Monday, September 29, 2008

Touro Communication Club Notes #44
tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com
Well, the first 2008 Presidential Debate is history. Both sides are claiming victory. There were no gaffes or major missteps. Many people thought McCain and Obama debated to a draw. Although both Senators used exaggerations, hyperbolic statements, stretching the truth, quotes out of context, it would take an expert to figure out the precision of their statements.
From a communication viewpoint, I’ve become concerned with several factors.
1. The polls continue to show a neck-and-neck horse race. In the remaining days before the election on Tuesday, November 4th, little things could assume magnified importance and become “game-changers.” Oddly, the financial crisis looms over the election, but seems mysteriously separated from the contest
2. Regardless of what the candidates say, the polls indicate that the voters are holding their positions. That implies that the voters are emotionally steadfast in their support of their candidates.
3. This leads me to observe that no argument is ultimately persuasive, if the voter has made up his/her mind. My frequent observation is that “Emotion trumps reason, especially in crisis.” I begin to doubt that ANYTHING can be taught “reasonably” if emotion is so dominant.
4. I also begin to wonder how to teach my students how to listen critically when so much of the speech-making is full of factual manipulation. How does a person with little or no specific evidence figure out whether the speaker is distorting the facts. How can anyone recognize “spin” or a manipulation of the truth is being thrown at them? Despite my feeble efforts, I still dunno – yet.
5. Lastly, the phrase “You don’t have a second chance to make a first impression” is certainly true in politics as it is in job interviews. Aristotle’s “ethos” seems to dominate “logos” and “pathos” Personality can be more important than substance.
In the coming weeks, we have a chance to take a close observation of two political campaigns – one fictional (“The20Candidate”) and one factual dramatization (“Recount”) As we watch both films, observe the strategic and tactical manipulation that both sides employ to win the election. “The Great Debaters” dramatizes the enormous effort that debaters experience as they prepare for the most demanding intellectual combat.
Here's our schedule:

Thursday, October 2 , 2008 – 2 pm – Room 610 – Theatre – We will discuss the range of possible activities we could explore in this new component. We should close with some elementary acting exercises. There are so many aspects of the theatre that can enhance everyone’s presentation.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008 – 2 pm – Room 226 The film “The Candidate” (1973) with Robert Redford. This Oscar winning script takes a biting look at the nature of politics.
After the film, we’ll discuss the many aspects of Robert Redford’s experience running for office, the “handling” of the candidate, the opposing messages and the impact of Redford’s “pretty boy” looks toward stacking the outcome. Most importantly, the final scene make strong editorial comment about what a candidate is going to do once elected.
What happened on September 24, 2008 – Discussing the Politics of the Election
Somehow I didn’t get the sign-in sheet. So I will have to guess at who was there Richard Green. Olushile Akintade, James Millner, Brian Brown, Amina Bibi were there when Hal Wicke, George Backinoff, Lorinda Moore and Jason Carvell arrive from a Faculty Development meeting.Marcus Vay ndorf has already left. If I missed others, I’ll include them in the next notes.
As near as I could deduce from the excitement in the air about the discussion, the large group had a productive discussion. Richard who galvanized the discussion has printed Chapter 11of the debate text he uses at Avenue J entitled, “Logic is Not Enough: Use other Sources of Persuasion, too.”
In the discussion one term stood out. Senator Joe Biden was frequently accused of “logorrhea.” Defined as excessive talking, one jokester called it “Diarrhea of the mouth.”
Some of the issues I gleaned included:
  • There was a clash of speaking styles between McCain and Obama. McCain’s short punchy sentences contrasted with Obama’s longer sentences. (One of the rhetorical complaints about Senator Kerry in the 2004 election was that he spoke in “paragraphs” while George Bush delivered “bumper-sticker” sentences. (Do people listen to paragraphs?)
  • There were abundant comments about the candidates delivering lies, counter-lies, distortions, mis-representations, stretching the facts,
  • Many sound bites seem ed ot be persuasive.
  • The 1960 debate between Nixon and Kennedy – the first in television history- demonstrated how pretty looks trumped substance. George Backinoff commented on how an audiotape demonstrated how much more substantive Nixon’s presentation was, yet on television people noticed his scowl and his five-o’clock shadow.
  • People seem to live in a bubble. Do election issues ever reach them?
The conversation could have continued far beyond our time. As people were leaving Amina raised the issue of the recent Pakistani bombings and her concern that nothing much had appeared in the media. She wanted to organize some kind of political protest action. After many suggestions from Jason, George, Lorinda,. Hal suggested that she write up a proposal that the club would discuss at our next gathering.
Next time, the club will begin alternating between general topics in communication, debate and the theatre/drama.
These sessions continue to be open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join in the excitement. See you next time.
Hal Wicke

Monday, September 22, 2008

Touro Communication Club Notes #43
tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

Watch for the film schedule: “The Candidate” (1973) with Robert Redford: “Recount” (2008) with Kevin Spacey; and “The Great Debaters” (2008) with Denzel Washington.

