An NPR-like Press – A Next-Key-Element in the Liberal Agenda

It was interesting to watch the recent dust-up between Ted Koppel, the 42-year veteran of ABC News and Keith Olbermann, the one-time Sportscaster and Current MSNBC Commentator. Probably like many Conservatives, I have to admit to some perverse pleasure derived from watching a couple of flaming Liberals trying to knock the soup out of each other. Unfortunately, that entertaining aspect of the story obscured an underlying theme where it seems many Liberals are in agreement – i.e. A State-run Press is the ideal (Utopian) solution to the continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism.


Although a State-run Press is the consistent solution offered up by Liberals, their views on the cause are often diametrically opposed. In Koppel’s case, corporate profits are seen as the villainous cause. Ironically, the other most common cause cited by other Liberals is the lack of corporate profits. This may be best detailed in a book entitled The Death and Life of American Journalism.

Koppel’s perspective on “villainous corporate profits”, as leading the way to the deterioration of the American Press, is summed up in his Washington Post article entitled The case against news we can choose, where he says:

“What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts - along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.

To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence.

Network executives were afraid that … the Federal Communications Commission (would) suspend or even revoke their licenses.

On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable. Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its ‘60 Minutes’ news magazine in 1968.

Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth … (for) relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.”

My reaction to this echoed Jack Shafer’s opening observation in Slate, in an article entitled Ted Koppel, Bad Reporter, where he said:

“I know of no more sorry a spectacle than the wizened newsman weeping with nostalgia for the golden age of journalism—which just happens to coincide with his own glory days.”

Shafer’s general assertion in his article is that Koppel is just “dead wrong” about certain claims he makes. However, he doesn’t address Koppel’s declaration about “the heart of good journalism being facts, along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.” I think he’s “dead wrong” there too. Just think about Harvest of Shame, the 1960 documentary hosted by Edward R. Murrow, the leading Saint of American Broadcast Journalism to Koppel and his peer-group. No doubt, Harvest of Shame is a great example of American Journalism shining the light of truth on the sordid conditions of American migrant agricultural workers of that day but to say that the related facts were presented “without fear or favor” isn’t even close to the truth. In fact, one might argue that the “fear” and “favor” aspects of that documentary were essential for the positive impact of that journalistic effort. Regardless of the good that I believe resulted from the work of Murrow and his colleagues, with Harvest of Shame, I think the “fear or favor” evident in that work should give us all pause, to consider the implications of Koppel’s comment that “Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth … (for) relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.”

The primary target of Shafer’s “dead wrong” assertion, however, is Koppel’s claim about those “villainous corporate profits.” To support his assertion, Shafer cites Michael J. Socolow’s paper, in Journalism, that details “The myth that network news didn’t make money (until Don Hewitt birthed 60 Minutes) owes its origin to artful bookkeeping.”

Before digging into how The Death and Life of American Journalism conflicts with Koppel, in terms of the cause of the present decline of the American Press and its congruence with Koppel’s views on the paramount solution for this predicament, it’s important for me to share a bit about my experience in reading this book. If you’re wondering why a vocally Conservative guy like me would be interested in reading a book which, as I stated earlier, addresses the most common cause cited by Liberals for the continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism, you’ll be puzzled further to learn that the answer is: Because another Conservative friend recommended it. In recommending the book, though, my friend said, “You may not agree with all of the ideas the book offers.” My response was, “So this is an instance where I should be prepared to chew the fruit and spit out the seeds?” My friend’s reply was, “That’s a good way of putting it.” It didn’t take long for me to understand why this book would have significant portions that, for me, would be “fruitless.” In the Preface, the co-Authors (McChesney and Nichols) set aside an entire page to acknowledge Contributors. These include folks such as Phil Donahue and Arianna Huffington; and the dedication in this section says: “… when we are asked to provide an example of the journalism we seek, we respond … with a single name, Bill Moyers.” With that backdrop, let me share with you what I saw as “fruit” and “seeds”, relative to the subject at hand.

