A Culture of the Uncultured

Our admitted sensitivity to living a positive life notwithstanding, we will confidently compare our objectivity with anyone's. But the stimuli we've endured just this week is irrefutable proof that we're wallowing, as a collective culture, in some seriously deep mire. 

1. We held a door for a young lady walking out of a bank when we could have walked in before she left. And we received ZERO acknowledgment. No "Thank You," not even the perfectly acceptable New York "Glance of Gratitude." Nothing.

2. We quite diligently pursued our thrice-weekly exercise routine, and while on the good old elliptical machine, we observed this: a crumpled newspaper had been thrown on the floor between machines; a magazine (someone still reads a magazine??!!) thrown randomly on the other side of the machine; no wipes had been placed in the dispenser, so we needed to track down some papers towels in the far-off locker room to wipe down the machine when we finished; barbells, mats, exercise balls and benches were strewn all over the room, never having been put back into their racks, designated areas, etc.; and while watching a monitor during exercise, we observed Prince Charles and Camilla's car attacked by British students trying to win friends and influence people in their tuition battle.

3. We held another door, undaunted, for a "gentleman" as we exited and he entered Staples. Nothing.

4. We read an excellent Wall Street Journal piece entitled "Why Narcissism Defines Our Time." It tells us that four million American adults list fame as their number-one life goal and 2% of individuals are “consumed” by their desire to be a star. In a 2007 survey, the Pew Research Center found that 51% of 18-to-25-year-olds said their first or second goal in life was to "become famous." Incredible.

5. We overhear a young lady in cell-screaming mode saying " . . .  I was just sort of, like, umm . . . " before the door slams and she mercifully leaves the coffee shop.

6. We've been plowed into—full-on, shoulder-to-shoulder hits the NFL showcases weekly—by men AND women, both in the subway and on the street (yes, we're quite aware this is New York City, thank you). And we have gotten exactly the same feedback from those people. Nothing.

Then we read this quote this morning from a VERY high profile "student"-athlete at one of America's finest universities: "I am a person that has did nothing wrong . . . ". 

We went on to read a The New York Times editorial on the United States Senate blocking consideration of help for tens of thousands of emergency workers and volunteers who became ill from the ground zero cleanup after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Notice they blocked "consideration" of the bill; they won't even consider voting on it. That is almost beyond comprehension. The Times rightfully calls it "callous," "harrowing," and states yesterday's Republican-driven votes resulted in "one of the most shameful days in the modern history of the Senate."

Whew.

Feeling a bit challenged, all you positive thinkers? Well, we here at Positively Writing certainly understand if you are. But inevitably, after observing and enduring another week of self-centered behavior and scary syntax, we feel good about ourselves. If we continue to act as we always do, with consideration for others and general thoughtfulness, we'll be rewarded. Not with fame or money, but with the consideration and respect that will surely come our way. And that's plenty for us, thank you very much.

When someone simply does "the right thing," they stand out as the exception, don't you think? In reality they should be the rule. How did things get flipped on their heads? 

We've had two recent instances when blatant lies—about our own behavior—were thrown in our face as if we were not even in the room. What is happening to our culture when people think nothing of telling another person "no, you did not just do that"? 

I guess we could always say "I has did nothing wrong . . . " But that is a bit cynical, so apologies for that. (Look we just apologized without prompting!) Despite it all, we do hold out some hope that attitudes improve as our economy does likewise, and that people look less in the mirror and more toward the horizon. 

Yes, let's absolutely live in the moment and bring the energy to make every day exceptional. But let's maintain some perspective on where we're all going, and remember we're sailing there in one big boat. If you rock it too much, we'll all go overboard. We're here to help you maintain the balance you need. Are you willing to offer that, as well?

Is Facebook, like, the Culprit?

A New York Times article (Sunday, November 28) described the rigorous physical aspects of Natalie Portman's role in her newest film "Black Swan." It also contained seven examples of Ms. Portman and others using "like" in very distressing ways.