This week, the Presidential race took a backseat to the financial crisis on Wall Street which soon will have its impact on Main Street. In the worst financial calamity since the Depression in 1929, Americans will be taking on $1 trillion (that’s $1,000,000,000,000) debt. Much of debt will be underwritten by Washington who has foreign countries holding our enormous I.O.U.s..

Two competing philosophies collided this week as unfettered free market capitalism imploded without adequate government regulation, weakened by the current administration. In the newly configured arrangement on Wall Street, government and business must work together as intertwined entities. Hmmm, a new thought.

WRITE DOWN THESE DATES
The Commission on Presidential Debates has announced the schedule:


First presidential debate on Domestic Policy:
Friday, September 26, 2008
University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS

Vice presidential debate:
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Washington University in St. Louis, MO

Second presidential debate
(a town meeting format):
Tuesday, October, 2008
Belmont University, Nashville, TN

Third presidential debate on Foreign Policy:
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY.

The Commission also announced formats for the debates.

All debates will be ninety minutes in length and start at 9:00 p.m. ET. Each debate will be administered by a single moderator.

The first presidential debate will focus on domestic policy; the third presidential debate will focus on foreign policy.

The second presidential (town meeting format) debate will include any issues raised by members of that audience, and the vice presidential debate will include domestic and foreign policy.

In each debate except the town meeting format, the candidates will be seated at a table with the moderator.

Each of those debates will be divided into 8 ten-minute issue segments; the moderator will introduce each segment with an issue on which each candidate will comment, after which the moderator will facilitate further discussion of the issue, including direct exchange between the candidates, for the balance of that segment. Time will be reserved for closing statements by each of the candidates in each debate.

Here's our schedule:
Wednesday, September 24, 2008 – 2 pm Room 610 – Debate - SPAR debate – the usual silliness that really tests linear thinking and relevant evidence. The Greed debate took on new meaning with this financial crisis!

Thursday, October 2 , 2008 – 2 pm – Room 610 – Theatre – We will discuss the range of possible activities we could explore in this new component. We should close with some elementary acting exercises. There are so many aspects of the theatre that can enhance everyone’s presentation.
What happened on September 17, 2008 – A Potluck Discussion
Present: Lorinda Moore, Richard Green, Drani Gabu, Olushile Akintade, James Millner, Hal Wicke, Amina Bibi, (newcomer) Marcus Vayndorf and Stephen Gradman.

We had the greatest of intentions of talking about gender communication, but Lorinda’s story set the tone for a free-for-all discussion about a variety of topics.

Lorinda shared her surprise reaction to the view of business expressed by students in her marketing class. She reported the students viewed that the sole purpose of business was to make money. She felt the students did not have a sense of morality or ethics in how their viewed business.

As the discussion developed, it was clear that a clash of cultures between what the purpose of business was. ”Business is business,” said one person. Questions were raised at to whom corporations were responsible. Corporations seem to hide behind a façade of doing good but are only interested in making money. The group seemed to be divided in its view of business.

Newcomer Marcus, a Mathematics instructor, offered his authoritative worldview of systems. He spoke of how Soviet Russia exploited workers because of its belief in the Communist system.

Before Marcus left for class, Hal asked him if he was willing to undergo a communication analysis in public. He graciously accepted, not fully knowing what he was getting into. Hal pointed Marcus’ strong voice, his definitive gestures and relentless delivery.

A discussion continued regarding how speaking style influences the receipt of information by the listener.

As the group was departing, Hal said that Lonyell Tolbert of the Midtown Learning Center asked him if he would start a drama club. He said that he couldn’t do an additional club, but he was willing to add a theatre/drama component to the Communication Club meetings. The group seemed to think that would be a good addition to the club’s offerings.

In the future meetings, the club will alternate between general topics in communication, de bate and the theatre/drama.

These sessions continue to be open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join in the excitement. See you next time.

Hal Wicke

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Touro Communication Club Notes #42

tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com

To see the two presidential candidates walk together down the ramp at Ground Zero on September 11th was an unusual sight. It was odd to have a day of respite between the nasty campaigning. To add to the political stew, Gov. Sarah Palin went under the microscope with ABC anchor Charles Gibson. (She kept calling him “Charlie” as if she had known him for years, rather than second.) (Sorry for the mixed metaphor.)

