Old Man in the River

My Dad, Philip Lifton, a great man.  Photo by Craig Lifton

My father passed away more than a year ago after a losing battle with Dementia and Alzheimer’s.  On my way home for his funeral I had some time to reflect about our relationship. I wanted to say something about what kind of a man he was, without having to tell his whole story but in one story that would sum it all up.

My father was an older parent when I was born in his late 40’s and our relationship was slightly different than expected. He wasn’t the kind of father to rough house, or play sports with. He was born in 1922 and was raised completely different than most of us.  He was very much into watching sports and reading books. A favorite pass time of his was to sit for hours working on crossword puzzles. Not very fun for a little boy, who was very interested in the outside world. My mother passed away when I was very young, forcing my father now to work overtime raising me.

I don’t have a lot of great memories of my childhood after that. There was a lot of time by myself.  My father still worked as a high school teacher in an urban school in the Detroit area. My two half brothers, from mother’s previous marriage, moved on with their lives shortly after the funeral. My third older brother left two years later to go to college and only returned during the summers. Most of the time it was my cat, and I, adventuring in the woods behind our house. Even with what I like to call the revolving stepmothers and families, two in total. I wasn’t abused or mistreated; I was just alone more than most boys my age.

My Dad did what he could and the one great thing he did was to encourage me to join the Boy Scouts. There I met people and got to explore worlds I couldn’t alone. I would go on the monthly camping trips, without my Dad, learning to build fires, tie knots and even canoe.

Than one trip I asked him to join, and was surprised when he said with a rarely seen smile, “what do I need to bring?”

With joy in my heart I remember helping him to pack a bag for the trip that would involve canoeing. I showed him how we would double bag our packs to prevent our clothes from getting wet if went over.

The first night he watched as I put up our tent, helped gather wood and assisted on cooking our dinner on the fire we built. My Dad actually sat around the fire with the other Dads as the boys headed off to our sleeping bags telling tall tales and sharing jokes. I fell asleep hearing my father laugh with the other men.

The next morning I giggled as my Dad complained about sleeping on the ground. His back didn’t agree with the hard and rocky floor of our tent. I helped him pack his things and to bag our gear for the all day canoe trip.

With all of the things my father had done, canoeing wasn’t one of them and he was like a fish out of water in the back of the canoe. We talked about a lot on the way down the river, and it was wonderful. He told me about his early days working in the post World War II Chrysler automobile plant, and working for the Small Business administration during the Korean conflict.

Than as we prepared to end our trip, for some unknown reason my Dad tried to stand up in the canoe as we approached the edge of the river, and before I could stop him we flipped right over into the river.

As I resurfaced, the first thoughts on how mad my Dad was going to be. I slowly turned around only to discover a smiling father, wet from head to toe, still strangely wearing his hat.

“I’m sure there has to be a better way of getting out of one of those things, right?” Are the words he spoke, and I still recall to this day. He was not the best Dad but he sure tried and that’s all I care today. 

I think about him a lot everyday as I watch his growing granddaughter. She is very much like him in her way. She is very serious, intelligent, but all the while a very caring person. I hope to be at the least half the man my father was and all the Dad I can be.  Thank you Dad for who you helped me to be.

 

Super PAC (Political Action Committees); Good or Bad -- Craig M. Lifton

                  A new super power has risen since 2010. PACs have the power that cannot only affect our country but the whole world. This power has given the ability to individuals to huge cooperation’s to sway politics and elections. This power was first created in 1907 by Congress with the Tillman act, according to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and slowly crafted over the years by election laws, amendments, and court precedence, to what it now is today.  Today with the up coming presidential elections, these Super PACs have the money to buy the resources needed to win elections, is that a power our country needs, shouldn’t there be some limitations who and what yields this power, who is in charge? Super PAC’s need to be rained in, more controls need to be in place, our elected officials and our futures should not be purchased.