For us at Positively Writing, reading repeated inappropriate uses of "like" both astounds and appalls us. And we wonder if FB's ubiquitous "Like" button is the insidious enabler of this absurd usage. After all, with "Like" now top of mind, dropping it randomly into otherwise acceptable discourse seems logical . . . even predictable.

But what's most troubling is this: "Like" now serves as a "vagueness indicator," among other things. Perhaps another way to describe it is a "laziness" indicator. And Positively Writing readers very likely understand the deep aversion we have to anything approaching lazy.

People now use "like" to suggest that what they are about to say is only in the neighborhood of what they want to say. "It's close to this, but not really this" is what "like" is flagging for us. So we're giving ourselves permission to be vague. And we're simultaneously announcing "I'm not going to make my best effort to communicate precisely here; saying something "like" what I really want to say is good enough. You figure it out."

Hmm. You figure it out indeed. Onus now on you, listener, not on me, even if I'm delivering the message. A close relative of "like," also prominent in the NYT piece, is "kind of." As used there, it also adds a vagueness that completely quashes the communication. Ms. Portman says " . . . my body was KIND OF in emergency mode." So evidently we have "kind of" an emergency here. Well, do we have one or not? This isn't someone telling us it's kind of sunny outside; this person is trying to indicate a very serious condition . . . but then tells us that maybe it is an emergency, or maybe . . . 

Ugh.

Guys, please "Like" everyone you see fit to like on Facebook. Just don't inject "like" into your language, whether as a hedge, a pause, a filler, or, like, whatever. It doesn't help us understand you. And it causes us to question how much effort you are making to connect with us . . . especially when we don't have a "Like" button to show us the way.

The Pwr of Wrds

Do words have energy?

A number of very credible people make the case that in fact words do vibrate energy. Certainly they can transmit tremendous emotional power, but do words themselves—a series of adjacent letters—exude a kind of power. A real energy?

We at Positively Writing think this is a highly relevant question in this age of 3,300 teen texts per month. Texts that often contain no words at all, but rather abbreviations, acronyms and other abbreviated versions of actual words. 

Let's consider two strong words. First: Hate. 

Now consider this word: Peace.

You very likely have definitive, tangible reactions when you read these. And it's just as likely those reactions are vastly different. But do you have equally different feelings when you read "laughing out loud" and "lol"? Hmm . . . 

In the advertising world, good copywriting occurs when the words "bounce," when they have their own energy, When they move the reader along and make him anticipate what comes next. Sometimes with short sentences. Very short. Only to be followed by longer, more detailed sentences that provide the final, persuasive thought that answers the preceding ideas. Yes, good copywriting comprises substance and style; you'll deliver a message with greater impact if it contains the right information and it's delivered with positive, energetic words.

When we're not in work mode, we're far more informal with our language. Slang has become the default norm; street talk has moved curbside and right into the house. We're not chastising here, but simply illustrating another evolutionary turn of the language. And as always, we think some consideration should be given to the benefits of correct, complete communication.

The issue of communicating with words vs. texting with abbvs is one issue we think should be given more consideration by the MSM (Mainstream Media—what, you didn't know they had their own abbv?). Why? Because eliminating words, or reducing them to pieces, takes us one step further from each other.

E-mail and texting can be efficient, effective methods of communicating, often less intrusive than telephone calls. They also eliminate voice mail messages, which can be quite lengthy and, frankly, annoying. But the phone does give us one thing this digital duo cannot: a person.

When you speak with someone, they're there (at least their voice is there). When you e-mail or text, you're seeing digital representations of someone tapping on a keyboard. No voice. You're left to your own, sometimes completely erroneous devices, when interpretation of those words is necessary. If you're on the phone with someone, the odds that you'll misinterpret their words is low. Very low.

But it's the way of the world, you say. Well, yes it is, to a greater and great extent. But one of our goals here at Positively Writing is to be a voice of vigilance. So we think it perfectly appropriate to remind all of us that words—real, actual words—can do things that all the OMGs in the world cannot. They are much better equipped to deliver emotion, often subtle, nuanced, and complex.

So if you can handle digital delivery of a communication in 45, not 15, seconds, send us your words. In nicely constructed sentences. With punctuation. And chances are you'll make us happy. Because you'll help us feel some things that you very likely want us to feel. And that kind of connection is most definitely a good thing.

