January 01, 2020

This presentation is available in two forms; one in Prezi format and the other in a Youtube video. Both formats are offered for clarity of the intent of the presentation as well as fluidity.

The Prezi;

http://prezi.com/yz2xnjkg_qyb/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy

The Youtube video;

February 21, 2017

Former Reagan appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States said of this issue;
"If I were king, I would not allow people to go around burning the American flag -- however, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged -- and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government."
"I mean that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress," he added. "Burning the flag is a form of expression -- speech doesn't just mean written words or oral words -- burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea. 'I hate the government, the government is unjust,' or whatever."

February 14, 2017

Table 9-1 from Robyn Walker’s text book fascinates me. So often I have found we end up on the debate side of things rather than the dialogue. We appear to be more interested in having our ideas accepted totally, or as a whole, rather than actually trying to solve the problem we face. The table shows a great comparison about the goals of debate compared to the goals of dialogue (Walker, 2015). I think that If we could somehow put our pride and our Freudian hang ups away, we would better be able to solve problems.

​

While working as a high school math teacher, I found that the administration was more interested in change that was wholeheartedly “their” idea rather than change that incorporated the cumulative efforts of their staff. They spent hours designing ideas in secret and then would simply unveil the ideas rather than working to incorporate the concepts of those who were actually tasked with implementing those changes, and had first hand knowledge of the possible hang-ups upon implementation.

​

While in the Army, I had experiences relating to change that could fall into both categories of this issue – debate or dialogue. While at a low level, I found that input from the bottom up was graciously honored and incorporated; however, as I gain promotions and began to work at higher level, I found that a top-down approach was used to a greater degree through micromanaging and other similar methods of that type. The approach seemed to be to trash old ideas and start all over with completely new ones.

​

I see similar failures in communication with the current political debate on the Affordable Care Act in Congress and the Executive branch today. It seems that the political party in charge would rather scrap the whole plan despite the years of work that went into creating the current one –rather than studying the current plan and finding areas where it could be improved and made better. Through study of the problems with the current plan, it seems to me, that the knowledge gained through study and healthy constructive communication, small adjustments to the enormous act could be implemented with less of a monumental effort required to trash the old idea as a whole and start all over with a completely new plan. It seems that pride and party loyalty are the driving force with the current handling of health care legislation in America, and we, the citizens, appear to be the ones to suffer from our lawmaker’s egocentric approach to implementing a health care design.

February 10, 2017

This study will examine two types of communication. This paper will compare informative messages to persuasive messages, while discussing the approaches of how each are utilized. The ethical considerations of the “indirect approach” will be explored. The uses of evidence, logical, ethical and emotion appeal will also be examined which will include tactics used to deal with hostile or resistance audiences. 

prezi available at;
http://prezi.com/btjipo3lg3vr/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy

February 10, 2017

This treatise has discussed informative messaging thus far. It is time to move into the persuasive side now. It is important to note that what makes a message persuasive is that the intent of the purpose of the message is clearly to influence a decision of some sort, making information about the audience crucial to message success. A clear understanding of the purpose of the message is also important.

prezi available at;
http://prezi.com/btjipo3lg3vr/?utm_ca...

February 09, 2017

In these types of messages, the purpose “is not stated immediately.” The message opens up with a “neutral buffer” – with the meaning implied by the name itself. The neutral buffer is meant to “maintain goodwill,” which is quickly followed by a logical pattern toward the purpose of the message (“the bad news”).  The body of the message goes into more of a detailed explanation (Walker, 2015). “Using the indirect strategy when delivering bad news is only unethical if the writer makes a conscious decision to be unethical,” said edee in a blog on business communications (Edee, 2015).

​

prezi available at;http://prezi.com/btjipo3lg3vr/?utm_ca...

February 08, 2017

Some may argue that informative messages have no intent to persuade and are simply used to provide information; however, an example of informative messages that do have an intent to “influence” (Putnam, n.d.) include some messages about safety and execution as mentioned in the introduction that have to do with industrial businesses. According to the Michael Putnam of University of Texas -Arlington;
Informative messages are designed to influence understand[ing]; to make it clearer or more developed. They are not designed to change or reinforce opinions, though sometimes that occurs as a side effect… The difference lies primarily in what the source intends. [With] Persuasive messages the intent is overt and clearly indicated. Informative messages may have intent, but consciously [try] to reject displaying such an attitude.

​

prezi available at;http://prezi.com/btjipo3lg3vr/?utm_ca...

January 29, 2017

In order for any messaging campaign to be successful, one must identify the audience as specific as possible.

​

Transcript available at;

https://prezi.com/qeh3ybv8bkdb/untitled-prezi/

​

or

​

http://media.wix.com/ugd/275ed6_aa5b9a7486254dbeaba0d8736e36ae96.pdf

​

​

​

​

January 01, 2017

the enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil....

