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.