Now just don't comment on this post with "AYSOS." That will most definitely not make us very happy. So . . . C4N!

(No, I wouldn't leave you wondering. AYSOS=Are You Stupid Or Something, and C4N=Ciao For Now!)

Trust Yourself/Earn Trust

On the heels of our post that mentioned that lack of follow-up is becoming shockingly common, we were encouraged to see today's post by Andy Robinson in his Executive Coach blog.

Andy writes that keeping promises to others has a direct impact on your own self-esteem and sense of integrity. This is because any promise you make is, first, a promise to yourself. Break it, and take a hit to your self-respect and self-confidence. That simple.

In the agency business earning a client's trust in the first job of any good account person. In this setting, you can understand how hyper-critical it is to trust yourself . . . then earn the trust of a client. In fact we can sum up exactly how important in just one word: money. Want to make money for your employer—and yourself? Earn your client's trust.

But in this scenario, just following up appropriately may not be enough, though it certainly is vitally important. Clients actually deserve more than follow-up. They deserve proactive account management. Which means ideas. Energy. Positive energy. When you demonstrate to a client that your team—your team, not only you—is committed to learning more about their business every day, you're on the way to earning their trust. It's a great first step. (About client's deserving more: they are paying the bill, after all) 

Pretty interesting that you need to be true to yourself before you can truly be a valued resource (friend?) to others, don't you think?

We at Positively Writing were struck by another blog posting today that speaks directly to self-respect . . . and doing the right thing. In Erin Schreyer's piece on the Authentic Leadership blog, she emphasizes the need for employees to give their "A" effort because they are getting paid to do so. It made us wonder why this seems to be a concept that's foreign to some workers—especially with economic conditions an ongoing, threatening force.

So bring your "A" game folks. Every day. Every single day. And go beyond. We've half-joked in the past with our agency teams that every day is "Another day, another opportunity for greatness." And although we were met at times with typically cynical New York snickers and sneers, we actually meant it.

Question: Why can't we accomplish something truly great today? Every day is a clean slate. That simple fact is one of the reason we loved, and still love, Nike's thunderous, directive, amazingly positive slogan (which for some reason many ad types seem to think is now "quaint"):

Just Do It.

What Happened to . . . Energy?

A perfectly consistent behavior these days is . . . nothing. Doing nothing. Or at least not doing what you told someone you would do. We here at Positively Writing have seen this with alarming regularity, and we're compelled to address it now.

Yes, you can certainly make the case that the sky has indeed fallen at some point during the last two years. We've since been bombarded with an unstoppable, overwhelming flood of negative information, rumor, forecast and "analysis." Often we are provided this input by people whose sole purpose seems to be that of doomsayer—at precisely the time when we need the opposite.

I'll reprise the line, from an earlier blog posting below, which remains the single best description of where we are right now as a society. It's from an article about irrational, dishonest negativity by The Wall Street Journal's David Wiedner: "It's one thing to call the glass half empty, but these days we deny the existence of tableware."

We see two main reason for this intensely negative climate. One, some truly serious, negative things have happened to millions of people. Two, these people—and virtually everyone else—have been further beaten down by the banal talking heads and others in the media who focus incessantly on the negative.

One consequence of this, in our view, is that seemingly automatic behaviors have disappeared. Why is this? Why does a colleague or business contact tell you they'll get back to you and then . . . nothing? Why do you find out information after the fact, when prior knowledge could have made a major (positive) difference to you? Why do ostensibly standard initiatives now take 10 times longer than they should?

We've had friends and colleagues describe myriad instances like these. And we've formed an opinion about why they happen. First, your memory does get affected by "too much information." Research demonstrates a heightened difficulty at navigating basic tasks when the brain is overwhelmed by information, stress, and other items that demand attention. And when your short-term memory is hindered, so is your ability to operate efficiently. You slow down.