December 11, 2016

While this presentation deals specifically with the legal concepts of appropriation and false light, it is important to demonstrate the larger category of which those two concepts belong under – that is, the right to privacy. Roy Moore and Michael Murray cite American legal scholar William L. Prosser’s four torts relating to “invasion of privacy.” They are

December 13, 2016

Tonight, as a continuation of my series of, “Dogs thoughts matter,” I’ve chosen to focus on the origins of one of the most popular pooches to come across the media wave in this election, Triumph, the insult dog. What are his origins, do we have papers on this dog, and most importantly, where does he get his ideas?

November 11, 2016

The opinions surrounding the deplorable sides of the First Amendment vs. national security are disturbing beyond the repair of my feeble little mind. As former Soldier, traitors are the worst form of human being that I could ever know. However, as a journalist I understand and have an unwavering respect for the First Amendment. You see, I was a journalist, and continue to see myself as one, and I was a Soldier.

Perhaps this dichotomy within my mind’s eye is the reason that I struggle so. I struggle to do simple things like shave, clean my apartment, hold a job, and various other things because of an incredible hole in my spirit. Most of all, I struggle to just simply wake up in the morning. My nights are fill with terror. I relive a war without purpose or reason, while at the same time those same people who sent me to war worry about what fancy quiche recipe to make for their happy family breakfast in the morning.

Yes, that was harsh. I know it. But I included those thoughts for a reason. I have included them in this discussion because we need to be careful about when we send people to war. These people that we send are just like you and I. They are people. They have dreams, aspirations, children and many family members that suffer greatly when they go to war, and especially when they don’t come back. For these reasons, I have included this opinioned introduction, before I go into some debate about when the First Amendment should be held strong, and when it should be ignored. I present these things because they point out the true cost of war. The cost of war goes beyond the time that most of American experiences it through the news cycle, to be ultimately replaced by some story about the Kardashians, Brad Pitt, or even the latest weird thing that Donald Trump has just said. The cost of war goes beyond the funerals, the depression, and the anti-depressants, the Prazosin, the Trazadone, the horrible nightmares…it lives long after the conflict, the blood, the guts, the pissed off people on all sides. The cost of war for some people, lasts a lifetime.

For those reasons, I approach this debate about the 1971 Supreme Court Case, New York Times Co. v. United States. I present the case in a manner that respects the costs. Academics and lawyers may argue and debate this case upon their intellectual merits. I can’t do that. I am neither an academic or a lawyer. I present it based upon ethics. Ethics are not always in sync with the law. In many cases, they do not necessarily overlap. There are gray areas. So, the best way I know how to put this case into context, is to express my unique point of view towards war…and its cost. And this of course begs the question, when is it better to err on the side of the “First,” rather than the made up political aspirations that executives want to put under the umbrella of “national security” or “espionage.”

When I refer to the New York Times Co. v. United States case, (New York Times Co. v. United States, 2016) I had to double check my references to make sure that I was right in my assigning those words to a debate that has become associated with the “Pentagon Papers,” which were classified documents that made a clear distinction between what President Lyndon Johnson was claiming that the reasons for the war in Vietnam were and what the actual reasons for the Vietnam conflict were (Pentagon Papers, 2016) which were an interwoven design on “puppet mastering” South Vietnam so as to “contain” Chinese, communist influence, rather than some sort of spreading of democracy to help out our South Vietnamese democratic brethren. The papers indicated that President Johnson misled the American people and Congress into buying into the war. The Pentagon papers had been somehow leaked to the New York Times, and the Nixon administration took up a stronghold position that national security usurped the Constitution’s First. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the First Amendment.

While all of this is apparent ancient history, a few unchallenged, chosen words in a Wikipedia article point out the flaw in this overused, executive umbrella charge of “National Security.” That sentence is below;

President Nixon's first reaction to the publication [of the Pentagon Papers] was that, since the study embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations rather than his, he should do nothing.

                                                                                (Pentagon Papers, 2016)

Ironically, we must all recall that Nixon also tried to use the national security claim to hide his own wrong doings concerning with Watergate, which had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with national security. So, the real question of this First Amendment vs. national security appears to be more about a chief executives covering their asses, rather than national security. Again, and again, the First Amendment is the side that we should err upon, especially when it comes to politicians.

New York Times Co. v. United States (2016) . Wikipedia . retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States

Pentagon Papers (2016) . Wikipedia . retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

November 09, 2016

When one considers the ethics of WikiLeaks, I think that this is a discussion of the issue of what is illegal and what is unethical.

According to reference.com, ethics are best described as “social guidelines” that are based upon “moral principles and values,” while law has to do with specific rules and regulations laid down by the varying authorities that often hold “penalties or consequences when violated” (Reference, 2016). 

