Preparing to do press for Edge of Darkness, Mel Gibson and his publicist knew that some “stock” answers would be necessary to field questions re his highly reported behavior of 4 years ago. And Mel and co. had to know, no matter what questions they deem are “off-limits,” someone/everyone in the press is going to go for the YouTube moment. Well, they’re going for it and they’re getting it. Mel’s on the edge displaying quite naturally a combative, defensive and menacing tone and body language. To make matters worse, his spokesperson now claims Mel was calling him (the spokesperson) an “a**hole” and not the Chicago TV interviewer. This is politics with a candidate who is out of control and a campaign manager/communication director who is out of his league or out of touch. Attention should be paid to Rahm Emmanuel’s reported and necessary apology #2 the other day re his saying the “R-word” back in August. Mel saying “I’m sorry” now, no matter how many times he thinks he’s apologized in the past, is necessary in order for a potential audience to “move on” and the only way for Mel to move on. Also, it’s the only way for Mel to “control” all his Edge of Darkness press interviews. More to the point, it would allow Mel to “feel” in control. When he feels otherwise, the short fuse is lit. Consider this:
“Will the audience welcome you back?”
“I hope so, I think so, people are forgiving and I’m sure they know that I’m truly sorry for my words. Because I am sorry.”
Now what does an interviewer do with that answer? When being interviewed, knowing full well your own history and the inevitable inquiry, your job is to diffuse the bomb, not detonate it. This is the very nature of “public” relations. Mel’s trying to be right. You have to eat it and see the bigger picture. Note to those who care about Mel: consider the bigger picture is bigger than Edge of Darkness.
February 8th, 2010
Sarcasm can be an effective communication tool when there is a certain familiarity between the speaker and listener. So it’s so mystery why Sarah Palin’s sarcastic, mocking tone was a hit with the Tea Party during yesterday’s speech in Nashville. Now. if the goal is only to reach those who are already on your side, then Sarah remains golden. If the goal is to sway/enlighten, unite and lead, then Sarah’s voice and speech lack the Midas touch. When there is less or no familiarity/agreement between speaker and listener, sarcasm reads as verbal aggression and can be hurtful. The nature of sarcasm is using words to say the opposite of what you mean. With those listeners who need convincing, saying the opposite of what you mean is, as the very least, confusing and, at its most ineffective, the “tone” calls into question your trustworthiness. Sarcasm as humor is a great tool in breaking the ice in day-to-day relationships (new or otherwise) but there must be some agreement on some level between speaker and listener or you’re not starting out on completely solid ground. Cut to the political stage nationally. The audience not yet yours hears this humor as everything from “not funny” and “arrogant” to “clown-like.” Not what you should be going for if the immediate goal is to influence as many people as possible. And make no mistake about it, the only purpose of a political speech is to influence. Something that also needs to be considered is that not all people’s brains have the capacity to decipher sarcasm. Not a personal choice. It’s neurological.
Soundbites like yesterday’s “how’s that hopey changey thing workin’ for ya?” are pristine, as you need them and want them in today’s viral, 24-hour news cycle. Obama needs and should want a few of his own out there right about now. But here’s what doesn’t work about the Palin bite: the bite and its tone are the message. The empty bite fires up the fans but doesn’t “getchya” new ones. It alienates and becomes a voice not rising above the din but just adding to it. Bottom line, substantive (solution-based) speech, cleverly and expertly combined with sarcasm, — a bite with bite, if you will — is lethal.
February 7th, 2010
In answering NBC’s Andrea Mitchell’s question re Oscar predictions, Joe Biden, instead of naming Avatar by its title, referred to the blockbuster and his viewing of it as “…this new program I looked at…” while looking down, stammering etc. Now, looking down, stammering, these are all obvious communication cues that say at the very least “I’m not confident in what I’m saying.” But what was noteworthy was Biden’s use of the word “program.” Dated as this term may be, it signifies that his reference here is the small screen which implies he saw Avatar’s TV commercials, not the actual film, which he went on to describe as “this science fiction thing.” Ms. Mitchell set him up to simply tell the truth, acknowledging that he’s a busy man. Biden clearly was feeling fiction.
February 6th, 2010
Pee-wee’s voice in his heyday had a nasal quality combined with a goofy plaint, a technique the character’s creator Paul Reubens executed to great effect. He, Paul, was a smoker back in the day which now only highlights the fact that the actor had an uncanny ability to slip into Pee- wee speak without issue. So what happened? Why is Pee-wee’s voice lower in tone and rougher these days? Is this an artistic choice? Is it unconscious, sub-conscious? Certainly Reubens has reviewed his recent TV appearances. Paul Reubens, the man, has been through it. This much is true. And Reubens hasn’t ever really come out in public and talked about his 1996 arrest and fall from grace. He never had that release. Is part of his voice then, Pee-wee’s voice, actually buried because the self-imposed “hiding”? One thing is clear, Paul Reubens physical voice needs to be stretched, exercised. By vocalizing daily in his higher tones and working the breath for support, the voice would be lifted and he’d have access to “heyday” Pee-wee. This new, exercised voice would still retain a bit of its sobered color that’s been on display on TV recently as well in the live show running at Club Nokia in Los Angeles, but would have an apparent joy vs. this sense of sadness. Reubens has to want to have that joy. His going public now is the very search for and celebration of joy. Adding voice work into his play house regimen would release that goofy plaint and color it with a “wisdom” Reubens has acquired over the years. Very hip. Why go back anyway? Not suggesting he try to capture what was. Only capture what is.