Second, social media and electronic communication have enabled a decidedly informal way to communicate. So informal, in fact, that communication itself has become sporadic. Somehow it's now "okay" to not follow-up, keep someone in the loop, or tell someone you don't yet have a piece of information they need. This, friends, is not good. It's not respectful and it can negatively affect someone else's job performance . . . or even worse, their life.

Third, because (in general) we're not particularly happy, we're not laughing very often. What does laughter do? Among other things, it stimulates enzyme production in the body, increases circulation, delivers oxygen to blood cells, and can even act as an anesthetic—it can actually relieve pain. 

So, energy . . . you've been trumped by . . . a lot of stuff. But now that we understand the negative impact all this stuff can have on our brains and bodies, maybe we can re-frame a bit and start helping ourselves. 

Turn off the computer, And the TV. And the iPhone. For a few solid chunks of time, every day. Give yourself a break from all the information you've been trying to process. And maybe take with a grain of salt the gloom and doom of the irrational boors that have your ear. And, yes, laugh a little. (Okay, you can start by just smiling if the whole laughter thing feels like too big of a leap.)

Then maybe you'll feel a bit more energy creeping back into your bones. Your psyche. Your heart. And that will be a very, very positive thing. For all of us.


Don't you think?

Pitfalls of the "Me" Plan in the Social Age

Are you on the "me" plan? 

When someone asks "how you are," do you tell them? I mean, really tell them? Or when you ask someone how they are, do you listen for a second or two . . . and then tell them how you are?

Then you probably are on the "me" plan. It's the plan that tells the world that everything, pretty much, is all about you. Now, a healthy sense of self and strong self-confidence are important; we here at Positively Writing acknowledge and endorse that fully. But in excess, they spread a negative image of yourself, and send negative signals to your "friends" and everyone else around you.

Egocentric people make little effort to empathize or understand your feelings. Their feelings are paramount; often they are the only ones that exist. When these people talk, they reveal their focus. They speak of their "accomplishments" or the "cool" things they do, and they exaggerate these things to reinforce their egos, to convince themselves their lives are extraordinarily important.

We're all for independence, independent thinking, standing up for ourselves. Who could argue against those? But extreme self-centerdness has the effect of separating individuals from all those around them. And, trite as it may sound, we really are all in this together.

So we're here to campaign for  a little humility. And a sense of community. And to ask those on the "me" plan to take a breath—take a deep breath—and actually listen to someone. We talk and talk and talk about being "connected" via social networks and blogs and microblogs and online communities and . . . wouldn't it be nice to exchange a warm, real moment with someone?

So to all you digital dudes and doyennes, a humble suggestion: Take the next critical and most telling step in your connectedness: feel what that someone is telling you. Don't just tell them how you feel, truly connect with their feelings and tell them what you understand about them. That could be the first step in getting onto the "we" plan. And very simply, it's just the right thing to do.

Branding, and Brand-Speak's Negative Effects

Nissan hires Robert Downey Jr. to do voice-overs and in one of his first spots, he has to say "sport-cross" when describing a new vehicle. Sport-Cross. This absurd hybrid descriptor not only tries much too hard to position the vehicle as something that doesn't actually exist, it clearly does this by attempting to create a term that "sounds like something." But it doesn't. As cool a guy as Downey is, it's just a poor and truly misguided attempt at branding.

(Lexus actually created the term "sportcross" in 2001 for a product that failed. Miserably. So full blame to them, as well.)

Even worse, perhaps, is a Buick Regal ad in which it calls itself a "sport-injected" sedan. Interesting. They've obviously developed a way to inject "sport" right into the engine itself, as they further use the term "sport-injected performance." I laughed at this incredibly feeble attempt to compare their Buick to European brands. (Want to know how to do it Buick? Watch the BMW 5 Series ad that uses 3rd-party reviews to describe the car. One states the car "defies the laws of physics." No announcer blathering on. No overstating. Just type on a screen with an appropriate attribution. Simple, believable, powerful.)

These are two examples of ridiculous brand-speak, which do nothing but convince audiences that they are being sold to. And sold to in a sleazy way, a way that clearly is not plain spoken or plainly honest. This is an example of why advertising is viewed with such deep disdain in so many quarters of our culture.

