than praise, in hindsight we can see foreign policy success after foreign policy success while waging peace instead of waging war, a vision for energy independence that would have helped America avoid some of the major problems it has experienced for four decades, a vision for saving the environment and success in passing laws and social programs that benefitted and continue to serve the nation’s workers and underserved — all hallmarks of a near-great or great presidency.

Perhaps it was the members of the governmental and media establishments who went out of their way to cripple and destroy the Carter presidency, who were some of history’s greatest monsters.

May Jimmy Carter — perhaps America’s last great president — rest in peace after 100 years of a life devoted to serving others.

The contributor piece is by William S. Bike, a political historian and the author of “Winning Political Campaigns”

Or

The self awareness to know when one has fallen terribly short in leadership is difficult enough. Expressing it publicly is on another level of challenge.

It requires honesty with oneself, poise, courage and strength.

Decorated professional basketball player Draymond Green recently showed that he has examined his unprofessional, violent behavior towards a former co-worker and admitted that he did not show the leadership expected of him in a well-known conflict in practice with Jordan Poole in 2022, when Green punched him.

"I will say I was kind of thrust into a vet role before I was ready to handle it,” he admitted in an interview with Penny Hardaway on the Two Cents Podcast. “Before I knew what it took to handle it, I failed miserably.”

In the moment, it instinctually felt like the reasonable reaction for him in an angry moment yet time and reflection revealed to Green his weak impulse control, lack of discipline and actions that violated trust, position and status within his organization.

“I haven't felt that miserable in my life,” Green recalls. “So, that was one of my biggest failures. It taught me a ton.”

Green is inferring that he needed to learn more so that he would not throw a punch when emotionally triggered. That might not land well with stakeholders.

He tries to communicate that he was in error, acted improperly and his behavior was a failure. He can say now, publicly, that he felt awful about what giving in to his worst instincts.

While he is no longer, that has been reported, being violent with people at work, his behavior — even if it’s in the highly-competitive and aggressive space of professional sports — still shows semi-regular evidence of questionable decision making.

Words matter. Taking responsibility does. Yesterday’s and today’s actions do too.

Green may not yet convince everybody or possibly, most people, that he has fully learned from his errors and won’t ever again be a repeat offender of over-the-top behavior that it is criticized or condemned.

To sponsor this publication, place an ad or have links published, check this page.

Please consider following Communication Intelligence at the LinkedIn company page

Words can be as sharp as a knife and used that way on people to inflict pain.

Poet and copywriter Cole Schafer (see photo) noticed and has written about it.

“As we adopt new words into our cultural vernacular, we must remember to respect their incredible power,” he communicates. “Some words possess greater negative implications than others, and these words can manipulate the human psyche like witchcraft.”

He’s correct. We know it though which is why we choose to communicate them.

The danger he sees in such words has led him to come up with a vivid label.

“I will refer to these words as nuclear words,” Schafer says.

When he uses that label, in the context in which he’s communicating, he’s not talking about biology. He’s alluding to words being used as a damaging, destructive force in regards to emotions, psychology and their work.

“Nuclear words are like nuclear warheads. They're the Death Star,” Schafer contends. “They're the trump card. They're the kill switch. They function like a choke on cognition. They can't be argued or retorted.”

He doesn’t like or see value in how using such language affects our better selves.

“Nuclear words destroy empathy,” Schafer pointedly says. “This is the danger in them.”

He argues that using words that are insulting labels have “made effort unfashionable” in seeking understanding and communicating in a way that is more knowledgeable.

“God forbid we try,” Schafer laments.

While the focus in his piece is about work, creativity and “art,” the same goes for how we communicate within our relationships: romantic, family, friends, work and business — as well as in our interactions in society.

We emotionally resort to loading up and dropping nuclear words on each other, and protect our ego and how we see our character by rationalizing the communication behavior to ourselves.

Self control is not easy. Communicating criticism is however. It’s a challenging habit to control, lessen or replace with better choices. We fail too often.

We can commit to improvement, decrease the frequency of using words with destructive nuclear power and correct them more often when we give in to them.

Subscribe now

Subscribe for free or become a paid subscriber, whichever works best for you.

