Alan Weiss's The Uncomfortable Truth®

Are the community newspapers doomed to extinction? Are the major newspapers truly objective or biased in their reporting? Are we really talking about “news” and not “newspapers” because the latter are past “the point of no return”?

I met Clark Hoyt through our greatly respected mutual friend, Dr. William Winter, the former president of the American Press Institute (a client of mine for 20 years). Clark’s views on the news parallel mine as we both can readily recall Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America,” who easily could have been elected president of the United States had he left the broadcast booth. We fondly recall Huntley and Brinkley saying good night to each other after their revered nightly broadcasts.

But today we see the competition of a hugely polarized society seeking confirmation bias (and little else) on the internet. I raised doubts about the objectivity of reporting and separation of news and opinion in the New York Times, about which Clark strongly disagrees. He raises great points about not equally reporting non-scientific and invalid points, but we then discuss legitimate opposing views based on moral grounds and the implications of moral narcissism.

His clarion call, however, is the loss of local news in the community—served today, when served at all, by weeklies—and the inability to learn of electric rate increases, school board actions, and who’s become an Eagle Scout. This can never be made up at regional or state or national levels, and we’re probably past the point of no return in trying to restore it.

Listen to our largely agreeing but sometimes dissenting points and make up your own minds whether, as I quote in the opening, the newspaper can still serve as a “vaccine” against disinformation and rabid disagreement.

Do you treat others as you would like to be treated? That’s not merely a Biblical injunction, it’s an ethical position.

Yet we tend to treat others harshly, sometimes cruelly, and even evilly. I believe in pure evil. I’ve seen too much of it not to believe in it.

Solipsism in the belief that only ourself is “real,” and that anything beyond our own mind is problematic and uncertain. We see this in self-absorption every day, from the people who talk during a performance, to those who take phone calls during meetings. I remember a guy with a hoodie, staring at his phone, bopping to some music, crossing against the light, daring people to hit him.

I wouldn’t want to be selling him life insurance. The fates don’t care about your degree of self-absorption. (I would never deliberately harm someone like that, but I did want to dump hot water over a repulsive couple who walked into a breakfast diner carrying Starbucks coffee.)

The bigotry we face—ableism, ageism, racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, gender discrimination, and on and on—are to me attempts to keep others metaphorically “below” us on some social ladder because we have such poor self-esteem that we fear being on the bottom unless we subjugate some other group.

So we march through life too largely uncaring, using platitudes like “pay it forward” to replace actual generosity and tolerance. You want to help a charity? Pouring ice cubes or cold water over your head is cute, but it’s a poor substitute for putting money in the coffers.

Also, you will learn some truth herein about ostriches.

Fripp and I met 20 years or so ago at the National Speakers Association (the “NSA” she refers to in her comments). She was in their Hall of Fame a decade before I was (that’s the “CPAE” designation she cites). She is a legendary speaker and speaking coach, and the only thing she has more of than awards in her closet are hats.

She is an insatiable learner, and studies body movement, acting, screenwriting, and a dozen other disciplines to constantly improve her own performance as well as coach others in how to do so. She’s a former hair stylist for 20+ years, and her brother is the legendary front man of King Crimson, Robert Fripp (who says he’s not surprised she’s a great coach because she was so bossy when she was younger).

We talk here about the pleasures and pains of coaching executives, the state of communications in society, and unusual adventures in the speaking trade.

My favorite personal story, about her discipline and determination: We were doing a presentation together for a couple of days in Boston and I told her my videographer would stop by to film about 20 minutes for promotional purposes. She told me she didn’t think that segment would work, and I told her that I would do it alone, no worries.

When the time came to shoot, I found her with a different outfit, different makeup, and tugging a huge artificial plant onto the stage.

“What are you doing?” I asked, “I thought you didn’t like this segment on tape.”

She promptly informed me, “If we’re going to do it at all, we’re going to do it right.”