Another way of describing these branding blunders: negative media experiences. Can anyone honestly say to themselves, "Wow, a sport-injected car, finally!"?  Well, no, they surely cannot. So that small moment becomes a negative moment because of the distrust it conveys.

We're pretty much done with being sold to. Hence the massive explosion in social media and its vastly different user experiences. And for users, the experience is almost universally positive, for a number of hugely important reasons.

First is that social media is, in effect, about conversations, not commercials. What's more pleasant? Engaging in a conversation of your choosing or being exposed to a commercial you would rather not see?

Commercial marketing interrupts you; social media engages and informs you. And don't underestimate how important this distinction is. Think about this: You're having a conversation with someone who interrupts you with unrelated tidbits over and over and over. It's fair to assume you would limit, if not eliminate, your interactions with this person in the future. Isn't it?

But marketers—traditionally based marketers—don't seem to get this. Digital marketing is maturing and becoming an essential component in virtually every serious marketing strategy. But now those old-school marketers are injecting their "interruptive" techniques into the digital arena to a degree that has become troubling to us digitally aware marketers.

Proof? Anyone logging onto The New York Times website within the last few weeks has been jolted by a drop-down banner ad that expands to roughly 75% of the screen as soon as the page loads. Is this why you went to NYT.com? To have an unwanted branding message prevent you from accessing the information you're after? So you are forced to deal with another negative marketing experience, this one in a medium in which your expectations had been set to be positive. Ugh.

The web is loaded with these interruptions now, unfortunately. Video and accompanying audio blast away at you when you land on myriad sites (e.g., ESPN, Huffington Post). You Tube and other videos do not start when you click a play button; advertisements start and in most cases runs their course, like it or not. 

Many online users, we bet, are even taken aback by rich-media executions like Eyeblaster ads that frequently "interrupt" our online experience in more visually dynamic, interesting ways. (We at Positively Writing are less offended by these simply because we appreciate the creativity and technology involved.) But these are still interruptions no matter how you slice it. Negative moments. Again.

So the language of advertising and the techniques employed have steered us to interact online with friends, and yes, also with brands with whom we want to share. This is the power of social media. Communities and content created by the people, for the people. And largely controlled by the people, thank goodness. And even better: These same people are willing, often happy, to invite marketers into their world. If we marketers play by their rules.

So let's do that. Don't interrupt. Don't BS somebody. Listen to them. Speak with them as if they were a friend and—magic!—they may become a friend. An advocate. A true influencer. But if you don't give that person the space she/he deserves, you may be jettisoned. Permanently. 

Learn the rules and be respectful. Create positive experiences for your existing and potential customers and they will assuredly create the same for you. And whatever you do, don't try to "sport-inject" them; they're BMW. And you might be Buick. 

How scary a thought is that?

3,300 Shots to the Dome

Nielsen reported last week that U.S. teens average more than 3,300 texts a month. Believe it?

We here at Positively Writing do. Absolutely. One reason we believe is that the same groups' phone conversations dropped 14% during the three-month survey period. How many texts equal a phone call? Who knows, but let's assume "a lot." So that's a partial reason for all those texts.

But do other reasons exist? They must, surely. We think one reason that rarely gets mentioned is a pretty simple one: It's fun. It's cool. Why wouldn't you want to do something cool and fun if you're a teenager?

Lost in our myriad discussions about technology and social media and connecting and community is a very basic human desire: to feel good. Any good therapist will tell you that one of the most important things you can do for yourself is to feel good. Think thoughts and do things (within certain limits) that make you feel good. Your emotional health depends on it. 

So maybe all those texts are a good sign. Maybe they are telling us that teens are demonstrating an innate ability to act in a healthy way. They feel good when they text. So . . .  they text. 

When you were a teenager did you spend hours on the phone discussing . . . pretty much nothing? Most of us did, and if you're incredulous at the Nielsen text numbers you may be disregarding your own equivalent behavior at the same age. 

Sir Ken Robinson, in his TED talks and elsewhere, demonstrates with amazing clarity and logic how we are teaching our kids to be less creative. We hammer them with rules, with scores and grades, and we discourage divergent thinking by telling them there is one right answer. One right answer? Sure, maybe to a math or science problem, but in the social sciences—in life—is that really a good thing to tell a kid? 