First, when it comes to “the heart of good journalism being facts”, McChesney and Nichols seem to be in agreement with Koppel that this should result in “… relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know.” In The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols frequently state “facts” about the GWB Administration that they, apparently, “believe the public need to know.” These “facts” include statements such as: “When the United States geared up to invade Iraq in 2002, commercial broadcast news media, with only a few brave exceptions, parroted Bush administration talking points for war that were easily identified as lies.” Since these “facts” are presented as just that, “facts”, without any reference at all for their basis in fact, these were the first “seeds” I spit out.

The area where McChesney and Nichols are in complete disagreement with Koppel is the cause for the ongoing decline of “traditional” American Journalism. Koppel says it’s corporate profits. McChesney and Nichols say it’s just the opposite … the lack of profits. I’m in agreement with McChesney and Nichols on this. The one area where I’m in agreement with Koppel, as well as with McChesney and Nichols, is that the entire “traditional” American news-media system is disintegrating. When it comes to the State-run Press that these Liberals have in mind as the solution for this dilemma, as you might expect, my position diverges dramatically from theirs.

In The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols attempt to build the case for a State-run Press by stating that doing so is in alignment with the “Founding Principles” of our nation. The first “seed” to spit out here is in noting that McChesney and Nichols first speak of a “Free Press”, then they equate that with their definition of a “Functional Press” and from there forward, they use the terms interchangeably.

Next, McChesney and Nichols state that, “… government in fact created the free/(functional) press … with aggressive and often enlightened policies and subsidies.” They, then, go on to “… argue that Americans need to embrace this tradition as they respond to the present crisis.” A typical line of reasoning the Authors use here is the one about the U.S. Constitution giving the government the responsibility “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” According to McChesney and Nichols, when Post Roads were first built there were tolls for their use but publishers were allowed free access. For McChesney and Nichols, that adds up to the government subsidizing the press. When you stop and think about it, giving publishers free access to Post Roads isn’t much different from publishers (along with everyone else) having free access to the Internet today. However, in both the case of the providers of Post Roads, as well as the case of the providers of the Internet, allowing free access to the channel of communication doesn’t mean the provider should be given influence over the communication itself. As you read more about the plan these Liberals have in mind, you’ll see that their idea for a State-run Press is much more far-reaching than just giving the government authority over the Press’ channels of communication.

To more fully understand the Utopian solution our Liberals friends have in mind here, let me give you a synopsis of the four-part proposal presented in The Death and Life of American Journalism:

1) Immediate measures to sustain journalism, each of which transitions to a permanent subsidy if successful;

If nothing else, one has to be concerned for: Whose definition of “journalism” and “successful” would be used here?

One of the specific subsidies proposed would include a “News AmeriCorps”, a New Deal style organization for producing “the great investigative reporters, editors …” The obvious question of concern here is: By whose standards?

The proposal that troubles me the most here is one for “a dramatic expansion of funding high-school newspapers and radio stations.” Is it just me or does this sound like something you’ve read about before under the heading of a Goebbels-led program for Hitler Youth?

2) A plan to convert the collapsing corporate newspaper into what we term a “post-corporate” digital newspaper, with print versions at the very least until there is ubiquitous broadband;

Actually, I see this as “fruit” but it’s already happening as the result of the forces at work in the American economy. In other words, the Laissez-faire approach is working fine and nothing State-run is needed.

3) Converting public and community broadcasting into genuinely world-class civic and democratic media;

Much as with point 1), one has to be concerned for: By who’s standards?

and 4) Spawning a vibrant, well-funded, competitive and innovative news-media sector on the Internet.

Here too, it seems to me that the forces at work in the American economy should take priority. And, what should we do about the time after/beyond the time of the Internet? At the turn of the last century the Laissez-faire approach seemed to work fine in addressing the challenges presented by the decline of the once-thriving Buggy Whip Industry. I’m betting we can count on it to be just as effective in dealing with the transition to whatever we develop beyond the Internet.