Share

Follow on the LinkedIn company page for Communication Intelligence

Follow on Twitter/ “X”

To sponsor this publication, place an ad or have links published, check this page.

What Do You Know, Really: How Watered-Down Words and Truths Impact Debate
by Jennifer Eisenreich
Sept. 18, 2024

“When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom.”

Confuscious

Gen Z’s lexicon has been the target of cheugy Boomers and Xers who literally struggle to understand their word bank. No cap. However, each generation would do well to claim responsibility for the fact that the power of our language has not been Gucci for decades.

In fact, the degradation of language has been occurring for hundreds of years.

The First English Dictionary of Slang was published in 1699 as A New Dictionary of Terms, Ancient and Modern, of the Canting Crew by B. E. Gentleman, containing terms such as “chounter,” to speak pertly and sometimes angrily. 

The counterculture vibe of society in the 1960’s saw a marked increase in words and phrases used to disguise language from authority figures. Disc jockeys had a major influence as they popped new phrases and rhythms into the way listeners spoke.

Fast-forward a groovy sixty years and we arrive at a time when words have lost their punch, and anyone can, and will, say anything.

The truth remains though, that words do have meaning, as well as consequences. 

“Words, like nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.”

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

The 2016 Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year was post-truth defined as, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” 

A brief visit to any social-media site provides all the examples one may need to understand the notion that truth has become relative and facts now sound much like fiction.

The truth is especially polarized when it comes to politics and it is found in what is said and what can be read between the lines.

Successfully avoiding political conversations is as likely as missing mud-slinging messaging over the next few months. There are important things to remember in the pursuit of truth during those conversations. 

• Truth is not required. Political advertising in America does not have to be true. Political Action Committees (PACs) have major leeway in creating messages for their candidates. Their content may be misleading, misquoted, or taken out of context, and there is no oversight to correct the message.

• While some outlets may conduct fact-checking, the sheer volume of misstatements is more than even the most motivated team of truth-seekers can tackle. So, when someone quotes an ad, or a post from social-media, it’s important to fact check the information before agreeing or arguing about it. 

• Few are experts. Have you noticed the number of economic scholars, public policy analysts, and foreign policy “experts” in our midst? It’s one thing to talk about topics we’ve read, even from reputable sources. Understanding the nuances behind each of those positions is another. 

It takes years of education and experience to reach the level of understanding necessary to give meaningful commentary on these complicated issues.

For example, many believe that because they attended school as a child and interacted with school as an adult, they are qualified to understand and evaluate the governance of a school or district. As a retired principal, I can attest that I was still learning after 30 years on the job.

While folks may have a loose understanding of some systems, they are not able to predict the way one decision affects multiple circumstances or the history behind case-law and policy leading up to a decision. The same holds true with politics. 

• Emotion and personal beliefs override facts. Political debates or arguments rarely occur for their original purpose, which was the sake of curiosity, or in pursuit of truth. The intent is usually to discredit or disparage.

• In these instances, the outcome is often frustration, hurt feelings, or estrangement. Prepare a statement that will allow a graceful exit from mud-slinging match-ups such as, “I value your opinion and am focused on facts as I have researched them. Let’s agree that the best use of our voice is to vote.”

• Facts can be found. An opinion is not open to debate. It’s based on the way someone feels or believes based on their personal experiences.

• Facts can be proven. When in doubt, and in this season we should all exercise healthy skepticism, there are ways to prove what is true. There are many reputable fact-checking sources. Here are just a few:

FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that monitors factual accuracy and aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.

Snopes.com originally debunked urban-myths and tall-tales, but now covers many political statements, including the truth behind memes, the go-to of many social media sites. 

The International Fact-Checking Network is a global organization that champions best practices and exchanges of fact-based information. It offers trainings in the categories such as ethics, leadership, and writing.

Find your favorite fact-checking source. Bookmark it, and regardless of who you support, check their statements. Facts matter.

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”

Martin Luther King Jr. 

The starring role in any debate is character. Do statements slay with empathy and compassion or vitriol and derision? How far will one go to mislead, misinform or distract from truth?

When A.C Fields said, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit,” chances are he was giving advice to a political candidate.