Before any of us goes off on a teen-tech bashing spree, let's all remember that our kids, for all the electronic resources at their disposal, have pretty complicated lives they're living. And we might complicate them further by telling them to suppress their instinct to connect with their friends. To grow their circle of friends. To grow.        

Encourage. Be positive. Encourage positive thinking and activity. When you talk with kids. When you talk with colleagues. When you look in the mirror. Seems like a pretty healthy thing to do, don't you think?

We here at Positively Writing suggest that before you cast the first stone, about texting and otherwise, you consider whether you used available technology to connect with your friends—just as teenagers are doing today.

Do You Really, REALLY "Like" Me?

What do you think of Malcolm Gladwell? For us, he's alternately a blowhard and way too impressed with his own hair. But he deserves great credit for his piece "Small Change" in the October 4 New Yorker.

His gist is that the Internet's ability to connect us all has distorted the meaning of friendship, motivation, and activism. And we at Positively Thinking think that, despite his hair, this time he's got it exactly right.


First, you're not truly making me a "friend" me on Facebook; you're "acquaintancing" me. Am I really a friend if you contact me once a year on FB to tell me you hiked in Yosemite last week? If, conversely, you had dinner with me and and  looked me in the eye, and then we talked about our families and happiness , then yes, you could be a real friend. Especially if we shared time in person more than once a year.


FB "friends" often—very often—have weak ties. Ties that have very little meaning in their lives.We're not suggesting there is anything inherently wrong about "friending" (now there's an example of language evolving appropriately) a person or organization. We're just think people have lost some perspective about what a true connection feels like.


(Gladwell does not mention the marketing implications of "likes." But as marketers, we think it's relevant to mention the critical importance of  "likes" on a company's FB page. The more "likes" a company has, the higher their Google ranking (that's a fact, folks). So their friends or acquaintances or whatever you'd like to call them can have a direct impact on that company's business.)


The Internet continues to be the wild, wild West in many ways. It's almost universally free; anyone can access anyone or anything at any time. For the moment, anyway. And security/privacy issues notwithstanding, these are good things. 


But perspective can get lost in the loosely drawn, decidedly informal web we all create for ourselves. Making contact with others to establish and grow real relationships—whether this is done by an individual or organization—can be the beginning of a truly valuable relationship.The beginning.

Gladwell describes instances in which online communities can have literally life-saving impact, such as lightning-fast money-raising efforts for medical procedures. Those kinds of initiatives are truly inspiring should make everyone proud.


But a larger point he makes it's that these kinds of efforts succeed because they are "easy." All you need to do is click and contribute a dollar. You're not going out of your way, devoting time or energy or sacrificing yourself to help another person. 


Here's perhaps his best line about social 'activism': " . . . it succeeds not by motivating (people) to make a real sacrifice, but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are NOT motivated enough to make a REAL sacrifice." (Those CAPS are mine, for emphasis.)


Maybe that's overly cynical or harsh, but we think he's right, again. Sure, feel good if you contribute a dollar, but don't fool yourself into thinking you've just "given" of yourself. You spent a minute or two and did a small, good thing. That's fine. But that's it.


Social networks are, by definition, not hierarchical organizations; they lack much structure, procedure, and authority. So their value is not their ability to effect change; it's to provide a forum to communicate opinions and information. It's to promote participation, not motivation. Great Gladwellisms all.


Friendship, in our view, is best when it's created the old-fashioned way: when you earn it.

On When to NOT Talk

Two items of note to close out the week.

First, on responsibility: Radio sport-talk shows regularly take calls from listeners who voice opinions about the latest games, players, rumors and such. But the stations/shows seem oblivious to a dangerous practice they foment: taking calls from people who are driving in their cars.

I've never heard one station use disclaimer copy ("please don't call us while driving, or pull of the road before you call") or even address this practice in any way. And yesterday I was aghast when a TV news reporter called in to talk about a rain storm while this caption ran under video accompanying his report: "(Name) calling in while driving on L.I.E." And this, during a truly dangerous storm!

