Jim Grisanzio

Interesting that the U.S. media provided Americans with saturation coverage of Congressman Anthony Weiner’s big hairy penis for weeks on end in June, while that same media in July is ignoring the GAO report about The Fed’s $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses. Trillion. Secret. I guess it’s just not a story given how far we’ve come in the last decade or so.

All presidents go off script occasionally and force their staff members to spin things back on track. Many times those moments provide some humor as the emperors expose themselves as mere humans. But other times going off script reveals more serious positions that can be jarring at best. That’s how I view Obama’s recent comments declaring Bradley Manning guilty before any trial has taken place. Jarring. It’s especially disconcerting given how aggressive the president’s supporters are in pitching just how much smarter he is than the rest of us and that he’s a lawyer and law professor on top of being smarter than us. If he were so smart he certainly wouldn’t have said something so legally inappropriate so I don’t buy the brains bit. And while most people will pass off his little declaration as simply an unfortunate lapse of judgment in an informal setting I don’t buy that either. I think the statements could reflect his true feelings about the situation since they are consistent with how his administration has been treating Manning. That’s the scary part. That’s why when leaders veer from their prepared messages we should pay attention.

Since the earthquake in Japan there has been some confusion about the Japanese media coming from people around the world. The reason, I think, is that this is the first time in a long time the world has been exposed to a flood of Japanese communications. Without disasters or political controversies, Japan is generally not really a big part of the global media conversation — certainly not like the United States and some countries in Europe. The disasters that hit Japan three weeks ago have clearly had a global effect, so people are now noticing Japan and they are noticing that things are quite different here. Surprised?

Here are some common questions I hear in social networks or from friends in the west or from my own reading and viewing of western media: “Why is the Japanese media so freaking calm about this disaster? Why don’t they go after the government more? Why don’t they go after TEPCO more? Why don’t they listen to western sources more? Why are they so lame? Do something!” I am partially sympathetic to these comments because at times I have been very critical of the Japanese media myself. That’s not necessarily saying much, though, because I’m critical of most mainstream media.

Also, the comments above are only partially accurate. Aside from the problem of translating the Japanese language into English for westerners to conveniently digest, there is still the issue that the Japanese culture is significantly different from most western cultures. Many times just translating words from one language into another is practically meaningless without a comprehensive understanding of the cultural context underlying the event being documented. So, even if you can explain what’s going on in English, a westerner may not be satisfied with the result because all the basic assumptions are all wrong. This occurs the other way around, obviously.

But even so some segments of the Japanese media are certainly a tad on the tame side, such as NHK, for example. They could stand to be more probing of the Japanese government, and they could also seek out more international experts for important global stories. But other parts of the media in Japan spin up controversies that westerners would die laughing at due to their ridiculous lack of significance. From an American perspective, political scandals in the U.S. are always larger by orders of magnitude than they are here. The U.S. media specializes in political scandal, though, so it’s not really fair to compare any media in the world to the extremism of even the mainstream media in the United States. I do miss some of the American media theater, though. It’s very entertaining and the people delivering the news at the major networks are absolutely the most talented sellers of information in the world. But over the years I’ve also come to appreciate Japanese news specifically because it lacks all the drama. Sometimes I just want information. Sometimes I actually want to make up my own mind. Sometimes I want a more subtle view.

Which brings up the final point: quality. Some people in the west who are critical of Japanese press coverage tend to think that the more loud and aggressive media they are used to is better media. American media, for example, is not subservient to power like the Japanese media, right? American media is very critical of the government, or example, right? No. Sorry. It doesn’t work that way. Don’t confuse noise and commercialism with quality. All the screaming and yelling only serves to promote a false impression of diversity and distracts from the good news being produced in the country (largely from alternative sources). The reality of the American media is far different and this has been well documented over the years. Most recently Glenn Greenwald has been really articulate about media matters in the United States, and he is well worth following closely. Here are just four references of many dozens of well-documented posts and videos from Greenwald: one, two, three, four. Or you can read Chris Hedges for an even more shocking view of the American media.