As we look into the heart of our leaders, conscientious mistruths are dangerous. When they comprise the majority of one’s argument, it reveals their soul. 

Jennifer Eisenreich spent 24 of her 30 years in education as a principal and still communicates with many of her former students and their families. The founder and CEO of Shift Show Communication, she helps leaders who want to better connect with their teams.

Share

Subscribe now

What Abe Lincoln and the Telegraph Have in Common with Artificial Intelligence
by Tom Madden, founder and CEO at TransMedia Group

Sept. 16, 2024

For those who fear AI could one day become a technology tyrant taking control of us human beings, you had just as concerned counterparts in the mid 1800’s.

Americans then were just as alarmed by a new, frightening phenomenon--electricity. 

In the 1850’s, many believed a ferocious evil cat had been let out of a dark bag that would go on to savagely hunt and ultimately devour humanity.  For where it was let loose, the United States, it would almost certainly be doomsday.

People then found the idea beyond grasp that you can send messages by electric sparks.  That was sheer insanity.  Some preachers saw it as “evil incarnate.” Dark, to say the least.

What we need today is what America was fortunate to have then, a bright person as president, who was not just clever, but curious, with a yen for adventure and  an urge to take charge.  He was a genuine early adopter named Abraham Lincoln.  

And he couldn’t have become president at a more propitious time, 1861.

Lincoln didn’t just free the slaves, he set our communications free via an invention called the telegraph. Right away created the Military Telegraph Corp in 1862.

Thereafter, practically every day during the Civil War he would read the telegraphs Union Army generals would send to their headquarters, often chiming in, encouraging more chutzpah in fighting General Robert E. Lee. 

Thus, Lincoln became the first political figure to rule the U.S. Military, assuming the title of Commander in Chief, all due to the telegraph, thanks to a phenomenon called sparks.

Today there are new worries sparking concern. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland believes AI is enabling undercover illegal activities such as price fixing rents.  According to Garland, the technology "enables landlords to share confidential, competitively sensitive information and align their rents," which the DOJ alleges is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

And there are other tech concerns sparking their way to courtrooms.

It seems with every technological advancement, with the rewards always come risks requiring our leaders to be sharper, more curious and more alert like Lincoln.

Tom Madden is CEO of the public relations firm, TransMedia Group, which he founded when he left NBC. He is an author of six books and highly recommends Tom Wheeler’s, “Mr. Lincoln’s T-Mails,” which inspired this column. Madden’s latest book is Planetary Lifeguard, Blowing the Whistle on Climate Change.

Share

Did news reporter Chris Cuomo vent his anger based on alarming facts dangerous to the public, speaking for many Americans disenchanted with money and power or was there something more beyond his pointed comments?

Cuomo reported for NewsNation on the floor at the Democratic National Convention, and spoke fiercely about the money-givers unethically involved in politics. While he was talking about DNC donors, he later added that the same things he was observing at the event he was covering also happen with the Republicans.

“There is a game of money. We are strangled by the money reality in politics,” Cuomo said, talking about how large donors — organizations and individuals — are too-powerful of influencers who determine which candidates receive opportunity in politics, who keeps it and what agendas get pushed.

“Those suites start at 500 grand. You think there is a teacher group up there,” Cuomo rhetorically asked. “Those boxes (suites) are filled with the same people they (Democrats in power) say they’re going to regulate. They’re literally looking down on the faithful (on the floor of the convention)… and the same thing is true on the Republican side.”

He wasn’t done.

“They’re looking down from on high (literally and figuratively he was inferring) at the people (on the floor of the convention) who make the difference in their communities and that is the reality of politics,” Cuomo said.

That’s nothing new under the sun. Most every citizen is well aware it.

It doesn’t get sufficient media and expert attention and is not investigated and attacked as much as other election-driving variables. The machinations that money drives and the candidates it supports in political races, especially for president, is a troublesome problem that is not properly regulated.

He showed low tolerance for high-dollar donors in their suites above the DNC floor.

"They're looking down from on high at the people who make the difference in their communities,” Cuomo said of the ridiculously expensive suites above the floor of the convention and people occupying them. “And that is the reality of politics."