                  In 1867 the first law preventing federal officials from taking money from Navy Yard Works was put into place and over the next 100 years congress would vote into law more campaign finance laws, according to the FEC. These laws would limit contributions to prevent the wealthy from having influence over elected officials, prohibit specific sources of money, put limits on campaign spending, and require full disclosure of finances during campaigns. Then with new laws in place, Political Action Committees or PAC’s grew at a fast rate between the 1970’s and 1980’s according to CQ Roll Call. PACs fall into two categories, Connected or Nonconnected. Connected are connected to corporations or other large formal structured organizations. Nonconected PACs are formed by single-issue or ideological groups. Under federal law, a PAC can only contribute directly to a candidate a total of $5,000 per election. When it comes to helping a candidate, a PAC can spend independently as much as they want to, as long as there is no direct coordination with the candidate. During the 1999-2000 election it was recorded that the top 50 PAC’s gave almost $75 Million.

                  In 2010 the Supreme Court gave what is now called the “Citizens United” ruling. In this ruling according to Cordes (2011), Corporations, Unions and individuals could now donate limitless funds to outside groups, for the purpose to support or go against candidates. After the ruling just one Super PAC had raised $35 Million.  Under FEC guidelines and law, it would appear on paper as if this was a avenue for those who normally wouldn’t have a voice in politics to speak load and clear. PAC’s could be used to either support candidates that these groups feel will help them achieve their goals, or a legal way to throw obstacles in the way of candidates that oppose what they want. As long as a candidate doesn’t directly interact with one of these Super PACs, all is legal. If the candidate says what they need, through the media, and the Super PAC is listening then coordination can exist.

                  It’s when people look closer at who is actually donating the money, how much, and to which PACs is when it becomes clear what is going on. FOX news reported that millionaires and billionaires are the top donators. A pro-Romney PAC with just 282 registered donors was able to raise $30 Million dollars, with an average donation of $100,000. With donors like Robert Mercer, a executive with a hedge firm, Paul Singer the founder of Elliott Management Corp, and J.W. Marriott Jr. the chairmen of Marriott International. The PAC, Restore Our Future has spent $17 million against Newt Gingrich’s campaign to date.

                  The spirit of political activity committees is to provide the common person or person to find a way to influence candidates and possibly the government. This spirit has been crushed. With the rich battling it out with tons of uncontrolled campaign spending. The public should encourage not only the politicians in office but also the Supreme Court to reexamine this monstrosity of campaign financing.  Our politicians will win their elections by buying them if the whole system of campaign financing isn’t put back into control, only then will the elections be one by the best candidates and not the most connected.

References

Battle of the billionaires—Super PACS offer chance for high rollers to sway 2012 race (n.d.) retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/11/battle-billionaires-super-pacs-offer-chance-for-high-rollers-to-sway-2012-race/

Cordes, N.,(June 30, 2011) Colbert Gets a Super PAC: So what are they? Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/30/eveningnews/main20075941.shtml

The Federal Election Campaign Laws: A Short History (n.d.) retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm

Political Action Committees (PAC) (n.d.) retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20110708200810/http://corporate.cqrollcall.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=233

Persuasion is no Joke: Using Humor to Persuade -- Craig M. Lifton

            Persuasion is the art form used to motivate others into changing the way they think and act. When a persuader begins they first take a inventory of their available tools. They may use fear, or reason to encourage others. Another way to approach persuasion is the use of humor, through things like jokes, satire and even sarcasm. Humor can be used to turn the tide, to motivate people to change their attitudes, to look at things in a different point of view. The comedian Bill Cosby was once quoted as saying “You can turn painful situations around through laughter” The comedian Bill Cosby was once quoted as saying, “If you can find humor in anything, even poverty, you can survive it”. Sometimes people can be educated even through the darkest of issues through humor. Humor as a tool can be used to educate, motivate and alter perspectives but just like many tools if used incorrectly it can hurt or harm the efforts to persuade.