Although I firmly believe that the forces at work in the American economy should take priority, McChesney and Nichols do offer one proposal here that I saw as having “fruitful” potential. It’s a proposal for an L3C Model – a Low-profit Limited Liability Corporation – to attract significant investment in projects that seek to serve charitable or community interests. Of course, even with this, one should be concerned for whose definition of “charitable” and “community interests” would be used. However, I’m aware of business owners who are interested in developing “digital newspapers”, as alternatives to declining “traditional” newspapers and this L3C Model could be a worthwhile catalyst for sort of turbo-charging those interests.

At the end of The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols sum up their proposal by stating that the need is to move from Public Broadcasting to Public Media and they pose the rhetorical question, “Why the state?’ Their answer is, “It is the American way.”

My answer is, “No, it isn’t!” McChesney and Nichols claim that the answer is “the State” and that “It is the American way” is another of their claims that has no basis in fact. Liberals, simply, believe that “the State” is the answer for everything. The continuing decline of “traditional” American Journalism has painful aspects to it for us all. It’s always going to be that way with a truly Free Press. This is well-exemplified in Voltaire’s quote about Free Speech … “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Living that out often requires what can be some pretty painful patience. But, it has consistently proven to be worth the price. I think it’s more realistic to view American Journalism as being in a state of metamorphosis, rather than a state of decline that equates to its death throes. I’m in full agreement with McChesney and Nichols that a Free Press is essential to the survival of our Republic but I say, “No more NPRs, thank you!” Generally, my suggestion for the current metamorphosis of American Journalism is the same as what has proven to be best with the metamorphosis of a caterpillar … when it goes into its cocoon, leave it alone (Laissez-faire)! If you don’t, you’ll really screw up the beautiful butterfly that would emerge, otherwise.

Comments

LinkedIn Comment


Submitted by Gary Wiram on Tue, 2010-11-30 05:26.

0

+-This Comment, left on LinkedIn:



Susan Bender Phelps We' ve always had news supported by advertising. We've always had yellow journalism. Except for a few courageous publishers, editors, and reporters, the news has generally been skewed either by what wasn't told or what was. I'm not interested in government-owned media outlets. If journalism is truly to be the Fourth Estate, it cannot be gov't owned, it can be gov't sponsored. I don't object to the owners of newpapers, radio and television stations etc., making a profit. I object to corporate monopolies that have resulted in fewer organizations generating the news and the monopolization of our airwaves 24/7 with sensationalized news. When everything is sensational - nothing is sensational.

Free Press


Submitted by Susan Bender Phelps (not verified) on Wed, 2010-12-01 13:20.

0

+-We' ve always had news supported by advertising. We've always had yellow journalism. Except for a few courageous publishers, editors, and reporters, the news has generally been skewed either by what wasn't told or what was. I'm not interested in government-owned media outlets. If journalism is truly to be the Fourth Estate, it cannot be gov't owned, but it can be gov't sponsored. I don't object to the owners of newspapers, radio and television stations etc., making a profit. I object to corporate monopolies that have resulted in fewer organizations generating the news and the monopolization of our airwaves 24/7 with sensationalized news. When everything is sensational - nothing is sensational.

What Does a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative” Look Like? - Why the Answer is Critical for 2010/2012 -

On my Twitter Bio, I describe myself as “A Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. As you might expect, I’m often asked to provide my definition for that description. And, when I’m asked for this, it’s not uncommon for the inquiry to be accompanied by the question, “Is that like a 'Compassionate Conservative'?” … I get the impression that many don’t like that label due to its association with Bush 43.

Since I was referring to myself as a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative” long before I heard GWB call himself a “Compassionate Conservative”, I’ve felt comfortable saying that my sense is that the two are substantially different. Otherwise, until lately, I haven’t felt especially moved to offer further definition of “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. However, when I was recently notified of a new Twitter Follower named Gina Bella (@ginabella) I was motivated to change my perspective on this. When I checked Gina’s Bio, to my surprise, I found that she also describes herself as a “bleeding heart conservative”. My immediate reaction was to think, “Hmmmmmmm. I guess we’re a movement. We should probably have a clear definition for our brand.”