So, in the broader context, the Japanese media doesn’t seem too bad. The bottom line is this: It’s best to always be critical of where you get your news from. Many times official and mainstream sources are excellent but many times they are not. I spent over a decade in the public relations industry, and I know how easy it is to spin up a “story” in the media. Also, the exact same thing can be said about alternative sources of information, although that’s where I’m spending most of my media time these days. Study hard. That’s the only way around the problem. And study news from other cultures, too. You’d be surprised to learn just how much propaganda you’re ingesting if you only stick to media from your own cultural paradigm. Here are a few other sources to consider from around the world on Livestation. Anyway, if you want to watch some Japanese media for yourself, see NHK World right here.

I am really looking forward to seeing Joseph Tame (here, here) run the Tokyo Marathon on Sat Feb 27. He is not just running, though. He will also be streaming his run live via some iPhones and an iPad strapped to his body, so viewers can run right along with him every step of the way. See two videos here and here. So creative. I have never run a marathon, but maybe this will inspire me. My best pic of Joseph. Japan Times article. Tame on Twitter. One week to go. Will take some pics.

It’s hilarious watching the television news stars and an odd segment of the intellectual elite twist around in rhetorical gymnastics trying to come down on both sides of the Wikileaks story. I’m not talking about the lunatics calling for political assassination — their position is clear — but I’m more commenting about those who find it impossible to simply take one position and draw it out to its natural (hopefully sane) conclusion. Instead, they need get out there and get their voice heard (publicity is important, you know), but at the same time they also have to come down squarely on both sides of the story. They are absolutely and strongly “conflicted” or “uncomfortable” with Wikileaks because Wikileaks represents something entirely new in the world, yet they also fully support free speech and isn’t it sad the government is behaving badly here. That’s spin. And not very good spin at that.

Why all the conflict and parsing in this story? Wikileaks is not difficult to understand. It’s actually pretty easy. What they’re doing is essentially what journalists do. The publication and funding mechanisms may be different, but the journalistic concept and intent is really quite the same — get secret information out before a competitor does. Period. If people are conflicted about Wikileaks than they should also be conflicted about the Pentagon Papers, yet most say they aren’t or conveniently don’t even mention it. And every other leak that has taken place in every other publication along the way should have also provided the same conflict, yet no such discomfort was ever expressed in those cases.

Also — and amazingly — Wikileaks is not even the real story here. The story is the past actions of the government outlined in the cables, what the government is doing now to stop the publication of the documents, why the government is ignoring the other media outlets publishing the very same content, and why the press and their supporters are pushing for government secrecy and spinning themselves silly to appear otherwise. That’s the story. And it’s a very simple story.

From the government perspective, though, Robert Gates is the only one who has this story straight. It’s simply no big deal to them and for very good reason: the government holds all the power here. The public outrage is ridiculously small, the mainstream media largely supports the government position, no one is in the streets protesting, very few people from the general public are involved in politics, governments around the world must deal with the U.S. (or else!), the current and future wars will go on right on schedule, etc. So, whatever the government did in those cables they’ll likely skate. With very few high profile exceptions, they always do. Please tell me where I’m wrong here? That doesn’t mean we don’t have the right to know. We do. And that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t push for policy changes. We should.

The only thing that moves power is activism pressing from the bottom or another power attacking from the side. I see no real movement from either direction. The people flush with cash are noticeably quiet, and most of everyone else is scared because they’ve lost their jobs, they’ve lost their houses, they’ve lost their savings … what’s next? Things are going to have to get a lot worse for people to finally take to the streets in direct protest to change whatever nasty policy is articulated in a leaked cable. Until then the Wikileaks story is meaningless in terms of change, and it won’t hurt the government one bit (individual scapegoats notwithstanding). In fact, that may be one reason why the government is making such a big deal of this. Their over reaction is itself a distraction — and a warning. And so far it’s working beautifully. So, all you guys coming down on both sides of the story can relax. Your gravy train is safe. For now. You may find yourselves on the wrong side if the story tips, though. But who knows, I could be wrong.