Described as an aid to persuasive messages, by Lyttle (2001), humor is used for advertising and education. Lyttle uses persuasion theory to gauge the usefulness of humor in persuasion situations. Persuasion theory is the systematic approach to the use of persuasion according to Seiter (2004). Lyttle describes how humor is useful in creating positive affect, when people are put into a good mood they easier to persuade and less likely to be disagreeable.  Because of this Lyttle predicts the effectiveness when used in persuasion messages.

When interested in increasing the likability of the source is the issue, Lyttle also recommends the use of humor. The use of humor can help bring to light a different aspect of person while showing the subjects, before unseen values. Lyttle also sights that cartoon humor found in education books leads to a more relaxed environment for learning.

Humor can be used to help build trust in the person or persons using it. If the subject uses self-effacing, making fun of himself or herself, help increase trust and then a persuasive message. Humor can and has been used to help with weak arguments, but measured results in these cases have been considered to be small. Some have called using humor in arguments as “add spice”.

Advertising is seen as a form of persuasion that has used humor extensively according to Cline and Kellaris (1999), which has seen a lot of research. In a survey of advertising practitioners in America, 94% felt that humor was useful in acquiring attention, while 38% believed humor helped with understanding of the issue. Cline and Kellaris remark on the empirical studies that have been done about the use of humor in advertising and the effectiveness of it. Humor helps with the likability of ads but not always understanding. They also say that sometimes there is no advantage of humorous adds over nonhumorous ads.

Cline and Kellaris point out that to predict the impact of humor on advertising, the heuristic-systematic model (HSM) is used. HSM can identify those different approaches of persuasion. A possibility exists that an ad can be effected humor; depending on how the humor is used with the argument. HSM points out that if the humor is important to the comprehension of the ad then it is highly possible it will influence the systematic processing. On the other end, if the humor is not connected then it will have heuristic effects.

If humor is used inappropriately then it may have an inverse effect to issues, according to Cline and Kellaris. For an example used by Cline and Kellaris is in life insurance if humor is used insensitively.

The Army Substance Abuse Program, or ASAP, uses humor to educate soldiers about the evils of the misuse of alcohol. In an article found on www.army.mil, a comedian is used in a mandatory training on post. The comedian, Bernie McGrenahan, puts on his show called ‘Happy Hour’ uses his jokes to educate the soldiers on how he let his life become horrible as a young man through his use of drugs and alcohol. McGrenahan tells them about going to jail for drunk driving to the loss of his brother.

The use of comedy helps drive home the need for the soldiers to think about what they are doing when they start to drink. It also is used to persuade them to look out for each other using terms like ‘Battle Buddy’ and ‘wing man’. The humor never goes over the top but just to a point where it helps build understanding of the subject and persuading the soldiers into making sound judgment calls before they even start to drink. Even as drinking and driving is a very dark subject, many have made the choice to do so. With the use of the comedian, the young soldiers can possibly be persuaded not to make the wrong choices.

As persuasion is a tool, it is not a laser guide tool of complete accuracy. Even if it assisted by humor, there is a possibility that it may not be used correctly or fail to persuade at all. Humor can be used to help people understand a subject in a whole new perspective and possible comprehend the subject more clearly. Humor can be used to build up likability of a subject and or a person. Persuader can use humor to build trust. Humor can be used to help in advertisement, depending on what needs to be advertised. On the other hand humor cannot be used in all situations and sometimes humor can be considered the wrong choice and be looked at as insensitive. Even the United States Army has seen the use of humor in a serious subject like alcohol abuse and drunk driving. Persuasion is the art of altering others way of looking, thinking, or feeling about things and the use of humor to achieve these goals can be a very useful tool used in the right hands.

References

Cline, Thomas W, & Kellaris, James J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16(1), 69.  Retrieved December 5, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global.

Lyttle, J.  (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training. The Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 206-16.  Retrieved December 4, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 77223102).