That is a bold claim, one that may be accurate. If there were rejections of that claim, with credible proof later that evening, the next day or days afterward, it didn’t seem like it was present or widely disseminated.

"In 2000, (powerful donors) spent $300 million on presidential campaigns,” Cuomo said. “Twenty-four years later, you know what they're expected to spend? Ten billion!"

If those numbers are factual and in proper context, it seems to reason that power brokers in this country are heavily influencing government leadership and policy (no surprise) far more effectively and frequently than the general public knows and clearly, fully understands (maybe that is a surprise).

Cuomo talked about his presentation at the DNC with businessman and podcaster Patrick Bet-David, as reported by Zachary Leeman, writing at Mediaite.

“Did somebody piss you off? Did something happen? Did somebody do something that you got upset about or was it just purely organic?” Bet-David asked Cuomo on The PBD Podcast.

Cuomo reiterated that it was the “degree” of money at the convention that bothered him but also confessed that he was suffering from sore ankles.

“I did not know they would not let me sit down,” he said. “My ankles looked like my grandmother’s. I had to stand six hours every night and people will be like, ‘so what?’ Well, I’m 54-years-old, it’s hard.”

As it goes with us as humans, we are bothered and angry about something but not feeling well physically can act as the emotional, psychological trigger to express that anger more aggressively.

That doesn’t mean that Cuomo’s points are not valid. It means that he may not have communicated what he did, as intensely as he did, as detailed and long as he did if he was not hurting.

What he expressed however was important and sometimes in life, unexpected catalysts drive positive actions as much as they do negative ones.

Cuomo continued, saying that as he looked up into some suites, he noticed that donors would recognize him and close their drapes.

“I said, you know, there’s just such an obvious bullshit aspect — and it’s always been like this at every convention I’ve been to. RNCs. Many DNCs. You have to make the money to play the game,” he said.

It led Cuomo to touch on the eleven-figures of money raised for the campaigns these days for presidential campaigns and conclude to Bet-David what he finds alarming.

“How can you believe that anybody’s going to do anything to those people? I just believe it was important just to remind. I don’t think people are stupid,” he said.

People who pay large figures expect preferential treatment and protection, Cuomo is asserting, and they will receive it.

He couldn’t speak so sharply about money and power and not come out of it pleasing those people or the Democrats at their convention. And Cuomo didn’t, saying that he received “hate” and “stink eyes” for his comments.

He additionally spoke about Democrats who have communicated that they will go after price gouging when it comes to food.

People making these types of promises are “full of shit,” Cuomo contested.

In other words, Cuomo was not impressed by what he observed, heard or experienced at the DNC or conventions in general. Did his ankle pain and frustration inspire what needed to be said or did Cuomo allow himself to act unprofessionally?

It’s up for debate.

Communication Intelligence publishes columns on communications in society. Contact the publisher at comm.intel.newsletter@gmail.com to pitch your idea.

When the Debate is Lost
by Jennifer Eisenreich
August 31, 2024

A guest piece for Communication Intelligence

The forums were the embodiment of life in ancient Rome. Their marble steps and columns provided the backdrop for moral, philosophical and political discourse the same way our glowing screens do today. Thousands would gather to hear the news, to be entertained or informed.

“When the debate is over, insults become the loser’s tool.”

-Not Socrates

Even with the instant ability to fact check a quote, we retweet (reX?) and paste quotes as long as they fall in line with our argument. There is no evidence that Socrates spoke about “losers” but that doesn’t mean the quote isn’t true.

In ancient Athens, debates gave breath to intellectual life. Socrates, a relentless questioner, forced his opponents to confront their own ignorance. His method, the elenchus, was designed to strip away pretenses to uncover the truth.

What happens when the truth is elusive and an argument slips through one’s fingers like sand? That’s when the temptation to hurl an insult becomes too great to resist.

The venues may have changed — trade marble steps for a gleaming studio soundstage — but the dynamics remain the same.

Think about the last time you witnessed or participated in a heated online debate. When one party ran out of logical arguments, what came next? More often than not, they resorted to name-calling, sarcasm or outright insults. It’s as if the loss of intellectual ground creates a vacuum that insults rush in to fill.