With Hurricane Ike as a catastrophic distraction to the presidential campaign, both events demonstrated how Mother Nature and Human Nature can be so devastating to human aspirations. In New York City, we forget how powerful Mother Nature can be. We are also reminded in this campaign – and others before it – how poorly humans treat eat other. It sometimes feels that having a positive impulse is a lonely activity. The debris of human history is sometimes punctuated with moments of upbeat actions. We seem to always have to relive constantly the dreadful contents of Pandora’s box before we discover the sliver of hope at the bottom.

These thoughts gave rise to this week’s Communication Club topic of strategies in presidential politics. If we can learn how to strategize the direction of our lives from watching experts compete for the big brass ring, maybe then we can adopt some of these strategies to our own lives. We can only observe, listen and practice applying them.

Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of talking at length to the freshman Congresswoman, Yvette Clarke, a Democrat from the 11th district of Brooklyn, at our annual neighborhood block party. Among the slew of questions I asked her was, “What did you learn upon arriving in Washington that you didn’t know before?” She was quick to respond, “I didn’t realize how naïve I was about how difficult it is to get things done in Congress. The gridlock makes it virtually impossible to do anything constructive.” As she approaches her second election, she is running unopposed and will no doubt be re-elected by what she calls the most diverse Congressional district in the nation. I was struck by how few people came up to speak to her.

Here's our schedule:

Wednesday, September 17, 2008 – 2 pm Room 610. Club Gender Communication. How men talk to women. How women talk to women. How men talk to men. Ever since Adam and Eve there has been a battle between Mars and Venus.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008 – 2 pm Room 610 – Debate
- SPAR debate – the usual silliness that really tests linear thinking and relevant evidence

The Club will be co-sponsoring with Mr. Mason an upcoming film series co-sponsored by the Club and Mr. Mason’s office on Debate and Presidential Politics. Possible films might be “The Great Debaters” (2008) with Denzel Washington, “Recount” (2008), a fictionalized documentary about the 2000 election with Kevin Spacey and “The Candidate” (1972) with Robert Redford.

What happened on September 10, 2008 – Strategies in Presidential Politics

Present: Lorinda Moore, Olushile Akintade, James Millner, Carlisle Yearwood, Hal Wicke and, at the end, George Backinoff.

On the whiteboard, Hal had written a chart

+ The Goal: White House.

+ The Competitors: McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden

+ The Issues:

  • Iraq/Afghanistan
  • Housing
  • Security
  • Taxes
  • Health Care
  • Education
  • Energy
  • Bush legacy – domestic and foreign
  • Wedge issues: same-sex marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, gun rights, women as presidential/vice-presidential candidates, “Bridge to Nowhere” and earmarks.

After a brief summary of each of the positions of both candidates, the group then focused on how each issue was to be strategized to present the most persuasive campaign program for the McCain camp (because the Obama camp was over-represented in the group.

The exchange for the next 90 minutes was fast, furious and exciting. We came up with a list of strategies that the McCain might use to defeat Obama. They included:

  • Float untested ideas
  • Push the envelope
  • Change the definition of words
  • Switch issues when unable to defend another issue
  • Mea culpa – admit wrong on minor issues
  • Assume a bi-partisan stance – regardless of what the reality was/is
  • Appeal to “Country” and “Patriotism”
  • Plan for an “October Surprise” (perhaps the Palin choice)
  • Go negative – find all the negatives in the Obama/Biden campaign
  • Discredit the accomplishments of the opponent
  • Show family support during appearances
  • Puff the highlights of the candidates’ resume
  • Push “Maverick” concept to show independence from Washington
  • Use “bait and switch” tactic” – show how opponent will promise more, deliver less
  • Of course, there’s the always desperate tactic of “lying” or better, “making up facts.”

As our energy flagged, the discussion turned to whether we used these strategies in our personal relationships. The question of whether calculating a response was manipulating a relationship. Do I have a conscious agenda with another person? Should I? How carefully should I/ must I choose my words carefully? Or should I say what I want to say every time? Should I be open and free or calculating?

We probably could have continued for another hour or so. But we decided that our next topic should be “Gender Communication” – how men and women talk to each other, how men talk to men and how women talk to women. The topic is an important one in all our Interpersonal Communication classes, but we are going to start with everyone’s definition and proceed from there. It should be exciting.