Seiter, J. (2004) Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Influence, and Compliance Gaining Boston, MA,  Pearson Education, Inc.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_humor4.html. Retrieved December 4^th, 2011

Reese, R. (2011) Happy Hour tour brings comedy relief. Retrieved December 4^th, 2011 from http://www.army.mil/article/66947/_Happy_Hour__tour_brings_comedy_relief/

Police Crisis Management -- Craig M. Lifton

Fort Hood Police and Fire at the on scene Command Post.  Photo by Craig Lifton

         

             A police department, local, state or federal is not unlike any other government agency. The police are responsible to the public and their ability to police is directly connected to how the public perceives them. The police serve and protect the public. There very existence is dependent on the public trust. A crisis, according to Cameron, Wilcox, Reber and Shin in the Public Relations Today (2008), is a major event with a possibly negative outcome that can and or will affect the public or the organization.  The police need to have open lines of communication with the public but at the same time may need to withhold information if the event is ongoing or even after while the case is under investigation or pending trial. Only the larger police departments will have a whole public information section and only some medium to small departments have even a public information officer. During the crisis they will still need to do the following as recommended in Public Relations Today; put the public first, take responsibility, be honest, avoid saying no comment, use a single spokesperson, use a centralized information point, provide constant information, consider the news media and their needs, be accessible, monitor the news and all inquires, and keep open lines of communications with the public.

            When should a plan for crisis management be put into affect is a question needs to be answered by any public relations professional. The answer should be, before a crisis even starts. No one could have been prepared for such events as New York City 9/11 or here at Fort Hood on November 5^th, 2009, but with a plan there is something to work with. After the plan is put down on paper is should be tested in a realistic scenario. According to Connie and Michael Budden in Developing Crisis Management Skills Through a Realistic Case Scenario in the December edition of the Journal of Business Case Studies talk about how the current movement of business instructors are to put there students through realistic case scenarios with the goal to install skills for crisis management. In the article they point out how important it is for the organization to have a plan in place and to be prepared to put it into action. The Buddens use a police involved shooting as an example of very realistic crisis to help hone the skills of a public relations professional.

            The first thing any public relations should do during a crisis, is to think about the their public first. Are there immediate safety concerns that the public should be aware of or maybe actions they need to take to minimize loss that they should be informed about. Only facts should be released, information that can be confirmed and not possible information that will need to be retracted and corrected later. During the Fort Hood shooting information that one of the Fort Hood Police was dead was released, only to have to be corrected later. Also information that there was a possibility of multiple shooters was released to inform the public of a possible threat, this information was also incorrect and later retracted.  In Surviving Crises Begins With Preparing for the Unexpected (2010) by Penn in PRweek, he says “You can’t rebuild a house in the middle of a hurricane,” What he is saying that the damage is being done or is done and the fact there is a danger going on is understandable. After the crisis things can be corrected.  During the Fort Hood Shootings the public was advised that a situation was occurring and to close their doors and windows. Soldiers were instructed to stay put and to try to call their units to check in with them so they would know they were ok. Not a lot of information was being released immediately to the public but not a lot of things were known for sure. Some wanted to know what the police were doing and immediate operations of police should not be released so to protect the police from potential hostiles.  It is understood that news runs in a 24 hour cycle like Penn describes and that if a pubic relations person or team is not ready they will look like they are stumbling which can be costly to public trust.

            If the situation is one of a potential embarrassing event, the public relations should recommend that the police department leadership be both honest and to take responsibility for situation. Honesty will go a long way with the public. It will help the public know that the department has no intention to hide facts of the incident from them and will be truthful with any corrections that are made in the days to weeks coming after the incident. Being honest will help with the public when the department also takes responsibility if the incident had occurred due to the actions of one or few officers. Legal should be kept in the loop and recommendations should be acknowledged and considered during this according to the article Tip Sheet: 10 Principles of Effective Crisis Communications, as found in the 2008 issue of PR News. A organization may survive in the court of law but could lose in the court of public opinion.