Tacit approval of this practice is irresponsible and terribly dangerous. We at Positively Writing urge viewers, listeners, and stations to stop this practice immediately.

The second bit of absurd communication for this week: " . . . speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the company . . . "

Huh? A person provides information, but does so only if a reporter will not divulge his/her name, because the person's employers said "Don't talk about this"? I assume the conversation begins something like "Listen, I'm not supposed to talk about this so don't use my name, but here's the deal . . . "

Betraying a trust. That's all this is. I wonder how these people feel when they ask a friend to keep information private, and the friend does just the opposite. 

Responsibility. Trust. Important ideals that seem to get swallowed up in the crazed media landscape operated, largely, by people on the "Me" plan. 

Let's start thinking about others, and the impact our communication has on others. And let's keep thinking of others. Every day. Okay?

Amazingly Consistent Language Misuse

When I see embarrassing misuse of language I'm incredulous, mostly because there is absolutely no excuse for it. The Internet provides immediate access to and clarity on virtually every single word that anyone could conceivably use. And idioms. And colloquialisms. And every figure of speech ever recorded.

In the last week I seen these examples of frighteningly careless usage :

1. ". . . he's known to cut off his nose despite his face."
2. ". . . one of those tenants of the past."
3. "English is a Rubick's cube of confusing possibilities."

The first two are from a blog and an e-mail; the third is from an article on Huffington Post about words that people misuse. Amazing: In a piece about mistaken use of language, an absurd spelling error.

I'm coming to the conclusion that language, spelling, grammar, et al, are simply becoming unimportant. Accuracy, correctness, effectiveness? They don't seem to matter to many people. I would love—I mean, L-O-V-E—if someone actually noticed the way I use words. (Actually one person has; thanks AB.) I'll never be the World's Greatest Writer, but I want to write well.

Instantaneous, universal access to  . . . everything . . . seems to have enabled poor communication to become the norm. One can only hope that the next generation will have an appreciation of the value of well-crafted communication.

The current generations? Shame on you.

Language is Evolving. But for the Right Reasons?

Language is alive. It evolves because we evolve. The culture, our values, the way we live—they all change and appropriately so. But when language changes because people use it incorrectly, we here at Positively Writing are compelled to voice our disappointment.

Example: the word "hopefully." We've somehow evolved to the point at which usage like "Hopefully, the train will be on time" dominantes. What's the big deal? you may ask. And we would point out that the primary definition of the word is "in a hopeful manner." The primary meaning.

A secondary meaning exists, of course, but that second meaning has become the default way to use "hopefully." The primary meaning? Nowhere to be found in daily discourse, and that is what bothers us. We understand that disjunct adverbs are perfectly acceptable (have you ever heard of disjuncts?). But they should not be the only use of the word, causing the primary use to become obsolete.

Another big language issue, this one prominent thanks to a One A Day vitamin commercial currently airing. In it, Tampa Rays manager Joe Maddon says, "As a manager, my team relies on me . . . " If you again ask what the big deal is, you fall into the category of "sloppy and incorrect is good enough for me" users of the language. That an agency and a client used/approved this language is pretty appalling.

This is one more incorrect use of an appositive phrase, and that it is in use on national TV is, to us, proof that ignorance of grammatical rules can filter into everyday language. The phase that must be used is "As a manager, I know that . . . " The only correct wording that follows the modifying phrase can be wording about the manager.

So the writers and owners of this TV spot are enabling the language to evolve as a result of a mistake. Again. And that bothers us. Mistakes should not drive new uses of the language; new, creative uses should.

We can be precise and structure our messaging correctly . . . and simultaneously be creative and find new, alternative uses that make the communication even more effective. Those of us in the communications business have the primary responsibility to do this. So let's take that responsibility more seriously, and respect the language enough to move it ahead correctly.

On Accuracy, Accountability and Positivity

On September 2 The New York Times published an editorial entitled "Mistrust and the Mosque," detailing findings of their own poll on this hot-button issue. Their framing of the results is disturbing and misleading.