As I began to seriously consider my meaning of “Bleeding –Heart Conservative”, I quickly realized that I don’t really fit my own definition. You see, when I think of “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”, I’m thinking of the guy in the photo (President Reagan), comforting those grieving the loss of the Challenger Shuttle Crew. Although I like to point out similarities between myself and “The Gipper” – e.g., I, too, can say that I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left me – I know I don’t measure up to the standard he set. Not many do. I guess, at best, I should call myself an “Aspiring Bleeding-Heart Conservative”, though I probably won’t make that change to my Twitter Bio due to their 140 character limit. Regardless, it struck me that, with Reagan as the standard, defining itself as the party of those aspiring to be a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative” could be pivotal to the Republican Party in regaining its significance in American politics. With that in mind, I finally felt compelled to offer my definition.

As noted, I see Ronald Reagan as having set the standard for what it means to be a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. And, as I see it, the key components of that standard are:

1. Focusing on what we stand for, not what we’re against. In other words, accentuating the positive. Remember, Reagan always saw us as striving to be “The Shining City on the Hill”. I don’t remember him ever being apologetic to anyone about us while blaming our condition on what he inherited from predecessors.
2. Being absolutely clear about what we stand for. The C&W lyrics “You’ve got to stand for somethin’ or you’ll fall for anything” may seem corny but they carry great truth. Being wishy-washy is a surefire way to invite attack from those who oppose you, who are not well-meaning.
3. Not forgetting Reagan’s “11th Commandment”. Simply stated, this is not speaking ill of your fellow Republican. The converse of that is just as true – i.e., Boldly, speaking well of your fellow Republican … even when their popularity is down in the polls. I can’t think of a better example here than the way Former VP Dick Cheney has been speaking out lately. Too many have shied away from him due to the way our last administration was inappropriately disrespected and far too few have spoken out in agreement with him, as he has been courageously shining the light of truth.
4. Constructively engaging those who oppose us, who are well-meaning. Don’t confuse this with the current administration’s foolishness in offering to sit down with lunatics like Ahmadinejad. President Reagan clearly understood that there is evil in this world and he was unafraid of calling a spade a spade, in that regard. But, when sitting down to negotiate with foreign leaders; he first strove to connect with the fellow-human-being on the other side of the table. More importantly, when dealing with domestic political opponents, he started by showing complete respect for those across the aisle ... his fellow-Americans. Moreover, whether or not he was in general agreement with another person, he was willing to selflessly embrace and acknowledge any superior ideas they offered.

Certainly, there are other important aspects to being a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”. Likewise, beyond defining itself as the party of those aspiring to be a “Bleeding-Heart Conservative”, there are other essentials to bear in mind, as the Republican Party works to recapture its influence. But, I can’t think of anything better suited to serve as our cornerstone, as we rebuild and prepare the party for the coming 2010 and 2012 campaigns.

Portland’s Whuffie Trail Blazers


If you’re checking this article to see what I’m implying about Portland’s NBA team, the Trail Blazers, you’re going to be disappointed. This isn’t about basketball; it’s about a remarkable quality I’ve discovered in the Portland (PDX) business culture. It falls under a category trend setters in New Media Marketing are calling Whuffie. With the “remarkable quality” I mentioned, PDX has become quite a trend setter, itself, with Whuffie – i.e., Whuffie Trail Blazers.