            When all possible avoid saying the dreaded words, “NO COMMENT”.  If there is no current answer for that and that is what a public relations expert meant to say then maybe they could say something like, “hey that’s a good question, please give me your contact information and I will research that answer and get right back with you.”  Also explained in the article Tip Sheet: 10 Principles of Effective Crisis Communications, a no comment may lead the public into believing that they are being lied to or facts are being hidden from them.  A no comment will have 38% of the public thinking that an organization is guilty of something. During many crisis situations involving police departments it is not hiding the truth or facts to tell the public that the investigation is underway and there are no concrete facts to give out at that time. Public relations should be advising leadership to avoid saying no comment whenever possible. If a question about something that may interfere with operational security, then being truthful and letting the media or public know that is why there is no information releasable may be seen as being truthful.

            In a crisis a single voice can be a strong tool to help the public and maintain the public. Who should be that one voice? Should the Chief of police, or their equivalent depending on the agency, be that voice to the public? In the Tip Sheet: 10 Principles of Effective Crisis Communications it recommends that keeping to one voice will help with strong leadership and that the appointed representative should keep to key messages. Gidez and Lawrence in the 2010 PRweek article, Should a CEO be a Company’s Primary Spokesperson During a Crisis? talks about how a CEO of a company should only be the spokesperson if they can connect with the public and is liked by the public. A crisis should not be the first time that this leader be put in a position to communicate and must go preparation be made before any contact with the public and or media.

            To minimize confusion and to keep control of the message, during a crisis, pubic relations should maintain and enforce a single centralized information point. This will help with continuity for the media and the organization.  In Public Relations Today it is recommended that the location be convenient to the media. It needs to be easily reached in a minimal amount of time. Arrange to have enough chairs and room for photographers to work in. At Fort Hood the media location is nothing more then a part of the parking lot by the visitor control center. There a pavilion provides cover from the sun and rain with a backdrop wall with the name of the post and artwork representing the units assigned to Fort Hood. This keeps control of the media and restricting their access to the post but at the same time an easy to reach location for them.

            Keep in constant contact with the media and be sure to be accessible to them during the entire life of the crisis. According to Tip Sheet: 10 Principles of Effective Crisis Communications, people answering the phones, or what is called a telephone gatekeeper, they need to keep precise records of the incoming phone calls. The gatekeepers need to record the callers name, media connection, contact information, date and time called and any deadline information. Also these assistance needs to keep track of what and all information given to the media. News releases should be planned before being released. The news releases should be inline with what the organization needs to release and keep within the command message of the department. The news releases should have what corrective actions have been taken. The public relations team should also advise the public on any proactive and positive measures that being taken to correct the crisis. The news releases crafter by the public relations team should provide the public with important facts like contact phone numbers and answers to as many frequently asked questions as possible.

            The media has needs. They work in the world of news and in the times of cable news and the internet, the life of a news story is 24 hours a day. If the story is no longer news then no one is interested. This needs to be taken under consideration when dealing with the media. Goodman wrote in his 2010 article, In case of Emergency: What Not to do in thee New York Times he talks about the need of public relations to treat the media correctly. He gives the example how companies Toyota, British Petroleum and Goldman did not work well with the media and refused to be honest. These companies only made things worse with the public. The three companies should have disclosed the problem as soon as possible if not immediately. In Hemus’s Think the Unthinkable, he talks about how important it is not to send mixed messages so all involved should be on the same page of instructions on how to handle the news media. In the same note the media should be advised of what the rules will be while covering the crisis.  A personnel story I can share is that in the days following the Fort Hood Shootings I was assigned duties as a police officer that put me in close contact with important people and some times the media. On a day when several of the fallen were being transported by a military aircraft I found two members of a primetime news network who were somewhere they weren’t supposed to be. I came in contact with them and they tried to say they were authorized to be there. Well I noticed they were not being escorted, which is a requirement for the media on a military installation. I contacted the Public Affairs Media contact and was informed they were not supposed to be there. I informed them of the violation and had them escorted from the installation and back to the media holding area. The need for all media to be treated the same is very important when it comes to a government agency so not to spread conflicting messages and to keep all the media on the same level.

