Hello, everyone!

For my post this month, I had originally intended to discuss issues in communication within higher education circles. But while I was drafting that post, I came across an Associated Press article that really got under my skin. So, subject change!

The piece, written by reporter Liz Sidoti, purports to examine the seeming omnipresence of President Barack Obama in the national media. The debate over how much Presidential coverage is too much has raged for months, even before Obama was officially ushered into office this year. And since Obama was inaugurated in January, the media–hell, the entire world, it seems–has followed his every move with a fervor that seems almost foreign to the American political realm. This nation, which so values its innate culture of instant-access news and entertainment, has latched onto Obama in increasingly vitriolic ways. If one media outlet is accused of being in Obama’s pocket, another is accused of finding fault with anything and everything that he does (including the effort to host the Olympics in this country). One talk-show host labels Obama a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred of white people,” while another proclaims that Obama is a “brilliant” politician who will bring the country together on its most pertinent issues. It just goes on and on, and for all Obama’s professed efforts to bring some semblance of unity to this country, the schism between left and right remains.

Much of the cause for this schism lies, as always, with preconceived political biases, which inevitably (and unfortunately) color the commentary of those entrusted to communicate decidedly unbiased analysis to the viewing public. But searching for a wholly unbiased portrait of Obama, let alone any President, is an exercise in futility. The office of President of the United States is sometimes unforgiving, sometimes unrewarding, and always the most difficult job one can take on in this world, and such a position naturally invites all manner of criticism, ranging from the well-deserved to the blatantly ludicrous.

Sidoti’s article raises a particular point of interest that, in my view, fits snugly into that ludicrous section of the critical scale:

“Put aside for a moment the question of whether government is actually intruding into people’s lives more than before. The point is that many people feel like it is — in part because Obama doesn’t stop talking about his goals. If President George W. Bush got slapped around for being inarticulate, is Obama obnoxiously articulate?“

Now, if I’m reading this correctly, Sidoti’s argument is that the President’s ability to convey his “goals” in a clear and articulate manner is actually working against him, as he risks losing public interest or, more notably, courts accusations of “government intrusion” (as Sidoti labels it) on private citizens through his constant updates on the progress of the country (through an admittedly inordinate number of press conferences, personal appearances, and speeches).

My question is this: since when is being overly articulate a BAD thing?

Not to delve too much into my own (yes, liberal) bias here, but after enduring eight years of a President whose communication abilities were (to say the least) poorly developed, is it too much to ask that our current President actually be able to intelligently and coherently break down and explicate his plans for the country’s future?

I’m curious as to what y’all think of this article. Does Sidoti have a point that I’m just not seeing? Are Obama’s pressing attempts to communicate his intentions to the public unnecessarily (“obnoxiously”) articulate on his part? Do we, as a nation, have issues with a leader who comes across as overly eloquent? Or is Sidoti simply reacting to the current debate between liberal and conservative pundits over the constant media circus surrounding the Obama presidency, taking sides with those who view Obama as being too ubiquitous on the national scene (if you even can be too universally present in his position)?

–Brandie (‘07)

This year, I was asked by the Continuing Legal Education Director at Ole Miss to develop a 6 hour seminar for mediators — the motivating factor being that the Mississippi Supreme Court has established a list of approved “civil mediators” who have to obtain a certain level of proficiency and, recently, the Court has determined that these mediators — to maintain proficiency — must earn at least 6 hours of CLE that is specifically “mediation oriented”.  So, this spring I developed the curriculum, did some research, prepared handouts and, finally, did this seminar twice — the first 2 Fridays in June.  One of the issues I talked about included our predispositions to “receive” oral communication.  This particular portion of the presentation was met with some “acclaim” and has brought the request that I develop an entire 6 hour CLE seminar on aural, oral and written communication.

One of the “aha” moments in this part of the seminar was when  I mentioned a research project just completed in 2008 at UCLA, studying responses to voice from a pool of over 10,000 people,  which determined that 84% of the message received by the listener is conveyed by the “music” in our voices – vocal quality – pitch, tone, inflection.  It seems that the human brain has sensitive “credibility detectors” which are “pre-verbal” – activated by the tone of voice and body-language, not words.  These credibility detectors give us, as listeners, immediate – imperceptibly immediate – information about a speaker’s sincerity, integrity and emotional state, as well as the speaker’s perception of us (as individuals to whom the speaker is directing his spoken word).

Now, to me, that’s scary – the imperceptibly immediate, pre-verbal acts of our brain that form FOR US – we don’t form them based on reason or information – our brain forms FOR US, our perception about the speaker’s sincerity, integrity and emotional state.  Our brain forms FOR US our perception of how the speaker feels about us.  Is he conveying a put-down?  Is he judging me?  Does he feel good about me?