The prosecution and conviction of Chelsea (also known as Bradley) Manning who is serving 35 years for violations of the Espionage Act is a clear example where the use of WikiLeaks is considered by many to be a violation of law. Manning is said to have released hundreds of thousands of classified files to WikiLeaks (Patterson & Wilkins, 2014).  In addition, the United States still has “pending prosecution” against the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for espionage as well (justice4assange, 2016).  So, considering these two prosecutions, obviously there appears to be enough legal power to establish the WikiLeaks’ behavior into the realm of illegality.

On Election Day, this November 8, 2016, Assange published a statement where he claimed exceeding pressure to stop publishing the Clinton email trove that they have on hand. In the statement Assange defends his organization’s efforts to publish the material. In the same statement, Assange presents the WikiLeaks stand and hints to their standards of ethics, which they feel are buttressed by the 1st Amendment in that they use an “open model of journalism,” of which “gatekeepers” find troubling (Assange, 2016).

I interpret the contextual meaning of the words “open model for journalism” to mean the system of publishing the files in their entirety instead of refining the information into a news format. The term “gatekeepers” could mean all sorts of things, but I interpret it, along with the comments at the bottom of the statement where Assange states that WikiLeaks does not have the resources of organizations like “CNN, MSNBC or the Clinton campaign.” Which is sort of indicative that a list of so called “gatekeepers” might include those organizations list as the ones who are “uncomfortable with” (Assange, 2016).  WikiLeaks.

In the statement, Assange, appears to once again go to the defense of Manning, finding issue with the her “inhuman and degrading treatment” that Assange attributes to the Obama administration. Assange concludes, “publishing is what we do.”

Assange puts forth as the WikiLeaks “guiding principle” as “impart[ing] true information.” Assange constantly refers to the 1st Amendment, claiming that his organization works in “harmony” with that part of the U.S. Constitution (Assange, 2016). To be honest, I can’t disagree. The freedoms in the “First” are general in nature and were probably intended to be that way. However, general or not, the freedoms listed there in are clear, however, espionage by its very definition is very subjective and opinionated.  Like beauty, it is best left to be interpreted by the beholder; and who have we decided that espionage will be beholden? Why the people of course.

Assange states that the questions of ethics are for the people to decide….”We the people….” I remember reading something like that somewhere.  According to Assange, “the real victor is the US public which is better informed as a result of our work” (Assange, 2016).

I agree with Assange on the free speech part, but whether there are any victories to be celebrated after this election? Only time will tell. But I keep going back to one thing -- the First Amendment—and if the judgement is ever forced that we must do away with either the Espionage Act or the First Amendment, on ever case of that particular hypothetical, I will choose to keep the Bill of Rights intact and to not allow Assange’s so called “gatekeepers” to narrow the breach one single inch more.

Assange, Julian (2016) . Assange Statement on the US Election . WikiLeaks . Nov. 8, 2016 . retrieved from https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-Election.html

justice4assange(2016) . Accurate reporting on the one remaining allegation . Justice for Assange: Justice will Prevail  . https://justice4assange.com/Accurate-reporting-on-the-one.html

Patterson, P. ; & Wilkins, L. (2014) . Media Ethics: Issues and Cases . 8th Ed . 2014

Reference (2016) . What is the difference between ethics and law? . Government and Politics . retrieved Nov. 6, 2016 from https://www.reference.com/government-politics/difference-between-ethics-law-1b772dd7ebc7cd74

October 28, 2016

Months after Twin Peaks1, I never heard again from John Carroll2, I still had the legacy of the big machine—four hundred pounds of chrome and deep red noise to take out on the back roads of central Texas, 317, 1123, 2268....Moody, Holland, Salado. My first crash had wrecked the bike completely and it took several months to rebuild. After that, I decided to ride it differently: I would stop pushing my luck on curves, always wear a helmet, and try to keep within range of the nearest speed limit.....my insurance policy had been canceled and my driver's license was hanging by a thread.3

October 06, 2016

Based upon the title of this assignment and the prompt, I believe a key area to focus is on visual identity, defend by Catherine Kaputa as means to self-present one’s brand image, related to product packaging such as shape, color, or material that help to sell a product. Kaputa claims that the way one sells oneself through similar attractive presentations of the self goes to “what social scientist call the hallo effect. Because when something is attractive, we assign many of the positive attributes to” that something (Kaputa, 2012), such as leadership qualities, which we discussed in Module One – specifically in the Leaders Playbook, in particular “Credibility and Realism” and “Motivation and Belief” (Hoenig, 2002). Consider the 1980s hair band lyrics,

Boss screamin' in my ear about who I'm supposed to be

Getcha a 3-piece Wall Street smile and son you'll look just like me

I said "Hey man, there's something that you oughta know.