Here’s a nice old sequence from Noam Chomsky on the need for concision on mainstream television news. Jeff Greenfield, formally of ABC’s Nightline, really comes off pretty badly in the video, but he does it to himself so it’s hard to feel sorry for him. It’s actually pretty funny listening to him crash and burn. The bottom line is this: when you’re being interviewed for a TV news program, you need to be concise or you don’t get on. It’s entertainment. That’s what’s most important. I think the same could be said for politicians in the vast majority of their public appearances as well. They are actors.

Here’s the problem with this dumb rule: concision forces conformity and cuts diversity at a time when people are reaching out for quality not candy. On most programs you end up getting too much of, say, one or  two points of view and rarely anything else, whereas most issues actually have many more sides than that. But people expressing alternative views get almost no air time in the mainstream media because even if they are articulate they can never be as concise as the mainstreamers because those guys are saying what’s generally already been accepted. Even if it’s completely wrong it usually goes unchallenged. Instead, it’s the people expressing alternate views who need more consideration because what they say — by definition — needs more background and thus more time. This concision trap is one reason why American news outlets are so freaking loud. They let on only those who express mainstream views — concisely, of course — and to give the appearance of openness (the “both” sides of the story bullshit) they let people flame it up and get shrill. So, the voices are loud, but the range of opinion is actually extremely narrow.

Another reason the idea of concision is silly is Chomsky’s demonstrated track record of generating gigantic audiences with pretty much zero publicity and almost no exposure in the mainstream U.S. press. Can Jeff Greenfield do that? Right. Chomsky can pack them in for hours and he is completely incapable of being concise. In fact, he’s pretty boring. Yet people listen deeply and beg for more when he’s done. How is that possible, Mr. Greenfield? Obviously, not everyone agrees with the rule of concision. And many media outlets around the world don’t agree, either. That’s why Chomsky gets quoted — at length — all over the world but rarely makes it into the American media. Yet I keep going back to those big audiences who come to hear his talks. Why is it that the American people get this concept, but the American media doesn’t?

WikiLeaks reveals more than just government secrets: “The WikiLeaks disclosure has revealed not only numerous government secrets, but also the driving mentality of major factions in our political and media class. Simply put, there are few countries in the world with citizenries and especially media outlets more devoted to serving, protecting and venerating government authorities than the U.S. Indeed, I don’t quite recall any entity producing as much bipartisan contempt across the American political spectrum as WikiLeaks has.” — Glenn Greenwald

And that begins an excellent — and brutal — review of some the more extreme positions coming out about Wikileaks from across the political spectrum in the western world. Now, listening to pols screaming all over the place about this or that is one thing, but watching the media try to figure this out is far more interesting. The government is pissed, granted, and that’s obvious and understandable. But the media seems pissed too! And that’s fascinating. But why? Perhaps it’s because the so-called watchdog media is finally dead? Perhaps that’s why we finally have Wikileaks? To explore that bit see Jay Rosen: The watchdog press died; we have this instead.

Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, uttered the best set of quotes of all the sorted characters involved in the recent Cablegate mess in Washington. Here are the best bits:

“Every other government in the world knows the United States government leaks like a sieve. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.”

Well, now that’s an interesting communications strategy, eh? Actually, the strategy makes perfect sense when you have all the power to dictate your desired outcomes. But the message is quite different from that being pushed by others in the Obama Administration and especially by Hillary Clinton, who is reacting much more like how Gates reacted the last time around. Is this all planned? Whatever. I just think the quotes are remarkably revealing — especially the “indispensable nation” thing. I also wonder how reactions from the Administration will evolve over time. They always do.

