Time for a Communicator's March? Who's against us?!

I'm reprising a Writing Boots post from last May, because I think we'll all find it relevant in the wake of a weekend that saw what may be the birth of an organized resistance on the one hand, and the advent of "alternative facts," on the other. But this post must be updated first. In the almost nine months since I originally claimed that no professional communicator could possibly support Donald Trump, I've never had a communicator disabuse me.

A lot of communicators disliked Hillary Clinton. And a lot of communicators are Republicans. But I've never heard a communicator tell me he or she is for Trump. Now Trump is president. Is it possible that no one in our business voted for him? I think it's more likely that some communicators did vote for him, for their own reasons—but sense that their view is overwhelmed by communicators who did not.

I want to hear their voices, and their rationale, and I'm willing to publish them anonymously. Pro-Trump Communicators, please write me at writingboots at typepad dot com. Having had my say on this subject—twice now—I'll run your thoughts at Writing Boots this week, without further comment.

Last chance, folks. If I don't hear from you this time, I'm calling Trump animus unanimous among professional communicators. We might organize a Communicator's March on Washington even if we do hear from you, but hearing your view will surely refine ours, at the very least. —DM

***

Professional communicators are on the the side of the angels. Because they are the ones who must explain and justify decisions to others, they are more sensitive to others. Their heritage is journalism, and so they have idealism in their blood. They are writers first, and writers live on truth. And empathy. And curiosity. And love—at least love enough to try to share their thoughts and feelings with their fellow human being.

It is possible that all of the above is utter bullshit, dreamed up by vane communicators and drummed up by people like me, who profit by making communicators feel a part of a community of virtuous souls.

It's possible that communicators have nothing philosophical or psychological in common. They certainly have their differences. I'm used to dealing gracefully with a vast range of communication profiles, at the communication conferences I put on and among the communicators who read my stuff. For every political Pantone shade, I know at least one communicator. I know gay, right-wing communicators who are still in the closet, and gay, left-wing communicators who habitually pose shirtless with their husbands on Facebook. I know ex-journalists who hate even the beloved institutions they work for because they hated Richard Nixon. And I know lovely PR people who have cheerfully worked for decades for what seem to me to be the worst organizations in the world. I know them all, and I love them all.

"No. Good people don't work for oil companies," my drinking pal will tell me. "Yes," I reply. "Actually, they do."

So what do all communicators have in common? Is there one thing we all love in common? Or is there, at least, some shit that none of us will eat? As e.e. cummings' Olaf (upon what were once knees) did almost ceaselessly repeat. Having hosted two communication conferences this spring, and having watched my communicator-dominated social media feeds over the last few months—I think I've finally found that shit.

That dump? Donald Trump.

In four days of conferences with a total of about 200 speechwriters and other communication execs, much snarky and some passionate public insulting of Donald Trump was done by communicators, who normally—as my mother would say, and to continue the theme—wouldn't say shit if they had a mouth full of it. Now, some communicators are outspoken, but many are masters of discretion; you can know them for years before you learn even whether they are Republican or Democrat. But Trump? Not only do all communicators seem to despise him, they seem confident that all their colleagues do too.

I think this is the first example of this kind of unanimity that I've ever come across in 25 years in this business. What does it mean? You might dismiss it as: Most people with college educations don't like Trump; professional communicators have college educations; therefore communicators don't like Trump.

But that would only explain a preponderance of communicators who don't like Trump. It doesn't explain every communicator not liking Trump.

What does? Maybe, because Trump offends communicators' sensibilities no matter what their politics. Their sensibility, and their morality, their ethics. Check out these four tenets of the code of ethics of the International Association of Business Communicators, and tell me how any member could pay dues and back Donald Trump.

1. Professional communicators uphold the credibility and dignity of their profession by practicing honest, candid and timely communication and by fostering the free flow of essential information in accord with the public interest.

2. Professional communicators disseminate accurate information and promptly correct any erroneous communication for which they may be responsible.

4. Professional communicators are sensitive to cultural values and beliefs and engage in fair and balanced communication activities that foster and encourage mutual understanding.

12. Professional communicators are honest not only with others but also, and most importantly, with themselves as individuals; for a professional communicator seeks the truth and speaks that truth first to the self.

Credibility. Dignity. Honesty. The public interest. Accuracy. Uprightness. Cultural sensitivity. Fairness. Balance. Self-honesty. Devotion to the truth.

