By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Following is an excerpt from my upcoming book: A Tyrant's Guide to Killing Liberty (check out my other books at www.douglasvgibbs.com/books.php)
“Media has evolved as a commanding
influence permeating every aspect of our waking world. It has the power to topple Presidents,
neutralize armies, and create or destroy billion dollar corporations. . . Media
is not the enemy; it’s a tool.” ― Michael S. Emerson, American television
director and producer (A&E and The History Channel), author of Mastering The
Art Of Media Messaging
THE
ART OF COMMUNICATION is a key component when fighting a political war. The statists have mastered the art of
messaging, and have nearly complete control over the news media, and the
entertainment industry, so that they may spread their messaging far and wide.
When confronted with the opportunity
to use a media person to assist in the messaging for the Mitt Romney campaign
in 2012, the political consultants attached to the GOP’s star candidate
rejected the offer of assistance, claiming that nobody from the entertainment
industry could possibly understand the intricacies that surround the kind of
messaging needed to properly get a presidential candidate elected. So, the offer was withdrawn, and the Romney
Campaign suffered a tremendous loss, mainly because through a superior
messaging campaign, the Democrats branded Romney as they wanted, portraying him
as a wealthy plutocrat who cannot possibly connect with the average citizen. His lack of caring for anyone, or anything,
according to the messaging, was so bad that he even was willing to travel a
long distance with his poor dog sadly strapped to the top of his car. Romney was considered to be uncaring, and
unable to relate to the average citizen, and in turn lost the Presidential
Election of 2012.
Communication reaches farther than
mere words and pictures. Messaging must
stir the emotions, and poke at hidden anger.
The message must be something that the average person can relate to,
something they understand from personal experience. The comedians we enjoy most are not always
the funniest, or the ones with the dirtiest mouths, but the entertainers who
tell a story we have commonalities with.
We laugh, because we’ve “been there” too.
The statists use media messaging to
its fullest extent, offering half-truths in order to taint or titillate the
information they are offering. Every report
and article is agenda-driven, intimidating and slanted.
While the statists use messaging to
create, or extend, their power, the reason for media to participate goes beyond
the agenda. Broadcasters and news
outlets largely believe in the statist agenda, but their motive is not as
altruistic (in terms of saving the planet, saving the community, saving the
poor, etc.) as may appear on the surface.
Their primary motive is money.
One of the AM Radio stations I had a
program on was owned by a staunch liberal left statist. However, he was in a constant fight with
environmentalists when it came to the placement of his towers, and with
agencies when it came to the ridiculous regulations they were forcing him to
succumb to. I once said to him, “You are
a great conservative, my friend, when it comes to your own wallet.”
He could only grin in agreement.
The reason members of the media,
both news and entertainment, scream so loud about the greedy profiteers out
there is because they are greedy profiteers, and they are attempting to project
the guilt upon somebody else. While they
pride themselves in “adversarial activism against corporate America, very few
of the country’s corporations come close in size, power and profitability to America’s Media giants, and none of them can equal
Media’s ability to influence America, her people and her way of life! (Remember, Mass
Media Molds the Minds of Modern Man.)1
Communication is a two-way
process. If you try to get your ideas
across to others without paying attention to what they have to say to you, you
can forget about the whole thing.2
“I know that I have communicated
with the other party when his eyes light up and he responds, ‘I know exactly
what you mean. I had something just like
that happen to me once. Let me tell you
about it!’ Then I know that there has
been communication.”3
Effective messaging offers relate-ability
while also teaching something the person didn’t know in the first place. Sometimes, negativity and controversy is an
effective tool. Most important, however,
is in order to reach a point of understanding by your audience, the messaging
must be delivered in a very personal way.
The personal touch is achieved by
deciding carefully what is important to the audience. If the data, or news, is not important to the
viewer, they will turn away, reject the information, or turn off the device
they are using to receive the information.
After time passes, and the media is choosing what is important
information for the public to consume, the audience begins to trust the media
to make the right choice for them.
If media chooses to ignore or
downplay a story, event, issue or accomplishment, then the public’s perception is
that it must not be important and thus not worthy of the public’s admiration,
concern, or attention.4
Story placement and the intensity of
coverage is also used to train the public.