Before going on, for those of you who’ve never heard of Whuffie (I heard it for the first time, myself, just over two weeks ago, through my friend, Janet Lee Johnson), let me tell you what it is, if I haven’t lost you already. In short, Whuffie is sort of the net worth a person or group builds up in Social Capital. The word “Whuffie” actually comes from a Sci-Fi book entitled “Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom”, by Cory Doctorow. Credit for the application of the word “Whuffie” to Social Capital seems to go to Tara Hunt, the Author of a book entitled “The Whuffie Factor”. For a more in depth understanding of Whuffie, check out Tara’s blog post entitled “You can’t eat Whuffie (but it’s getting harder to eat without it)”.

With all that said, my purpose with this article isn’t to educate you about Whuffie. It’s to give PDX kudos for its “Whuffie Factor” and to encourage Sales people and Sales organizations to be mindful of building their net worth in this regard.

First, let me tell you a bit about my discovery of PDX’s “Whuffie Factor”. When we relocated to PDX, from Southern California, four years ago, I discovered several traits of the PDX business community and its culture, that were different than I had anticipated. One of these aspects was the PDX employment base. It wasn’t as strong as I had expected and of course, as the once bustling streets of downtown PDX have taken on more of a look of a ghost town, that’s become an even more significant factor.

However, the most significant difference I found in the PDX marketplace, versus what I had expected, was the importance of a good network of local business contacts. I started coming into PDX on business in the mid 1980s and I thought I had an understanding of the business community when we decided to move here. I discovered that I was wrong and that having a good network of local business contacts was critical. At first, I was a bit anxious about recognizing my lack in this regard. In addition to surprises in the business community, I was also taken aback by realities I found in PDX in general that didn’t match up well with several of my most important personal beliefs. Especially since I’m pretty transparent about my beliefs, I was concerned that the business community might spurn me and keep me from building the needed network of business connections. I’m thankful to say that I was wrong about that too. It’s not uncommon to hear the PDX marketplace described as being provincial. That’s true to some degree but mostly it’s true with the positive characteristics of “provincial”. If you’re willing to be a member of the PDX business community who looks out for its other members and the health of the business community in general, PDX will not only welcome you as a member, it will help you to become one. In general, that is the “Whuffie Factor” I discovered in PDX.

The specifics Tara Hunt uses to define Whuffie include:

Do well by doing good.

Think Customer-centrically.

Help others go further.

Spread love.

Value something bigger.

That sounds significantly different from the clichéd business/Sales model of WIIFM (What’s In It For Me), doesn’t it? At first, I thought that Whuffie might be WIIFM’s selfless, diametric opposite. But, though it is somewhat opposite, it isn’t selfless. In fact I think it’s fair to say that Whuffie turns out to be an extension of WIIFM, with Whuffie as a vehicle for securing WIIFM. But, if I’m right, it at least gets you out of the mode of exclusively considering WIIFM by first getting you involved in WIIFO (What’s In It For Others). Regardless of what you call it and I’m fine with calling it Whuffie, I’m thankful for it. It’s the common ground PDX made available for me to connect and become a part.

So, hats off to PDX for nurturing this remarkable quality. I’ve been a part of two other major business communities and I’ve had the opportunity to observe countless business communities throughout the northern hemisphere. In this regard, PDX stands head and shoulders above any other marketplace I’ve known. I’m pleased, then, to be a part of it and to proudly say, “I am one of Portland’s Whuffie Trail Blazers.”

With that in mind, I want to close by encouraging you to be mindful of Whuffie for yourself, as a Sales person and for your Sales organization. Tara Hunt says that with Whuffie, “The more you give away, the more you get.” I can’t think of a better attitude for you to take in engaging with your business community.

Comments
 
sharrypdx Says:


June 6, 2009 at 4:28 pm edit

Welcome to the community Gary. You are a VALUABLE asset . . . conservative opinions and all!



Sean Harry

Anne B Says:


June 7, 2009 at 7:41 pm edit

To really understand the power of Whuffie in building your business, I recommend reading Tara Hunt’s “Whuffie Factor”.



I agree – Pdx is a welcoming community if you are ready to put in before you take out!