            Putting the message out is important, but how the message is being used is just as important or even more important. What if the receivers are not as receptive or don’t understand the message, could be a failure for public relations in a crisis. In the 2009 Examining a crisis communication void: The role of context to mitigate issues, in the Journal of Communication Management, white describe the need to analysis newspaper coverage. A need to look at the tone of the message the newspaper was relaying, what were the specific issues, who is quoted, what were the responses to the spokesperson. Putting out a message and forgetting it is a recipe for failure. In the absence of a good message it is know that the media will create their own crisis.

            All through out the life of the crisis, lines of communication with the public and media must be kept flowing. In the Tip Sheet: 10 Principles of Effective Crisis Communications, it is recommended to keep a very responsive and candid relationship with the media. This will build and maintain a good relationship with the news media. Public Relations needs to be very proactive with the media and not wait for them to contact them first if possible. Be wary of the off the record trap also. Nothing is ever really off the record. In the Examining a crisis communication void: The role of context to mitigate issues, it is discussed how the University of Tennessee miss handled a crisis involving their president. At the peak, public relations with media failed to be proactive with any strategic communications. This failure provided staff from inside the ability to feed the media on their own with negative information.

            The public will always remember how any organization handles not only the crisis but also itself during a crisis. If the public relations fumbles and never recovers, then their public will never forget and will show concern with not only the management, but also the entire organization. Once the public losses their trust in their public safety, the public no longer feels safe. It is understood that as the crisis event unfolds that immediate full disclosure may be difficult to perform. Good preparation before any crisis should be mandatory, prewritten news releases, list of media contact and standard operating procedures should be in place. Public relations should train with realistic scenarios with management to prepare for a crisis and to see where any weaknesses may be. These plans should include the following steps. Put the public first, they are who the police are responsible for the public safety. If at fault the law enforcement agency should take responsibility.  Be honest, once you lose the public’s faith it may never be recovered. Public relations should council all in the organization to avoid saying no comment, especially management and all involved. It is highly recommended to use a single spokesperson, I f possible management should be that single person to provide leadership during the crisis, and this spokesperson should be managed by public relations. Use a centralized information point, one that easily accessible to the media and maybe be able to control the media’s movement around in a crisis situation. Public relations needs to provide constant information, this will help the media and help inform the public of the status during the crisis. Public relations needs to consider the news media and their needs, in a crisis the media can be their greatest asset and their friend.  Public Relations needs to be accessible as much as possible, the life of the news about a crisis does not go to sleep in a 24 hour news world.  All through out the crisis and after, public relations will need to monitor the news and all inquires to ensure that the public is hearing their strategic communications. The police to keep the public involved and trusting their ability to serve and protect them must keep open lines of communications with the public.

References

Cameron, G., Wilcox, D., Reber, B., and Shin, J.  (2008) Public Relations Today.  Boston, MA,  Pearson Education, Inc.

Budden, C., & Budden, M.. (2010). Developing Crisis Management Skills Through A Realistic Case Scenario. Journal of Business Case Studies, 6(6), 131-134.  Retrieved June 5, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2214591211).

Gidez, C., & Lawrence, M.. (2010, August). Should a CEO be a company's primary spokesperson during a crisis? PRweek, 13(8), 27.  Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry. (Document ID: 2166615801).

Goodman.  (2010, August 22). In Case Of Emergency: What Not To Do :[Money and Business/Financial Desk]. New York Times  (Late Edition (east Coast)),  p. BU.1.  Retrieved June 6, 2011, from Banking Information Source. (Document ID: 2116395091).

Hemus, J.. (2011, March). Think the unthinkable. PR Week: Crisis Busters,14.  Retrieved June 5, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry. (Document ID: 2324089461).

Penn, M.. (2010, November). Surviving crises begins with preparing for the unexpected. PRweek, 13(11), 26.  Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry. (Document ID: 2337114061)

Tip Sheet: 10 Principles of Effective Crisis Communications. (2008, July). PR News, 64(27.  Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1510627461).

White.  (2009). Examining a crisis communication void :The role of context to mitigate issues. Journal of Communication Management, 13(2), 176-190.  Retrieved June 6, 2011, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1866205051).