“Media first tells us what we should be thinking about and second,
what we should be thinking about it!”5
“To appeal to the audience, and to
relate to their life experiences, the messenger must have at least a cursory
familiarity with their experience. It not
only serves communication but it strengthens the personal identification of the
organizer with the others, and facilitates further communication.”6
We judge books by their cover, and
people by what they drive, where they live, and how they look. In messaging, the same principles apply. The most feel-good story of the night can be
seen in a negative light if the symbology surrounding it is not appealing
to the audience. Therefore, in order for
a message to be well received, the potential for negative association in the reporting
of the message must be minimalized.
“Say you’re a pharmaceutical company
releasing a new line of cancer treatments and the graphic depicts a medical
symbol with dollar signs over it, your story’s connotation would have a
negative impact on its audiences, even though the report itself could be either
positive or neutral in nature.”7
In our society where technology is
king, and quick and concise explosions of information are the norm, it is also
important to say a lot in a small package.
The Barack Obama campaign used “Hope
and Change,” and the message resonated with an entire nation. The homosexual agenda has been using “love is
love” with great success.
How about, “Abortion stops a beating
heart”? My own Constitution Association
has used “Defend Liberty,” “We the People,” and “Got Constitution?” Short, quick, and impactful are a key
components in an organization’s messaging campaign. Sometimes, context is not necessary, because
the message is personal.
“Love is love.” How can anyone argue with that? You hear the statement, and agree. Then they spring on you the connection to the
homosexual agenda, but it’s too late to wriggle out of it. You’ve already agreed that “love is love,”
and that “love sees no discrimination.”
With the power of messaging, the homosexual agenda has turned the
tables, changing a discussion regarding sexual
behavior into one
regarding discrimination, and civil
rights. Everyone has been singled out, made fun of,
or discriminated against at one time in their life. And, everyone has experienced love. Love is an important component to being
human. Therefore, the message is personal,
and therefore, it is powerful.
It doesn’t matter if the context is
off, or the message is morally wrong, or that the issue is being pushed against
a majority of Americans by a group who is perhaps 2% of the population. You, the audience, has already decided to
trust the media to pick and choose what is important, and not important; to cover
what you care about. Besides, you don’t
want to be considered “close-minded,” or “homophobic,” do you?
Messaging can be effective and
powerful when wielded properly.
Messaging can be informative, motivational, and destructive. In skilled hands, messaging can change
nations, and upend entire cultures.
People believe what they are told, and if the message confirms something
in them that must be true, the assumption is that the rest of the message must
be true, as well. However, none of the
message will be believed if the listener cannot make a personal connection to
what is being said.
I communicate, often, using
allegories and metaphors that draw in the audience; or I make comparisons to
something they personally understand.
For example, once I was speaking to
a group of about twenty-five men in a club populated only by business
owners. I was talking about State
Sovereignty, and the importance of the States being autonomous and
sovereign. The very nature of State
Sovereignty is individualism, which means that the States should be unique
individuals no different than we are as people.
The States, then, as individuals, innovate and compete, much like
businesses do in a free market.
Competition reduces prices, increases quality, and raises standards and
opportunities for innovation.
When I began to speak their language
as businessmen, the concept of State Sovereignty began to come alive for them. The listeners that may have been considering having
heavy eyes were suddenly wide-eyed and attentive. They could relate. I was making the presentation, and the
subject matter, personal for them.
Effective communication and
messaging appeals to the personal experiences of the listeners. If the message becomes too complex, or
involves too many things that are foreign to the listener, they will be lost in
confusion.
Usually, in the Constitution Classes
I have taught, there is that one student who knows more than the average
participant. That person is often not
there to learn, but to fluff his feathers, challenge the instructor, to make
himself look good, or feel good, in the process. They will ask complex questions, or try to
steer the discussion into a complex and intellectual direction so that they may
show off their intellectual prowess.
When I encounter these people who
believe themselves to be intellectual giants, and they begin to try to nitpick
my presentation, zeroing in on obscure terms or references that go beyond the
understanding of the remainder of the class, I stop it quickly. I don’t nip the conversation in the bud
because I cannot compete with the person wielding a massive cerebral sword, but
because as the conversation deepens into territories beyond the understanding
of the average audience member, the average audience member becomes bored,
overwhelmed, or begins to feel like they don’t belong in that particular
classroom setting. They are already
feeling a little dumb because of all of the new information. Making it even more complex with a conversation
with an erudite who refuses to accept any offering in opposition to their
argument simply kills the desire for learning, or being active, in the average
person. They are there for basic
understanding. If they wish to go beyond
that to a new level, that is fine, but they have to understand the basics in
the first place. Baby steps always
precede taking a walk, or moving up to running marathons. Besides, I am not there to satisfy the
intellectual demands of a single person, but to inform and educate the masses
regarding the basic principles that surround the United States Constitution.