February 5th, 2010
I teach it’s not just what words you use but how you use them. But before context, words on their own can have an impact, can have power. Words matter. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel’s used the word “retarded” back in August in a private political strategy meeting. This was reported and Rahm apologized. Yesterday he met with Tim Shriver, CEO of the Special Olympics, and apologized — again. Rahm was asked to join the “Spread the Word to End the Word” campaign as Shriver and other advocates for Americans with disabilities are committed to having the R word removed out of everyday speech. Sarah Palin has now lashed out at Rahm for using the R word and called on Obama to fire Rahm. Does she think R-bomber Rush Limbaugh should be fired as well? As hurtful and insulting as the R word is to anyone with a disability and those who love them, I’d ask everyone to consider the impact of Rahm’s use of the S word — “sorry.” Or does the word “sorry” not matter? The R word carries more weight because…? Here it is: it doesn’t all come down to authenticity and intention and context/circumstance. Was Rahm calling someone with a disability “r—-?” No. Was he sincerely sorry if he hurt anyone by the use of the word? Perhaps. Still, a word’s power is not only as lethal as the intention behind it. Take the word “gay” or the N word? These are hot button words on their own, no matter the intention behind their use. With certain words, it’s not about the speaker but the ears that these words fall on that count. So the question begs, what about free speech? Yes, what about it? And at what price? More than words, human beings matter.
February 4th, 2010
Whether Glenn Beck remembered using the word slaughter on the air was up in the air yesterday. What is grounded is the sound of his voice as he pronounces “slaughter” in his own defense. (Google Arianna Huffington, Glenn Beck Update)
The joy in his voice is undeniable. As if eating a juicy rib-eye at The Palm, Beck savors the word slaughter, savors saying it. Probably and possibly unconscious but still the voice doesn’t lie. It’s remarkable. While defending his possible use of the word, his unique pronunciation of the word (listen again to his vocal freedom) gives away his having no problem with the word itself. Goes to uninhibited which goes to “probably” used the word to begin with. We do have the evidence that he did use the word slaughter on air. What he meant when he said it is open to interpretation if you’re a Beckerhead or Roger Ailes, who probably hadn’t even heard the bite before going on ABC’s This Week last Sunday to defend Beck. What’s not open to interpretation is Glenn Beck’s ravenous use of slaughter.
February 3rd, 2010
Harold Ford Jr. is bold. In 2006 he told Wolf Blitzer he’s against gay marriage. Two weeks ago he told Matt Lauer he’s for it. Yesterday, in defense of his “changed position” (nice) he told Stephen Colbert he has since been educated by friends and others. Ford was ready to be grilled by Colbert and his appearance was smart and necessary. Ford’s voice was clear as he found pockets to shoot his “prepared” answers at Colbert while keeping a sense of humor. Ford is a politician. He’d be in it to win it. It’ll be interesting to listen to his regionalisms and Wall Street essence relax as he sharpens up the persona that could convince New Yorkers he’d be best to represent them. Do voters care about flip-flopping? Isn’t it more about how you address your change of heart and what you actually had a change of heart about? Ford selling himself as someone who is capable of being enlightened isn’t bad. Flip-flopping denotes something quick, something reckless but there’s four years between his comments to Blitzer and Lauer. Do New Yorkers see Ford’s changed position as politically motivated? And, if so, then will New Yorkers buy Ford as someone willing to do anything on their behalf to represent them? Harold Ford Jr. from Tennessee and of Wall Street has evolved on issues of abortion, gay marriage and whatever else and now is a voice for New Yorkers. Bold.
February 2nd, 2010
At last night’s GRAMMY AWARDS Pink sang in beautiful, connected fashion while in the air, twirling and hanging upside down. Beyonce marched, danced and strutted on two stages without sacrificing the vocal performance. So it can be done — marry tremendous show-value with a live vocal that has integrity. Lady Gaga didn’t fare as well but is capable. She needs to work on her breath control with Pink and Beyonce as her role models in the stamina category. The one thing that Gaga did provide in the show’s opening number was a sweet moment, albeit an unintentional one. When Elton John was revealed and opened his mouth to duet on her “Speechless,” the immediate difference in quality between the two artists was, well…it left you speechless. His rich, unique voice and take on Gaga’s song made it a better song. And to make matters even worse/better, they threw in an homage to Elton’s “Your Song,” which only highlighted what’s not quite there in her current catalog because she was more effective on his song. Still, it was a great stab at straddling musicianship and kitsch. Beyonce and Pink are in total shape and showed up to sing. A fierce lesson for all those ladies waiting in the wings or ones who are out there and think/say they already do this.
February 1st, 2010
Previous Posts