I tell ya Park Avenue leads to Skid Row."

                                                                (Skid Row Lyrics, 2016)

This lyric in a lot of ways is celebrating concepts that Kaputa makes throughout her book concerning brand identity – specifically uniqueness, differentiation, and vivid presentation. We discussed the failures of the company Enron in the last module. While it will always be known for its massive failings, there were times when the company had a lot going for it, specifically its chief executive officer, Jeff Skilling. According to the documentary, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, in his hay day he re-invented his personal image by losing weight and getting laser surgery to correct his vision, replacing his thick-glassed, pudgy appearance to a sleeker, younger –looking Skilling, and his receding hair line seems to have begun to actually advance near the last year of the company’s lifespan. Enron founder Kenneth Lay and Skilling referred to themselves as “the smartest guys in the room,” a great self-brand had it actually been true. Skilling would take some of his apprentices on wild adventures such as dirt biking and other risky pastimes. All a part of his brand (Wagner, 2005).

 Consider another Skid Row lyric from the same song.

Since I was born they couldn't hold me down

Another misfit kid, another burned-out town

Never played by the rules I never really cared

My nasty reputation takes me everywhere.

                                                                (Skid Row Lyrics, 2016)

It is important to note that Kaputa’s proselytizing of uniqueness does not promote differentiation alone. The differentiation must have appeal within the Roman concepts of VIR-Tut-em Form-a de-cor-at, in the latin, which means beauty adorns virtue (Kaputa, 2012). Enron, Lay, and Skilling would eventually prove themselves without virtue and very lacking goodness and decency, and the Enron method would prove to be not a good one, and those CEOs to be not all that smart in the end. In fact, Skilling’s bad boy reputation, as demonstrated by a derogatory comment that he made to an investor in April, 2001, a comment that was actually celebrated by his employees, and one can see one of his supporters laughing about it in the background when Skilling was asked about the comment in Congressional testimony. According to Bethany McLean, one of the writers of the Smartest Guys documentary, this comment, while it may have been celebrated internally, it caused many investors to begin to lose faith in Skilling and the company. In fact, in a Wikipedia article on the topic, the derogatory comment is considered to be a crucial element of the company’s “Timeline of downfall” (Enron scandal, 2016).

                While Skilling’s employees may have been impressed with his derogatory comment, Congress, the American people, and several criminal courts would no longer be impressed with Skilling in the long run. Kaputa points out that first impressions are very critical to success; (Kaputa, 2012) however, the Skilling-Enron story demonstrates that maintaining a valid brand identity is vital as well in the long run to our successes, else we will end up messing up the end game. And after all, what is the point if you can’t stick your landing with good business practice and a sound product, else the whole thing is all just of bunch of fluff, and is therefore worthless – just like Enron stock would become less than a year after the bad boy play wore off and lost its appeal in the mind of investors.

References

Enron Scandal (2016) . Wikipedia . retrieved Oct 1, 2016 from https:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

Kaputa, Catherine. (2012).You are a brand! in person and online, how smart people brand themselves for business success, second edition. [Skillsoft Books24x7 version] Available fromhttps://snhu.skillport.com/skillportfe/main.action?assetid=45512

Hoenig, Christopher (2002). The Leader's Playbook ; Take a page-no, several pages-from this guide to transforming your team.  CIO . 16(4) . Nov 15, 2002 . pp 40-42 retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/docview/205972576/fulltext/199B4B7693A3406APQ/1?accountid=3783

Skid Row Lyrics (2016) . Youth Gone Wild . azlyrics.com . retrieved Oct. 1, 2016 fromhttp://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/skidrow/youthgonewild.html

Wagner Todd (Producer) & Gibney, Alex(Director) & McLean, Bethany, Elkind (Writers) (2005). Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room . [Motion picture] . United States . Magnoloia . May 20, 2005

September 30, 2016

When one watches the documentary, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, one cannot help to take away from that movie the feeling that Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow were just a bunch of assholes. Pardon the use of the term, but that is how Skilling, the Chief Executive Officer of a Fortune 500 company unprofessionally referred to one stock analysts who had dared questioned the beloved Enron’s unique and some would say misleading reporting to stockholders in April 2001. This remark came less than a year from the company filing bankruptcy and the stock plummeting to less than 1 percent of its pre-crisis value (Wagner, 2005). The aftermath of what has come to be known as the “Enron Scandal” was a nightmare, leaving countless employees and shareholders in financial distress. According to the documentary, none of the before mentioned executives felt they had done anything wrong (Wagner, 2005). What did they do wrong? Well, from a professional communication perspective; they broke some very cardinal rules of the profession.

September 23, 2016

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missles