In our attempt to communicate our
message to the public, it is important to understand that most people do not
spring into action until the danger is very personal for them. “It is only when the other party is concerned
or feels threatened that he will listen – in the arena of action, a threat or a
crisis becomes almost a precondition to communication.”8
The statists used crisis and
personal danger to encourage the voter to run out and vote for Barack Obama in
2008. The economy was on the verge of
collapse, we were told. If we didn’t use
socialism to save capitalism, everyone would be worse off than the folks who suffered through the Great Depression just before World War II. And the public was convinced that only Barack
Obama had the intelligence and the ability to save America. It didn’t matter if it was all a lie, or that
he had no experience on such matters.
The media, who is trusted by a large swathe of the American mosaic, said
so, therefore, it must be true.
Nothing negative could be said about
the young Senator from Illinois, because he had no record. He was an empty vessel upon which they could
place all of their hopes and dreams, and we were told he was the only one capable of saving
America from an otherwise inevitable economic collapse.
The use of crisis and personal
danger emerged in 2012’s presidential election, as well. Now, the danger was pointed at the
opposition. The evil, racist, bigoted,
wealthy, mean, and phobic Republicans, if they took office (we were told) would
undo all of the wonderful things President Obama had accomplished. We will be in crisis, we were told, unless
the statists continued to run things.
Crisis of Climate Change, crisis of
#blacklivesmatter, crisis of gunmen causing shootings in the U.S., crisis of
economic upheaval, crisis of terrorism and the threat of domestic terrorists,
crisis of mental illness and unstable war veterans, and a crisis of global instability
because the sickness of individualism makes members of society unwilling to
coexist. Crisis after crisis, and the
statist claims he is there to fix it all.
Through all of the crises, however,
the message is cool-headed, personal, and reassuring. “I understand your pain,” says the
organizer. “You have permission to feel
that way.” “I used to be like you, but
now I have seen the light.”
Behind it all, however, hidden in
the shadows, is the real formula.
Influence. Power. Money.
But to hide the truth, the message must have Audience Appeal, Audience
Reach, and Renumeration.9
The court of public opinion
primarily operates on a theory that “perception is everything.” Self-confidence is perceived as knowledge and
authority. Hesitation or doubt portrays weakness,
insincerity, or misrepresentation.10
Image is important. We are judged by how we dress, and what image
we allow the audience to see. That
image, however, not only supports one’s message, but can also be altered by the
message.
The image must be professional,
while simultaneously appealing to the average person. This does not mean dressing down to try and
look like the locals. The average person
is not stupid. They know when they are
being played. So the image must be
sincere, yet one that connects to the audience.
Michael Emerson tells a story about
a politician’s mistakes when it came to his image during a campaign.
In one of his
political ads, Bill was seen walking in the surf along what seemed to be the
Malibu coastline. . . he was barefoot and wearing trousers with the cuffs rolled
up. He delivered a pro-environmental
message at the end of which he walked up the sand and joined his wife and
children who were standing next to a rather large beach house.11
Regardless
of the truth, the message sent was contrary to what Bill intended.
Bill comes
from a very distinguished and successful corporate and political family, a fact
that worked against him in the campaign.
The last thing he needed was to look like some
corporate CEO trying to fit in with the common man at the beach wearing his
long pants with the rolled up bottoms while walking barefoot in the water.
There is
nothing wrong with having Bill’s family join him in the shot (after all, they
are all very attractive and intelligent looking individuals, a definite plus to
any campaign). The problem arose where
he met them – specifically, standing next to a large beach house – the impression
being it was his multi-million dollar Malibu beachfront
house!
. . . it didn’t
matter what Bill was saying in his political ad, the message
that came across visually was another rich
republican trying to fake it and come across as just an ordinary guy spending a
day at the beach . . . as he stood
outside his multi-million dollar Malibu beach home!