The Biggest Casualty, So Far, Of A Nation Divided Against Itself - General Motors

Lunatic Foreign Terrorists Brought Down The WTC Twin Towers

– GM’s Collapse Is A Fully-Domestic Self-Inflicted Wound

My first visit to New York City’s World Trade Center was in 1979. The company I worked for, at that time, had a branch office on the ground floor of one of the buildings in the WTC complex so I was there on business. A few years later, in the mid-80s, I was there on business again. The company I was working for then held a fiscal-year-end celebration dinner at Windows on the World (aka Windows), the renowned restaurant that occupied the 106^th and 107^th floors of the North Tower. And, while on vacation in the early-90s, I got to visit Top of the World, the observation deck at 1,377 feet, atop the South Tower. What a blessing it was to have those experiences! And what magnificent structures they were! Literally and figuratively, they were a high point, symbolizing the great strength of American Capitalism. With their magnificence, it was well beyond my imagination that on a beautiful September day in 2001 a small band of maniacs, who hated everything the Twin Towers stood for, would bring them down, along with nearly 3,000 lives. Those who were responsible for that were identified, though. Many have been brought to justice and we continue to pursue justice for all who were responsible.

When I was born, General Motors was the world’s largest automaker. At that point, it had held that distinction for 17 years and it would continue to do so for the next 60 years. What New York City’s World Trade Center symbolized about the great strength of American Capitalism, Detroit City’s General Motors was, in fact. As I completed my formal education in the 50s and 60s, the optimum target for anyone with a business career in mind was a job with GM. And, as I carried out my business life, starting in the 70s and continuing into the new millennium, GM continued to serve as the standard metaphor of the ideal employer/business-partner. Considering that, in the heyday of my working life, General Motors reached its zenith, employing 349,000 workers in 150 assembly plants; you can understand that it was well beyond my imagination that on the first day in June, nearly 101 years after its founding, the once seemingly all powerful industrial giant known as General Motors would announce its bankruptcy. Unlike the disintegration of the WTC Twin Towers, the colossal collapse of GM wasn’t the result of foreign terrorists; it was the result of domestic ineptitude on the part of our Captains of Industry, our Wizards of Wall Street, our Labor Leaders and Politicians of all stripes. While Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is having his nasal passages regularly hydrated, Osama Bin Laden is living like a mountain goat and their compatriots are ducking real bullets; the dim-wits responsible for GM’s fall are shooting blanks at each other with their pointed fingers.

What’s needed here is for all of us, including the above-mentioned dim-wits, to draw together and do what President George Bush said he was going to do in the midst of the WTC ruble. Whether or not you were/are a GWB fan, his words from that time serve as a great example for the appropriate response to today’s disaster. The paraphrase I’d use is … "We hear you! And the rest of the world will hear all of us soon!" It was that attitude, not an attitude of Reds just opposing everything Blues are in favor of and vice-versa, that made America and American Capitalism so great in the first place. Some call it synergy … the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. My favorite label for it is the one that goes back to the founding of our country … Yankee Ingenuity. That’s the attitude that made it possible for us to accomplish things like winning a two-front world war. At the center of that successful effort was American Industry and an industrial giant named General Motors. If we truly want to regain the greatness our nation has known, we must rediscover that attitude and fully embrace it. That will require all of us and the leaders we choose, to stop the finger pointing and actually consistently extend our hands “across the aisle” instead of just paying lip service to that need.

“FIREPROOF” Business Partners


Last year, in my personal blog (A Few Days With Figgins), I posted an article about a movie called “FIREPROOF”. As I said in that article, “Just from the movie’s logo, the word ‘FIREPROOF’ with the ‘OO’ represented by interlocking wedding rings, you quickly get a sense of what the movie is about.” Since my Wife, Ruth and I head up our church’s Married Couples Fellowship, we welcome seeing a movie that encourages married couples to tend to their marriage. Of course, techniques that are healthy for marriages are often wise additions to other sorts of relationships. As the U.S. economy has been going through its current “trial by fire”, I’ve been reminded of the importance of having “FIREPROOF” business relationships.