Key research in communication and psychology backs up that when people feel their position is indefensible, they experience a threat to their self-esteem (Steele, 1988; Sherman & Cohen, 2006).

Rather than conceding or refining their argument, instead they lash out, hoping to undermine their opponent’s credibility or distract from their own weakness. Insults, in this context, become a defense mechanism, a way to salvage pride when logic fails.

But the fact is that insults don’t just damage the person to whom they’re aimed, they reflect poorly on the person who uses them. An insult is a white flag disguised as a dagger (could-be-Nietzsche-quote). It signals not strength, but surrender and says, “I’ve got nothing left in my arsenal, so take this.”

And just like that, the pursuit of truth is abandoned.

The next time you find yourself watching or participating in a debate, whether in person or the comment section, remember this: stick to the argument. Resist the urge to throw shade (or tomatoes), even when it feels justified. Keep Socrates’ spirit alive, not by quoting him incorrectly, but by embodying the values he championed.

If you have the truth on your side, you won’t need to resort to insults. If you don’t, the most viral-worthy insult won’t save you.

In the end, the real victory in a debate is about staying true to the pursuit of learning and understanding, even if it means rethinking what was once believed.  If that doesn’t convince you to choose silence over slight, consider this: a temper tantrum has never made someone more attractive or electable, whether in ancient Athens or on Facebook. The same holds true for togas, but that’s another article. 

As political debate season ensues, make the radical decision to put down your phone while you watch. Listen well, and learn from the participants. Allow yourself to think your own thoughts and feel your own feelings, instead of reading one-off, knee-jerk comments online.

You might be surprised who you end up quoting. 

Jennifer Eisenreich spent 24 of her 30 years in education as a principal and still communicates with many of her former students and their families. Founder and CEO of Shift Show Communication, she helps leaders who want to better connect with their teams.

*  Steele, C. M. (1988). "The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261-302.

*  Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006). "The psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory," In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 183-242.

Communication can lead to misunderstandings, hurt feelings or anger, even if the intent wasn’t to cause harm. Communication can also clearly, accurately reflect people’s critical-in-nature personality and nastiness.

Former President Donald Trump plays fast and loose with his words, which has turned people against him for years. When critics, opponents and supporters of them bring up the past, it’s because Trump has willingly provided the evidence to use against him.

At the Democratic National Convention, another former president, Bill Clinton, spoke about Trump’s selfishness and negativity and whether that’s what the country wants in its next president.

“How does Donald Trump use his voice?” Clinton rhetorically asked in his speech. “Mostly to talk about himself — his vengeance, vendettas, complaints, conspiracies.”

Trump has earned that perception, belief and reputation. He still doesn’t understand the danger of it to trust and his aspirations. It doesn’t make him look stable to many, even some of his supporters.

Regardless of whom one will vote for in the election, based on what most matters to them, it’s factual that Trump regularly does himself more harm than good with his public speaking and Twitter communication.

Clinton brought up another observation in his speech.

“The next time you hear him, don’t count the lies, count the ‘I’s,’” he said.

Clinton is communicating that Trump is self-absorbed and not about the people.

“He’s like the tenor warming up before the opera: ‘me, me, me, me.’”

These comments must sting Trump. They would almost anyone. Yet the wounding is made possible by Trump’s own behavior. He could, if he wanted, prevent insults like these, yet he will be angry about his formerly unprofessional, unkind communication being chastised and say something negative to hurt back. Thus, the cycle will continue.

Clinton continued:

“Or a tribute to the ’late great’ Hannibal Lecter?” he again rhetorically inquired, before posing closed-ended questions, leading his audience towards his persuasive objective.

“Do you want to save our country and our world from the calamities of climate change?” Clinton asked. “Or obsess on the vital debate between getting eaten by sharks or electrocuted?”

Clinton doesn’t seem to hate Trump yet he does seem to find him unserious, distracted from important matters and lacking in the tact that he feels a president should exhibit.

Trump is not a fast or willing learner. He communicates by habitual default, goes off of instinct and chooses a rough approach to people.

