REQUIEM FOR A [NEWS] LEADER?

Was Brian Williams’ demotion the death knell for anchorpeople?

Or does it symbolize (as we believe) how thin the claims of credibility and authenticity can be?

Think with us here.  Ever since Walter Cronkite earned the CBS anchorman sobriquet in the early 1950s, we used to regard our news readers as serious professionals, men (for the most part) who earned their authenticity in the trenches, reporting first-hand on serious and important stories.  That opinion continued to be fostered by the late Peter Jennings and the Huntley-Brinkley duet.  Fairly recently, though, the perception of anchor-folks waffled between entertainment and news; the buzz, in short, became more critical than the news.  And credibility zeroed out. 

In a sense, that TV contract of confidence between viewers and news readers is somewhat akin to the unspoken bond between employees and their corporate leaders.  Parallels abound:  Breaking news is a hard-won prize by skilled reporters.  Delivering information about workplace and corporate changes must also be a task assumed by the C-suite, provided straightforwardly yet with a sense of humane-ness.  Another:  We highly respect sector expertise, say, the political know-how of a David Todd or the late Tim Russert.  The same holds true for business chieftains who are not afraid to tell us the truth accurately, seriously, and relay what it means to us.

We could go on (and just might, later).  In your opinion, dear reader, which CEOs are today’s ‘most trusted (wo)men in America” – and why?

PRESIDENTIAL PARALLELS, THREE (AND FINAL)

“It’s too much hype and hyperbole.”

“Employees don’t want to be marketed to.”

“We get a lot of pushback if we don’t stick to the facts and make our media as objective as possible.”

Those are the responses we hear when broaching the idea of an internal campaign – to drive behaviors, get buy-in, encourage adoption of new technology, and, in general, asking employees to know and feel and act differently.

Serious objections, we admit.  On our side, these rejoinders arise:

• How to gain attention and capture hearts and minds when today’s society is afflicted with ADHD?
• What are results to date using straightforward no-nonsense media?
• How many employees respond to emotional stories versus statistics and studies?

The issue, we believe, isn’t so much with the idea of campaigns as it is with the recent quality of American political crusades.  Mud-slinging.  Slight un-truths or un-remembering.  Slogans with little reality and less soul.  In short, glitz without substance.

There’s a place and time for campaigns inside.  There’s also care to be taken in creating and delivering the exact right messaging, based on the appropriate business case with the perfect (okay, almost perfect) blend of tools.  Scientists respond to stories just as much as facts.  And vice versa for marketeers and HR pros.  Bottom line, it’s all about actions. 

Our thanks to Ross Perot, former Presidential candidate:  “The activist is not the man who says the river is dirty.  The activist is the man who cleans up the river.”

TRUTH OR ... CONSEQUENCES

In past lives, many of my former colleagues and I* would have leaped at the chance when asked to validate a series of statements, chapters, or books.

Not any more, especially after Election 2012.  Bloggers and punsters, editors and opiners alike rushed to quick judgment about which party/candidate told the truth and which, fabricated.  “Right or not” became a cause célèbre as factcheck.orgs of all shapes and sizes weighed in.  Blue or red truth? trumpeted the headlines.  Both political parties blared Fiction! … and pointed fingers.  Posturing?  Yes, for many.  Yet many voters, in the millions, were simply seeking credulity and authenticity.

Regardless of the outcome, the facts didn’t matter.  Because facts, in and by themselves, were ­ not the prime determinant of the election.  A further surprise:  What did make a difference, psychological researchers insist, is the very complicated science of behaviors.  One study reveals that the more knowledgeable voters, those armed with the most facts, show more bias than those who knew less.  Another shows that people assume news is true (or not) simply based on which TV or radio station, newspaper or magazine, Web site or blogger reported it.

Why?  It has everything to do with emotions, the reasons we search for verification.  If I’m afraid or concerned or insecure, it’s doubly hard for me to wrap my mind around the facts. The truth matters less if I’m simply not prepared to accept it.  Cognitive dissonance, in part:  We ignore facts and science when they conflict with our practices (smoking, for instance).

At this point, the consequences from non-truths might not matter, depending on the specific cause and effect.  What this signals, initially, is that, as communicators and marketers, as designers and brand strategists, we all need to become a bit less fact-obsessed and a lot more emotion-driven as we set about to change minds and behaviors.

*Say it’s so:  My career began as an MSLS-wielding librarian.