President Obama met with a small group of so-called “progressive” bloggers at the White House the other day. Here is a little summary. Here is the full transcript. At one point in the interview Obama said, “I do not intend to make big news sitting here with the five of you.” No kidding. Not only did he not say much (although he certainly talked a lot), but he was not challenged at all. I kept reading the transcript looking for some substance. Some questions. Anything. I thought that these “progressive” bloggers were pissed at Obama. Guess not. It was all pretty warm and fuzzy in there. You sure can pick your progressives, Mr. President. Nice job. Bottom line: the discussion was ridiculous. Nothing on the wars? Nothing on Wikileaks? No challenges on the economy? You guys just sat there and let him talk while you giggled?

I flew on a US-based airline recently. It was unavoidable. Anyway, it was cold in the cabin. Much colder than usual. In fact, had I coughed or sneezed I would have started a snow storm in there. Now, I’m generally ok with a bit of a chill, but this was way beyond what even I could stand. So, I looked around for some blankets and when I couldn’t find any I simply asked a flight attendant. I thought it was a pretty common and easily fulfilled request. Guess not. I was greeted with this response: “Blankets are for our first class and business class customers only.” I was third class so I didn’t qualify and was obviously not worthy of a blanket. Blankets are reserved for the special people. Ok. But mere minutes later and right after the safety instructions a flight attendant grabbed the microphone and gleefully announced this to entire plane: “If there is anything we can do to make your flight more enjoyable, please don’t hesitate to ask.” I wondered why they didn’t see the disconnect. I guess they haven’t implemented the technology to segregate audio messages like they segregate people.

Rakuten switches to English for their internal corporate meetings. For Japan, this is a rare move. But they want to be a global enterprise and that means doing business operations in English across multiple languages and cultures. And they are hiring more foreigners as well. Again, rare for Japan. I heard about this story at BarCamp Tokyo the other day and to be honest I didn’t believe it. It just didn’t make any sense based on any of my experiences thus far in corporate Tokyo. But I guess it’s true. See The Japan Times and Asiajin. Good deal, Rakuten. Good luck.

Actions represent a remarkably effective way to deliver messages. Words, however, don’t necessarily deliver messages very well at all — especially when used in isolation. And the reason is simple: messages have to actually resonate somewhere to affect change, and actions are generally much more difficult to disregard than words so that’s why actions resonate better. Also, people lie so easily that we just don’t believe words anymore, but when we directly experience an action than that’s real. No words necessary. In that case, the action is the message and we have to deal with it. But although actions affect things directly, their effect can be limited to only those involved. What about all the other people to whom you’d like communicate your actions? How do you get your message to resonate with them? This is where words come in. Words extend and support the message delivery system of actions. They offer context to the people who are directly affected by your actions, and they help prepare those other people for when your actions eventually engage them. The further and further you get from the actions, though, the weaker and weaker your words become. So, make sure you always extend your actions along with your words in ever increasing concentric circles.

This actions <-> messages <-> words <-> resonance relationship is basic to effective communication. But it’s surprising how many people in leadership positions don’t get it. They think words deliver messages, and that’s simply not true. For a really good example of a guy who got it, consider someone like Martin Luther King. He was a great speaker, right? One of the best, actually. But that’s not why he was so effective in building communities. He was effective because he helped build a national organization where leadership was distributed widely, where people were inspired to take action for themselves and contribute back, and where after his uplifting speeches people in his movement saw him take direct action. He marched — at the front of the line. He confronted the politicians. He was arrested. He went to jail. He got out. He delivered more speeches. He got back in front of the line. He organized. If he didn’t take those very visible actions then his speeches could have been passed off as mere rhetoric. Another example is Thay Thich Nhat Hanh in Vietnam. And, of course, Gandhi in India. And there are many others.