These are values that Donald Trump has not only violated, but routinely mocks, implying by his every word and facial expression that they are rules for squares, pipsqueaks, and humorless drudges.

In fact, if there is any constant message Trump's candidacy has sent, it is this that consistent, coherent, careful communication is for chumps. (Or women.)

And yet these are values that communicators have devoted their work lives, however successfully, to upholding, in the difficult context of organizations full of people who don't.

If Trump wins, communicators lose. And it's worse than that, because it's more immediate than that: As long as Trump is winning, communicators are losing their essential argument that sincere communication is effective communication.

Every day that Trump has permission to occupy the public stage, communicators lose our collective claim—and it has always been tenuous!—to ethical virtue and social usefulness. Maybe that's why I get heart palpitations while watching "The Morning Joe."

Maybe I think that it's not just our country whose soul is eroding beneath this man's hot, never-ending piss stream. Maybe I think our livelihood is at stake, and maybe even the particular meaning of our life, as communicators.

And maybe we ought to do something about it.

Our communication associations—IABC, and the Public Relations Society of America—have talked over the years about creating "advocacy" arms, that would argue for the interests of communicators. But the problem has always been defining issues that all communicators can get behind. Maybe we've finally found one.

Maybe some of us ought to form Professional Communicators Against Trump. And use our considerable communication skills, while those skills are still salient. Use those skills to point out to our fellow Americans that, whatever you think of Donald Trump's policies (or "suggestions"), he is destroying our ability to communicate with one another. Or what is left of it, in this age of spin and snark and deFriending and trolls.

Maybe we will say: American communicators will not stand by and watch as a political candidate destroys the concept of truth in our country, and thus destroys the country itself.

Maybe.

But first: Let's not get off to a hypocritical start, anyway. Let's make sure we do indeed have truth on our side on this one.

Do you know any professional communicators who back Donald Trump? Send them here.

Trump-loving communicators: Speak now, and tell me I'm wrong.

Comments

[Laura Hunter]

just as good as the first time around. Looking forward to the debate.

[Unanymous]

>>"Let's make sure we do indeed have truth on our side on this one."

Or, at least, alternative truth.

[Tom Kenley]

A few random thoughts:

If the election were decided by communicators (and I'm not saying it was), it could be weighed that we chose an abundance of unfiltered communication over hyper-politicized double-speak. From the day after the election, I've said to my liberal friends an abundance of the votes for Trump were not for him, they were against Hillary.

That Trump was elected is the next in a growing number of indicia that the educational system has digressed to the point that today's young adults have no idea of what true statesmen can be. We'd rather have the information NOW, even if it's not accurate; and if it's DRAMATIC, all the better. We are no longer patient, discerning consumers of information.

Unfortunately, the response to his election, primarily illustrated by the protests on Saturday, were just as plagued with knee-jerk talking points, with no one's sound bites being consistent with another. A friend of mine aptly stated that the protests were addressing the "systemic sexism" in our society. I thought that was great. It'd been even better if most of those protesting said similar things. After seeing several group organizers speak to the media, it seems they simply capitalized on the day to get out their issues. I truly regret that with the wave of separate "we're pissed" messages, the general public was not clear about what the protestors were pissed.

Back to Trump. I'm not sure a formal, public protest wouldn't be out of order. I back any message saying "Trump is our President, but his character does not properly represent who we are." I think this was properly conveyed to the rest of the world over the weekend.

What does all of this mean for the professional communicator? Well, for me, it means very little. I will continue to craft messages that inform, engage and inspire. I will build platform arguments, explain corporate goals, and tell the human stories that bind us together as a workforce. I’ll just need to create inflammatory and possibly mildly fictitious 140-character microblogs linking to those stories.

[David Murray]

Tom, thanks for this thoughtful response.

I'll take on your points that don't speak for themselves.

First, march organizers could never have dictated a coherent message here. Personally—I was in Chicago—I wished no one would carry any signs or even chant anything, that we'd by our presence, just send a message something like: "President Trump, we're here in big numbers, and we're watching you in big numbers."

Differing signs and agendas notwithstanding, that IS how it felt on Saturday—like a march not of protesters but just of people—and as you indicated, that does seem to have gotten across to the world.

I assume you're kidding with your last sentence. Check back here tomorrow morning. I think your continuing to do your work as you have always done, if others do the same, could make a very big difference indeed.