Not exactly a message to which the ordinary voter could relate! In the end, the ad came off as insincere at
best! Not only was the ad a total waste
of time and money, but in my opinion, it hurt his image more than helped it. That same political message could have [been]
handled in a number of effective and positive ways. . .”12
Emerson goes on to suggest that the
children could have been shown playing in the ocean, looking natural in the
beach environment. Then he and his wife
could be dressed in appropriate beach attire, discussing the issues and Bill’s
political platform. Or, he could have
gone in a totally different direction regarding portraying his “strong
commitment to environmental issues” by soliciting “help of a true credentialed
environmentalist,” with the environmentalist saying, “Bill. . . agrees with me,
and that’s why I’m voting for him for Governor.”13
The message must be believable, it
must be presented in a believable manner, and the audience must believe that
you believe in your message.
One of the obstacles the Donald
Trump campaign experienced during the 2016 Presidential Election was that
because of his checkered past, and his less-than-believable presentation, it
was thought that Mr. Trump did not believe everything he was saying. It was, in line with his book, simply the Art of the Deal. He was seen by
some as being just another billionaire telling you what you want to hear so
that he can receive a position of power for whatever purpose he had
planned. The fact that in person, Trump
was a caring and warm person who gave you all of his attention when he spoke to
you, and while you were speaking (a description given to me by a “We the People
Rising” advocate named Robin) was lost in his campaign. Rather than the man Robin met, the campaign
made him look more like the overbearing business mogul that shouted “You’re
Fired!” on his Apprentice television program.
It was just another show, and he was playing his part. He failed to capture emotions because he did
not connect with the voters. He still
turned a lot of heads, despite his presentation, largely because of another successful
element – his “No compromise, no appeasement, no giving in to statism” message.
What people perceive is what people
believe. However, the premise of
perception has already been established by the media, so our messaging must not
only convey our message truthfully, but it must disarm what the other side
already believes about us.
In late June, and early July, of
2014, I participated in an immigration protest in Murrieta, California that
turned around buses full of illegal immigrants being shipped into the Southern
California city after facilities in Texas, and San Diego, were unable to take
them because of the excessive numbers they presented. I dressed professionally, but lost the tie so
that I didn’t look like a politician.
The button down shirt and slacks attracted the media, and my message
garnered a number of return visits to the networks. After the dust had cleared, I was on Fox News
five times, Al Jazeera three times (the third visit to the network emerging
later in the year on December 30), One America News once, and NPR once – along with
various local television and radio outlets.
My presentation was professional so I stood out form the crowd, yet I
blended in nicely because I was just another citizen. My messaging, however, was what was most
appealing. I was not just another “anti-immigration”
protester pounding my fist and screaming at the camera. My message was one that the average person
could relate to. It was personal,
caring, and community driven. I had real
concerns that the audience could relate to, while also providing an added nugget
regarding the law, and constitutional tidbits.
My brother later commented that my
message was the same on each network, and during each interview. Consistency was a key point. It portrayed my honesty, while also enabling
my message to resonate to a larger number of people. I was not angry, nor did I stumble over my words. I was confident, warm, and to the point.
Each time I began with a personal
story that anyone could relate to. I was
concerned about the health of my grandchildren.
My granddaughter had contracted hand-mouth-and-foot disease, and prior
to the influx of illegal immigrants into the area, this illness was not a
concern in the area. I supported my
concern with news that one of the Border Patrol agents had contracted tuberculosis,
another illness not prevalent in Murrieta, prior to the delivery of hundreds of
illegal aliens. “I am concerned about my
community,” I said. “This is, in
addition to being a legal issue regarding immigration, it is a health issue for
my community. I am doing this to help
protect my community.”
Then,
I turned the table, showing personal concern for the immigrants, as well.
“These immigrants are people who
thought they were seeking a better life.
I don’t blame them for wanting to come to America. But, they encounter disease and misery along
the way. Many of the boys are molested,
and many of the young girls are raped, by fellow immigrants in their
group. Then they come here, sick, tired
and molested only to be treated like cattle where a couple hundred of them are
crammed into a facility only designed to handle twenty-four people at a time,
with no meal, no chance to bathe, crammed in tight with other people who are
sick, and contagious. Then, they are
sent out on their own to communities they know nothing about, in some cases
dropped off on the side of the road and left homeless to fend for
themselves. How is that
humanitarian? It is illegal to drop a
dog off on the side of the road because it is inhumane, yet the government drops
off thousands of illegals at a time, after encouraging these people to come here with their
policies. I blame the federal government
for their role in encouraging this kind of misery, while overwhelming our
communities with numbers we are just not capable of taking in.”