Science fiction movies proliferated in the 1950s, all with dire threats for earth, and probably accidental or deliberate metaphors for the nuclear age ushered in during 1945. The aliens were tough, but we usually won, though not always (e.g., “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”).

In 1938 Orson Welles, on his Mercury Theater radio show which was extremely popular in the New York area, broke in with a fake news story about Martians landing in the New Jersey meadowlands, which were then impenetrable swamps (and now the home of football stadiums and malls and, perhaps, Jimmy Hoffa).

It created an uproar. Police were involved and people went into hiding. By the time the hoax was exposed, many people’s lives had been turned upside down.

We’re in a sort of War of the Worlds today. There is the external, international war of aggression, theological oppression, tyrannical dictators, and non-cooperation about resources and disasters. There is also an internal war in this country (and others) about history, religion, politics, and exactly who occupies the higher moral ground. We have an inferior public education system at primary and secondary levels which we seem to think is improved by removing names such as Washington and Lincoln from the buildings.

While we were always bailed out in the fictional war of the worlds, will we be bailed out in this one? I’m afraid there is no bailout, only our own accountability to make improvements and to collaborate.

That, of course, is never a given.

I met Dan Pink several years ago when we were both writing books in Nantucket. He is a diligent, “stone mason” (by his definition) kind of writer. He creates thorough documents, tight cases for his topics, and his attitude is that we wants to learn new things and not write about what he already knows.

As a guest speaker for me in my Thought Leadership conference, I remarked that he had a law degree but never practiced law for a single day and so he was a fine guy. I made coffee come out of his nose, which may be a real distinction. But be prepared for that session by checking on the backgrounds and web sites of my 20 participants. That’s how careful and methodical he is.

I love his book, To Sell is Human, and this newest one, Regrets, is equally fascinating. You’ll hear us talk about four kinds of regrets, a personal regret of mine, and how, perhaps, Frank Sinatra was somewhat disingenuous in “My Way.”

We discuss “at leasts” and “if onlys” which is a kind of rationalization about the consequences of regrets. And you’ll find us in agreement about the tendency of regrets (and stress and guilt) to drain energy and mask talent.

Dan assures me I’m not a psychopath, which is reassuring, since I deal with guilt very positively. And we note the difference between guilt and shame, the latter of which pummels self-esteem.

“I didn’t walk in here and I’m not leaving.” That’s an example of paradoxical and misleading language. That was uttered by a drunk colleague, but “triple speak” is often deliberately unleashed to confound and confuse.

Politicians virtually never answer the question they’re asked. They divert it. “Are you in favor of reduced taxes?” is met with, “Let me tell you first about my ardent support for social security.” Flight attendants wish us a pleasant “final destination” which is as redundant as one can be. Your destination is final.

We’re offered “a second product free” on midnight infomercials, if we only pay the “shipping and handling” which cost about the same as the original product! Emergency vehicles urge us to keep back several hundred feet, but you have to be closer than that to read the warning.

How many of you have never removed your mattress label because you think the tag says it’s illegal to do so?! One of my favorites from most conmen is, “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”

Triple speak is often not deliberate, but has become a default obfuscation of our times, leading us astray, going around the block to get next door, and fogging over what would otherwise be obvious.

Join me as we try to sort this out. A stiff drink may be needed.

Somewhere along my journey I met Alan Goldberger who, aside from having an excellent first name, has an extremely interesting career.

First, he’s an attorney with whom I enjoy talking. Part of that miracle is that he’s a nice guy, and part is because his specialty is sports law. Yes, there are such people.

Alan chats with me here about the challenges and troubles of amateur sports officials as well as high school, collegiate, and professional officials. Did you know that many have insurance akin to professional malpractice insurance that so many of us carry?

I’ve always been fascinated that baseball, football, basketball, and hockey have a better official-to-player ratio than (what we in America call) soccer. I’ve been horrified by the abuse cast upon officials by parents, and the illegal activities perpetrated by parents to give their kids an unfair advantage (e.g., sharpening the metal attachments on a football helmet). A colleague of mine who officiates amateur hockey in Canada told me that by the end of the game pretty much every person in the stands wants to pummel him.