It’s worked for him in the past. Does it have enough shelf life to earn him a win in November and lead another presidential term? Trump is rolling the dice, hoping to beat the odds. He might do it, even if he is decreasing his possibility of winning.

Thank you for reading this issue of Communication Intelligence.

Follow on Twitter/ “X”

Follow on the LinkedIn company page for Communication Intelligence

Subscribe now

Share

Katherine Maher is human and experiences discomfort and pain after receiving criticism, just like most everyone else. She’s going to get defensive. That’s reasonably understandable behavior. What is problematic for any of us is when we get overly reactant to prove our decisions and points. Maher arguably was recently too defensive.

She didn’t like blowback from senior business editor Uri Beliner, who wrote an opinion piece at The Free Press that “depicted a culture at NPR that has an ‘absence of viewpoint diversity,’ and that as a result, ‘predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America,’” reported Natalie Korach at The Wrap.

Maher wanted to be a respected leader and stand up for her people — impressive — and honestly, also defend her leadership.

"Questioning whether our people are serving our mission with integrity, based on little more than the recognition of their identity, is profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning,” she fumed.

She has a point maybe when she infers that critics are jumping to conclusions, thinking that who the writers are as people means that they can’t be objective. Writing from a different perspective doesn’t mean that someone isn’t being objective.

However, what Maher claims may not always be factual. Her people could very well be biased in their work.

However, where Maher, with good intentions, shows a loss of leadership poise, is when she communicates, “profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.”

Defending her people feels good to them yet shaming critics, who have concerns about professionalism and objectivity, is unlikely the best approach to effectively manage or resolve a conflict. This type of short-sighted strategy makes the target on you, the leader and your organization, bigger and brighter moving forward. That’s unnecessary risk.

Yet the defensiveness continues.

"It is deeply simplistic to assert that the diversity of America can be reduced to any particular set of beliefs, and faulty reasoning to infer that identity is determinative of one's thoughts or political leanings," Maher wrote, referencing Berliner's argument that the organization lacks a balance in "viewpoint diversity."

Many will applaud Maher for her bold communication. This is a leader however throwing head punches at critics, escalating the conflict, not deescalating it, with insults such as “deeply simplistic,” which is translated as “dumb, lazy, ridiculous.” The use of “faulty reasoning,” can be received as “you’re not intelligent or understanding what’s going on at all.” And her claim that “identity is determinative of one's thoughts or political leanings,” is shocking, as identity, for most anyone, does determine one’s thoughts or political leanings, even in the media.

"We fulfill our mission best when we look and sound like the country we serve,” Maher continued. She’s correct, even if not everyone likes it. The problem might be a segment of those that follow NPR feel their viewpoints are not also being valued.

Maher did talk about what is to come to address concerns.

“NPR will implement quarterly network-wide editorial planning and review meetings, which will serve as a ‘venue for NPR newsroom leadership to hear directly from Member organization editorial leaders on how our journalism serves the needs of audiences in their communities,’” she said, as reported by Korach.

NPR will establish a "broad-based, rotating group that will meet monthly to review our coverage across all platforms," which will be spearheaded by Interim Chief Content Officer Edith Chapin, Korach writes.

Insider oversight seems like it is more likely to be biased than not, which won’t alleviate outside concerns and criticism.

Maher continued her muscular rejection of criticism.

"Continuing to uphold our excellence with confidence, having inclusive conversations that bridge perspectives, and learning more about the audiences we serve in order to continue to grow and thrive, adding more light to the illumination of who we are as a shared body public," she flexed.

What is she saying? Admirably: Inclusive conversations, bridge perspectives, learning more, growing. Problematic: the attitude of, don’t criticize my people, me or this media outlet. Then the ego of “our excellence” and “with confidence.”

Maher probably is beloved inside the organization for this power response, which is critically important and this rough response could make her a legend in the future depending on how history plays out for NPR but her defensive posture comes with great risk, as it will embolden the critics to more intensely scrutinize and attack Maher and NPR in the future for shortcomings, real and perceived.

Maher acted in a reckless, dangerous manner for her organization and herself.

While it’s certainly possible it will prove to be a leadership, organizational and career masterstroke, it’s also possible that this “in your face” chess move will cost her dearly.