When questions were pointed at me
questioning my motive, with a racial undertone to it, I had an honest answer
that shut them up, and resonated well with the viewers.
Al Jazeera America asked me, “Are
you anti-Hispanic, or anti-immigration?”
I said, “My wife was born in Mexico
and immigrated here legally. She
naturalized in 2007 and is angrier than I am.
Allowing illegal aliens into the country, and granting them benefits of
which they paid no taxes for, is a slap in the face of people like my wife who
abided by the law, and navigated the immigration system legally.”
On Fox News’ Hannity program, the
famed talk show host interviewed me along with a pro-amnesty individual in San
Diego, and after all of my calm answers and logical conclusions, it wasn’t long
before Mr. Hannity was launching into my opposition because of the holes in his
responses, and his inability to appeal to the audience with reasonable answers
as I was able to do.
In a number of the interviews, I
also appealed to those concerned about national security, making reference in
one of the interviews to a study related to the San Ysidro crossing near San
Diego that found a significant percentage of the illegal border jumpers having
Middle Eastern origins.
For some, a message is effective if
there is already common ground, or a personal relationship. Being involved in community events, or local
charities increases the chance of the speaker having a personal relationship
with the audience. “I feel your pain
because I have felt it too” is an effective tool in messaging, especially when
the speaker has evidence that backs it up.
Shared experiences are powerful tools, and should be used during one’s
delivery. It strengthens the feeling of
brotherhood.
To be effective in communicating the
message, the speaker must be able to:
1. Be able to think on his or her feet.
2. Be pleasing to the eye, well groomed,
professional appearance, physically fit.
3. Have a commanding knowledge of the issues
they are addressing.
4. Project a professional attitude and positive
personality.
5. Radiate an image of energy and
confidence.
6. Be proficient in the use of language.14
Choose
your words wisely, for they may make or break the presentation. Record everything. Recorded interviews keep the interviewers honest
when they report the discussion through the media. If the resulting article is full of
inaccuracies and false conclusions, call them on it. You have a recording of what was accurately
said. Demand accuracy, and expose those
who reported your words inaccurately.
Once this happens, it’s like beating up the bully at school –
everyone else recognizes what you are capable of, and treat you in a manner
they should.
There are always three sides to every
story. What he said, what she
said, and what really happened. Truth
has become a radical act. Messaging
enables the truth to work its way to the surface. With proper messaging, we can encourage the
masses to listen, and participate in the good fight.
While all of this is good and well,
there is also the aspect of knowing one’s audience. If you know your audience, and you know their
concerns, you will be able to properly structure your message. Every group has its uniqueness. By learning about them before you deliver the
message, you will be able to determine who they are, and what they want to
know, which will then enable you to craft an effective message, and encourage
them to become active in the good fight.
When I speak, I ask a lot of questions. I want the audience involved. When they are involved in the discussion,
they pay closer attention, and they remember more of what was said. Sometimes, the group is so large, waiting for
an answer takes too long because in a room of 100 people, there will be 200
opinions. Ask the question, give them a
moment to think about it, and then answer it for them.
Feed them and make them laugh. Humor keeps them attentive, but the humor
must be chosen carefully. This, again,
returns to the need to know your audience.
If there is any doubt, use self-deprecating humor.
The audience has fears, and they
have passion, regarding what is going on as the statists work to fundamentally
change America. Play on those fears,
encourage their passions, and do so energetically.
The best presentations are superior because
the presenter knows the material.
Messaging requires knowledge on the subject matter. Being fully knowledgeable about the subject
matter gives the speaker confidence, and confidence makes the message
believable, and inspiring.
Provide a lot of information in
memorable packages, packed with imagery, antidotes, quotes, examples, and
stories packed with information the audience can relate to. The message must be impactful, and be a call
to action.
“We are in crisis, so you must act
now.”
Persuading the audience to act, to
become active, and to join the fight is the goal. They must feel as if they are in danger from
statism, they must understand that statism means to directly influence their
life in a negative manner. The torches
must be lit, and the statists must be stopped.
The future of our country, and our posterity, depends upon it.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
2, 3, 6, 8: Alinsky, Saul, 1971, Rules for Radicals, New York: Random House
1, 4, 5, 7, 9-14: Emerson, Michael S., 2012, Mastering the Art of Media Messaging, Los Angeles: Overlord Press
My eyes don't focus that well anymore, dude.
ReplyDelete