They state New Yorkers have "robust disapproval of the mosque proposal." Then in the very next paragraph of their piece they state that 62% percent of New Yorkers say people had every right to build a mosque and Islamic community center near the WTC site. (An even higher percentage, 72%, agreed with that right when "mosque and Islamic community center” was changed to “house of worship.”)

Let's look more closely. Almost two-thirds of the people whose city was devastated by radical Muslims say that Muslims can and should build a house of worship just blocks from the site of that devastation. Is that really "robust disapproval"?

Answer? No, it is not. It is a remarkable display of tolerance and understanding by New Yorkers, who do not deserve the Times's self-serving chidings and expressions of disappointment. Contrariwise, they deserve enormous respect and thanks for their sensitivity and openness.

By framing the poll results as discouraging especially for "this city, the country’s most diverse and cosmopolitan," the Times further flames the very divisions they so egregiously exaggerate in their editorial. While I understand this is an editorial stance and not a traditional news report, the piece does focus on poll results: numerical representations of New Yorkers' views. Yes, the Times has every right to interpret those results as they see fit, but a more fair-minded interpretation would seem to be in order here. Editorial objectives immediately become suspect when editors use numbers in a way that brings accuracy into question. Deep question.

It's one more example, this one by America's most significant sources of news and opinion, of looking at information from a decidedly negative point of view. Perhaps by taking an alternative stance—say, something akin to " . . . with the majority of New Yorkers expressing tolerance for the mosque, perhaps even more could be moved to this level of understanding. And this space will try to encourage further dialogue to that end . . . " —the Times would better serve New Yorkers and all their readers. Until they do, we here at Positively Writing will hold them accountable.

Borderline-Criminal Negativity

A Nation That Won't Be Fooled Again—Betrayed by Washington and Wall Street, We Find It Hard To Accept Good NewsIt's good to know I'm not alone in my view of rampant negativity.

In a Wall Street Journal piece on August 12, David Wiedner rips into the "knee-jerk hotheads" who twist straightforward economic data into partisan, spiteful propaganda.

In his article "A Nation That Won't Be Fooled Again—Betrayed by Washington and Wall Street, We Find It Hard To Accept Good News," he passionately demonstrates how we simply can't seem to view things positively right now. Perhaps his best line: It's one thing to call the glass half empty, but these days we deny the existence of tableware.

I'm not living in a vacuum; things are tough and people have been hit hard. Believe me, I'm as aware—if not much, much more aware—of this than most people. But at some point, you would think, people should start to realize what they are doing to themselves by denying . . . the tableware.

Fact: You focus on the negative, you perpetuate the negative.

Look*, do I think that everyone is equally capable of being a glass-half-full person? Absolutely not. But those who see only the negative, even when presented with the positive, infect themselves and all those with whom they interact.

Maybe that's the essential message here: Remember that you're not in a vacuum either. Everything you say can and will be used . . . whether you want that to be the case or not.

We're all in this together. Corny, I know, but guess what?


*(Notice how Obama-speak has filtered in . . . even here? He starts every other unscripted line with "Look, we've got to . . . " Check yourself; see how many times you start sentences this way today.)

Absolutely, Positively First

Welcome to my blog.

I'll be writing about what's happened to the ways we communicate and relate to one another. Specifically, how we've become a negative culture, and how we could benefit by being a positive one.

I'm in the marketing and advertising worlds, but I'll discuss much more than how marketers continually use negative concepts and language. I'll write about how we've become an accuse-first society. A cynical, all-about-me society. A society both exclusionary and close-minded . . .

. . . and I'll discuss how to view things more positively. Because I'm a marketer, much of my writing will be about communication and the media. I'll point out how messages get skewed by (sometimes truly bizarre) points-of-view, and how this contributes to our behavior. I'll discuss the lack of civility, courtesy, and professionalism in the media, and how personal responsibility has somehow become a secondary issue.

And I hope this encourages readers to offer their opinions. I've always felt a stimulating discussion—a probative, thoughtful discussion—is the first step in better communication. So let's discuss things. In a positive light. And maybe we can start living a little more positively. A little lighter. And see how that feels.