Most Sales people become adept at communicating WIIFM (What’s In It For Me) messages to their Prospects. Typically these are FABs (Features, Advantages and Benefits) … things like “A 3.2 GHz processor”, “50% faster than your current PC” and “You’ll be able to do the same amount of work in half the time”. But, how many Sales people fully address what to expect when there are problems? Of course, after-Sales service, warranties, etc. are commonly detailed. How often, though, do you hear a Sales person say something like, “You know, we have a great (company, product, service, etc.) but we’re not perfect and there will be problems. An important consideration for you is, when problems come up, have you chosen a business-partner you can count on? I want you to know, when problems occur, you can count on me to be there, shoulder-to-shoulder with you.” Especially in the current “trial by fire” economy, its important to set your offering apart in as many meaningful ways as possible and setting yourself apart in this way may make the difference in whether you get business or it goes to your competitor.

This is, also, an important consideration in hiring. As a Sales Manager, there are numerous qualities to consider, in selecting the right Sales people for your team. However, no matter how good your selection is, the person you select won’t be joining a perfect (company, Sales team, Sales Manager, etc.). What can you expect from them when problems arise? Although the commitment to an employer/employee relationship isn’t the same as the Husband/Wife commitment to marriage, its important to know if you’re hiring someone who will stick with you “through thick and through thin”. Likewise, when you, as a Sales person, are considering a new employer, you should give this aspect some thought.

The movie “FIREPROOF” uses the metaphor of a company of Fire Fighters and their motto, “Never Leave Your Partner Behind”, to exemplify a necessary attitude for a successful marriage. With that said, I think its fair to say, there’s no such thing as a “FIREPROOF” marriage. There will be fires and some burning will take place. However, if Husband and Wife are fully committed to “Never Leave (Their) Partner Behind”, the marriage won’t “go down in flames”. Especially in the current “trial by fire” economic times, it seems important to strive for this sense of “FIREPROOF” in business relationships too.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree? What are your favorite stories, along these lines, that you’d like to share?! Please let us know so it can be shared with others.

The “Perfect Time” For Sales Training


Recently, I read an article on SalesBlogcast.com entitled “Making Time for Business Improvement and Staff Development“. The key points of this are:


It seems that there’s never a “good time” for a company to invest its resources in business improvement and staff development.

When business is good, companies feel secure and they don’t want to divert resources from processing as much business as possible.

When business is down; there are RIFs, along with cuts in travel and training budgets – i.e., the resources companies don’t want to divert when business is good are now reduced.

In order for a business to remain viable, investing in business improvement is a must, whether or not it seems like a “good time” for it.

This was reminiscent of an article I posted last year entitled “Growing Sales In A Down Economy“. Similar to the SalesBlogcast.com article, I point out that, though it can seem almost instinctive to restrict investment when the economy is down, some resources (e.g., time) are actually more available than they are during an economic boom. So, investing what you can now is wise. In doing so, you’ll be better prepared to maximize the benefits of the economy turning up again.

Recently, I took on the Director of Sales role for a leading developer of e-Learning based business solutions, headquartered in Portland, OR. So, in that capacity, you might expect my position to be that any time is a “good time” for a company to invest in education aimed at business improvement. You’d be right. In addition to my admitted bias, I’m getting a much closer look at the issues illuminated by the aforementioned SalesBlogcast.com article and on a daily basis, I’m seeing them clearly demonstrated in reality. This includes:

Companies wanting to nurture their workforce to be as competitive as possible.

Companies wanting to nurture their customer base to stimulate buying and to minimize support costs.

Much of the above-mentioned “nurturing” requires education and many companies are faced with getting this job done with fewer resources.