After the session, Hal received the following email from Carlisle Yearwood,

Your last meeting was quite uplifting. In fact, it was so inspirational, that I hated to leave. I felt a sense of loss when I left you, because you were offering an inter-disciplinary lesson about life and education. It had Latin, Logic, Rhetoric, Politics, History, and Creative Thinking. These disciplines were subject to the effective use of language.

Carlisle is always very generous in his comments. However, without the enormous contributions of everyone present - Lorinda, Shile, James and, of course, dear Professor Yearwood, our discussion would have fallen flat on its face.

From time to time, I have to pinch myself to realize how extraordinarily articulate this group has become over the last year. There is no hesitancy about expressing an opinion, even if it is contrary to the prevailing ideas.

These sessions continue to be open for everyone to attend. Bring a friend and join in the excitement. See you next time.

Hal Wicke

Monday, September 8, 2008

Touro Communication Club Notes #41
tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com
Now that both conventions are over, the Presidential campaign steps into high gear. Both Democratic and Republican candidates will hammer away at the other side while boosting their own policies. Although tiresome at times, this is the only way candidates can make their case to the voters. And here is where our interest in communication becomes very important.

Rightly or wrongly, most of us know the candidates only through a filter. A filter is what someone else says about a topic or person. A filter could be your parent, friend or colleague. However, the biggest filter in all this will be the media – TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, bloggers. The voter has to work hard to figure out through the media filter what the candidates stand for 0in specific terms.

For the Communicator, all your Communication tools need to operate overtime:

  • Your listening skills must be very sharp,
  • Separate YOUR emotions/ bias/prejudice toward to candidate from what he/she says.
  • Your ability to analyze the message (logos, pathos, ethos),
  • In the analysis of the candidate’s message, do you separate logos from pathos from ethos and weighting the strength/weakness of each
  • Discovering the impact of language choice on the message,
  • Noticing and analyzing the evidence (type, source, reliability, accuracy)
(Some of you have that list I prepared for the debate club a while ago.)

  • Notice the Non-verbals of the candidate. What do they do for/against the candidate?
  • Observe the kind(s) of responses each gives to an interviewer (boiler plate/memorized or a considered answer).
  • Notice how much adaptation the candidate gives to the local audience and/or interviewer.
As always in oral communication, so much happens at once. Once said, the moment is gone. It is hard for the untrained person to separate emotionally from the speaker. It is difficult to keep a clear sense of how he/she is answering questions or presenting their point of view to the audience.

But most of all, all of us “Communicators-in-Training” need to know what WE stand for, what WE believe in, what WE will support. Ultimately we are using our Communication tools to enrich our own world views and quickly recognize where we agree or disagree with another’s point of view. The process is a life-long journey.

Next time, I’ll write about my long conversation today with a new member of Congress, Yvette Clarke, of the 11th District in Brooklyn. She replaced Major Owens.

Here's our schedule: (We are now in Room 610 @ 50 West.)

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 2 pmThe Communication Club will be meeting: Open Agenda.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008 – 2 pm Room 610 (Note time and place change). Club
– Open agenda for the moment – Possible topics: continuation of the Story telling/ Leadership discussion, the Presidential campaign, etc. There will be an upcoming film series co-sponsored by the Club and Mr. Mason’s office on Debate and Presidential Politics. Possible films might be “The Great Debaters” (2008) with Denzel Washington, “Recount” (2008), a fictionalized documentary about the 2000 election with Kevin Spacey and “The Candidate” (1972) with Robert Redford.


What happened on September 3, 2008 – SPAR D ebates
Present – Richard Green, Jetante Morris, Lorinda Moore, David Nussbaum, Drani Gabu, Olushile Akintade, Urmi Nath, Amina Bibi, James Millner and Hal Wicke

The ten people went through two exciting SPAR debates. The topics were:

“A rolling stone gathers no moss.”
Affirmative – David
Negative – Drani
To make the debate more interesting, the debaters were to use only social evidence.
David, arguing the Affirmative case, won the debate 5-1
The second debate topic was “Greed is good.”
Affirmative – Shile
Negative – Amina

This time, the debaters were to use only evidence from current events.
Amina, arguing the negative case, won the debate 5-2.

After the vote in each round, the “judges” analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of both debaters, followed by a self-critique by each of the debaters themselves.
Then the discussion expanded to a variety of issues, particularly the Presidential campaign. Not surprisingly, everyone shared their opinion, some more loudly than others. Hal tried unsuccessfully for the group to focus on what the strategy of each candidate had in mind when each presented a point.

Clearly the Communicators have much work to do to separate the issue from the strategy behind to choice of issue. As in all contests, political and sports, WHAT (action)is done on the court or field has to be separated with the WHY (or strategy) behind the action.

Hal Wicke