In this episode of Alan Weiss’s The Uncomfortable Truth® I ask Alan if this is getting worse, how it’s best being handled, and if it will affect the popularity of sports. (Many leagues have to cancel games because of a dearth of people willing to officiate.)

So join us as we “call ‘em as we see ‘em.”

I have traditionally closed over 80% of my proposals using my format of 2.5 pages based on conceptual agreement with the buyer. Many people in my community have rates of over 90%.

I’ve extracted the key components here that are covered in greater depth in my books for a “quick study.” If you follow my guidelines I can guarantee your “hit rate” will increase, providing you’re realistic and serious. When I ask most people who continue to have problems closing business if they’re really talking to a buyer, they admit they are not.

Remember that HR stands for “hardly relevant.”

You’ll learn here the four components of a buyer meeting that lasts 40-60 minutes and how to handle each one. We’re often under the mythology of sales instead of the reality. Learn here that money and time are really not resources, but are priorities and can be changed. Learn that “money” and “budget” are two different things. Of course no one budgets for a consultant they don’t know they need, but they do have money in other budgets which can be reallocated for a better return.

If you follow my guidance here, you can be that “better return” every time.

There are four areas and only four areas of potential objections, and only one of them is valid. Learn to handle that one and you’ll be closing business at an accelerated rate.

I also cover the proper ways to invoice and the concepts of TDTC and paying yourself first.

All in all, not a bad 17 minutes and the price is right!

I met Joe over a decade ago when he began a pharma consulting firm with offices in New York, Cambridge (UK), and Tokyo. We worked together immediately before and after 9/11, with six feet of ashes piled on balconies in the financial district where he was located.

After selling the company, he moved back to Europe (he currently lives in London) and delved into his interests in environmentalism, politics, and business. His beliefs, which he’s documented and substantiated in books such as The New Political Capitalism, The Death of Liberal Democracy? And Backlash: Saving Globalization from Itself, include the contrarian views (no wonder I like him so much) that one of the greatest myths is that government and business are on parallel and separate courses, never to meet.

He sees resolving our tough issues today as dependent on government and business synergy and strategy. We talk here about the “end of an era” of stability: working hard, being promoted, providing for the family, knowing that the next day will be like the current one. From a great, common, shared belief system we’ve entered an age of diverse and varied beliefs and the need to reconcile differences and work together.

Yet the premise today is often “I’m right and, therefore, you’re inferior, so I not only have to win but you have to lose.” Joe and I will discuss how a synergy of business and government can help to overcome the moral narcissism currently keeping us apart.

We live in a competitive world, a Darwinian, capitalist world, but I contend that winning can be dysfunctional when pursued merely for the sake of the win.

Sometimes the closest theater seats are far from the best; the newest technology rapidly purchased is full of glitches; the tough restaurant seats are obtained amidst a loud and overwhelming crowd.

All of us learn best when we occasionally have the chance to win (a game, an experience, a contest, an event). When we constantly lose because people more adept and highly competitive keep winning, we lose interest. If you keep beating your kid at chess the kid might become too discouraged to try harder. When you keep reminding your kids that their high scores or athletic achievements, while impressive, are still not as good as yours were, well, that sort of undermines any kind of reward, doesn’t it?

I don’t consider negotiations with contractors as “win or lose” because I don’t mind the contractor “winning” a higher fee if it gains me priority, commitment, and excellent work. I refuse to try to “win” in stupid games, such as shooting a water gun into a target on the boardwalk at the beach, where it’s not really about skill and the prizes are worth about $1.79 in any case.

Constantly trying to win exacts a high energy toll and creates unnecessary stress. During the course of the day, how many competitions do you really have to “win”? Does it include merging before someone ahead of you in traffic can?

Welcome to road rage and, perhaps, life rage.