I’m interested in this stuff so I think about it a lot. Good communications can help extend projects and communities much more than people realize, and bad communications can thwart things fast and lead to missed opportunities to build in new ways. That’s the context in which I read an article this morning about how the Obama White House is responding to the oil spill in the Gulf. See White House message machine spins faster than ever. It’s a long article but it’s very interesting. And it’s striking the extent to which the White House communications team — which is hundreds of people — goes to make sure they get the boss’s message out to all channels available to them. And fast. They are using all sorts of new media technologies to get ahead of the story and get around the mainstream media. But this is where I think they make a mistake. Instead of trying to work around the mainstream networks, the White House team should treat the networks as just another communications channel. I realize the White House feels the mainstream media is an unfriendly filter, but all communications channels have limitations so why not treat them all equally? Or at least just use them all to whatever extent they can help deliver messages describing your actions. Also, if you use alternative media to navigate around the mainstream media you only piss off the mainstream media. That’s dumb. Yet many communications practitioners engage in just this exercise of selective dissemination. I don’t get it. If you are building a community or managing a project, use all the available means of discourse at your disposal. And finally, I have no idea if the White House communications team is delivering words consistent with the actions the government is taking to deal with the oil spill, but just the communications part of the equation is fascinating enough. It’s instructive. They recognize they have to engage. They have to talk. They have to demonstrate they are doing something. They aren’t letting events drive them into a defensive position. They are, instead, attempting to drive events at least enough so they are seen (as much as possible, anyway) as implementing positive solutions. Time will tell and we’ll see if their words do in fact represent their actions.

It’s disturbing to watch President Obama at the White House Correspondents Dinner joke about killing people using predator drones. Oh, it’s just a joke, right? Have a flipping sense of humor, my goodness. Yah, well, bullshit. It’s not funny. The United States is seriously increasing the use of those damn drones in what’s becoming a never-ending war, and more innocent people are getting killed as a result. Iraq wasn’t enough for these guys? Will Obama — or anyone else in that room full of belly-busting wealth — help clean up the body parts of the civilians blown to pieces via drones flown so remotely and bravely and safely from thousands of miles away? I doubt it. Will the mothers and fathers of killed kids in Afghanistan and Pakistan get all dressed up in their Hollywood best and giggle along with the jokes while sucking down fine wine, roasted halibut, and delicate little amaretto chocolate truffles? I doubt it.

I suppose we should not be surprised by this pattern of rhetorical behavior, though. Bush did it with Iraq. Heck, that guy was famous for this perspective. And McCain likes this sort of thing, as well, but he extended it to Iran. And don’t forget Reagan on Russia. Actually, many politicians on all sides have boasted openly about wars in which they don’t have to fight. Convenient, eh? I would imagine that whoever comes after Obama will probably push the same public joke trend. The reason? Simple. Political leaders at that level never pay for the consequences of their actions. It’s all, well, a joke. It’s not real. Instead, it’s the job of other people to pay. But for them the price seems too high and too painful to be laughed it. Joking in public is one thing, but the private conversations can get a great deal uglier. See Nixon talking to Kissinger about Vietnam for probably the most offensive bit of all.

Now, when people misspeak in real time, such as responding to questions under pressure, it’s easy for them to correct themselves or to apologize and for others to forgive them. It’s not a big deal, really. We all say dumb things — especially if you are under a media microscope in public. But when comments are drafted beforehand and vetted and rehearsed and specifically designed for maximum impact — like Obama’s and Bush’s stand-up comedy routines — than those comments need to be condemned. The comments need to be condemned not because they are unfortunate mistakes and just need correcting. On the contrary, the comments are quite intentional. Instead, the condemnation needs to dig at the deeper perspective being articulated. That’s what needs changing.

I know, I know. Years ago McCain told us to just get a life, so I won’t hold my breath on all of this. It’s just a joke, they say. I’ll just have to get a better sense of humor next time.

No One Is to Blame for Anything: “We live in a culture where accountability and responsibility are forgotten values. When ‘mistakes are made’ they are always made by someone else.” — Frank Rich, New York Times. Nice column. It outlines the obvious lack of leadership demonstrated by our so-called leaders. The only way this ends well is if we stop following others and start doing for ourselves. See Grace Lee Boggs on that last point. Other than that, we have the best leadership money can buy.

“Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try.” — Yoda. Still my favorite after all these years.