Inflection, folks, is incredibly important – not only in mediation but in all aspects of communication.  In making oral arguments before a judge or before your spouse.  In conveying your opinions to your children or your colleagues.  So just keep that in mind.

It’s certainly food for thought, isn’t it?

Do you have one of those voices that is immediately recognizable?  I do.  I’ve been told all my life that the tenor, intonation, “breath-factor” and pitch of my voice make it particularly recognizable and memorable.  I wonder if it’s “music” or “screech” that it conveys?  I hope music!

Today our communication centers around our respective abilities to convey to those who matter what the W, its name and its mission, means to us.  Many of us have already made a stab at our best communicative efforts.  Others of us may continue to be imspired by the efforts of others shared on the Wrenegade list-serve.

I would urge you to consider one single issue and convey it as a “talking point” and post it here as a comment and also on the Wrenegade list-serve so that others can use it.  We never know when our words may make a difference.  The Wrenegade list-serve address is muwalums@taylorpond.com.

Make sure that on Monday you do something that may attract attention — a black arm-band, or maybe just cut a neck hole and two arm holes in one of those 30 gallon garbage sacks and wear it.  When people ask why, tell them!

I saw a version of this story in my local paper a few Sundays ago.  Some of you may have seen it.  Missouri’s school of journalism is adding a requirement of an iphone or ipod touch to it list of supplies for incoming Freshmen.

I am very curious to read the various opinions others may have on the article and following questions…..

• How big of a role should technology play in journalism today?
• Considering the cost of either device, should it be required for classes (note: in this article students are not penalized for not having it)?
• What are the pros/cons for putting so much emphasis on technology in class?
• What impact do think this will have on the importance of technology in the classroom in the present and future?

Here is the story:

1.  Posts (one person is asked to post once a month, beginning in the fall.)

Lydia will post for September (we’re aiming for the 10th of each month).  Brandie will post in October.  Bridget Ellis will post in November.  We are still looking for someone who will volunteer for December.  I realize that’s a difficult month — holidays and all — but it might be nice for someone who is e-savy to tell us (in earlyDecember) how to send cute e-Christmas cards with “noise” as in music or a recorded greeting.  Just a thought.

Swear posted that she was sure that we would post more than once a month, and I encourage us all to do so.  If you run across some tip in your work that you can post, please do.

2.  Invite the W colleagues who  have common interests.  Jane Dennis has invited some other graduates to join us and I encourage each of you to do so, also.  At Jane’s suggestion I am going to contact Allegra Brigham and ask her to join.  I have asked Lydia Coffey and Anne Franklin if they know any recent graduates who are interested in communications that we could invite.

3. I am going to try to deal with the journal connection and I’ll keep you posted about my progress.

Hey WComm e-chapter members!

Taking the comments represented last week, I think that we should follow Brandie’s suggestion — at least until the end of the year.  That is:  beginning in the fall (September), 4 of us volunteer to write something to post that would be of interest to folks in this group.  That gives us a lot of latitude.

I am going to suggest that we attempt to post by the 10th of the month.  I’ll take September.  Do I have volunteers for October, November and December?

I am thinking that something in the order of “useful tips” or “useful information” woudl be good.  But that is just my thought.  What I would like to do is have a group of essays that we can present at Homecoming 2010 to demonstrate not only our brilliance but also our validity as an e-chapter.

I also think that there is a way to add a journaling element to this blog-site and I will be working on that over the summer.  It is probably simple; I’m just not a techie.  On the other hand, I am sure that if I can’t work it out soon, one of our techie members (of the whole association if not this e-chapter — although Donna used to be quite a techie, and I suspect she still is) will do so.

I will try to post something by the 10th of each month during the summer, just to keep us on track, but we’re looking at serious contributions by September, ok?

Volunteers?

Welcome to Wcomm E-Chapter, devoted to alumnae and alumni interested in all sorts of communication:  speech, journalism, public relations, online communication gurus — whether you majored in it, have taught it, do it, think you want to do it.

The Wcomm E-Chapter’s list is wcomm@msfirstalumnae.com.

While e-chapters are fluid, we may want to take on a project or undertaking so that we will be able to make a report at the annual meeting demonstrating that we are a viable chapter.  I am open to suggestions.  I have some initial thoughts for consideration:

(1) each member takes a month and posts a helpful hint for some genre of communication;

(2) we mentor student(s) in communication at the W;

(3) we meet on line at a certain time every other month (chat room style).

These suggestions may be too rigid but my concern is that we need to look viable or be discounted.

Please share your thoughts!

Your temporary e-chapter representative pending Jimmie’s surgery,

Lydia Quarles