The admonition on this from the SalesBlogcast.com article is “Pay me now or pay me later”. I won’t argue with that wisdom. However, I think the example I used in my previous article provides more encouraging positive reinforcement so I’ll repeat that here:

So what is a more effective approach during these tough times for business? I think the best answer to this was summed up in a conversation I had with our mortgage lender, when I ran into her at a recent business meeting in our community. Of course, her industry has probably been hit as hard as any business sector, in the current economy. So, I asked her how business was going. Her response was that she’s in this for the long-term. There are peaks and there are valleys. During the last peak, she did what she knew was necessary to prepare for the next valley. And, now that she’s in that valley, she’s tending to things she didn’t have time for during the last peak and she’s doing this so she can maximize the benefits of the next peak.

So, what are your views on this topic? Whether or not you agree with my perspective, I welcome you sharing your experience.

Easter, The Ultimate Answer To, "What Would Jesus Do?"

Earlier this week, I had a really good discussion with a new friend. This new relationship seems to be one where we quickly recognized that we like each other regardless of our differing views on some pretty important topics. I say "really good discussion" because it was an open exchange with both of us genuinely interested in hearing the other's points of view and wanting to learn from that. Candidly, I have to give my friend more credit than I can take myself, in that regard. Although this "really good discussion" mostly involved the two forbidden topics typically warned against for peaceful relationships ... Politics and Religion ... I strongly suspect this was just the first "really good discussion" of many to come.

One of the results of this conversation was for me to be reminded that, while I'm clear in my understanding of my positions on the issues we discussed, I want to be able to clearly express my views to others. The question that was raised that confronted me with this most significantly was the question, "Do you believe there's only one way to Heaven?" Although I think my response to this was adequate, it seems to me that I should be prepared to offer more than an answer that's just OK to such an important question. In fact, in 1 Peter 3:15, the Bible compels Christians to do this, saying, "[be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you".

Expressing the "reason of the hope that is in (me)" is what I want to be better prepared to do but, before I delve into that, I should give you my initial answer to that question. My answer is:

I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. I,
also, believe that every person can have salvation through accepting Christ's sacrifice for their sin. And, I believe that salvation, through accepting Christ's sacrifice, is the one and only path to Heaven.

Since my friend didn't state his position on this question, I won't presume to give you his answer. I will say his question was accompanied with several related questions and comments that I took into account as I considered how to best express the "reason of the hope that is in (me)". One related question was, "Do you think Mother Teresa went to Heaven?" and one related comment was, "I make it a daily habit, when considering certain choices, to ask myself, What would Jesus do?" I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting here but, to me, this combination of questions and comments had certain implications. One was that while my friend has some high regard for Jesus, he doesn't necessarily accept Him as being the only way to Heaven. Another was that "good works"/"being a good person" should get you to Heaven.

So, in order to respond to this and more adequately express the "reason of the hope that is in (me)", the two questions to answer are:

1. Who is Jesus?


2. Can "good works" alone be a path to Heaven.

In my opinion, one of the best sources addressing Question #1 is the book The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel. The one-liner I'll distill from this is that "Jesus was either Who He said He was or He was the greatest fraud in history". My friend's "high regard" for Jesus seems incongruent with Him being "the greatest fraud in history". That pretty much leaves that He must be Who He said He was. The Scripture references on this are numerous but Who He said He was, is God.

With that being the case, Question #2 is easier to address. Jesus, himself, answered it. As recorded in John 14:6, He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Although Scripture - e.g., James 2:20, makes it clear that good works are expected of Christians when it says, "faith without works is dead", according to Jesus, He alone is the way to Heaven. As to whether or not Mother Teresa went to Heaven, I don't know. Only God can look on our hearts. If Mother Teresa accepted Jesus' gracious gift of salvation, she did go to Heaven, where she heard the Lord tell her, "Well done good and faithful servant" and she's receiving the reward He stored up for her.

So, how then should I have offered a more adequate answer to my friend on this matter? Beyond what I've addressed up to now, I think the answer was contained in another comment he made ... "God is love". That's right! He loves us so much that He sent His Son out of Heaven, to live as a man, to die as horrible a death as can be imagined, to save us from our sin, to overcome death and sin and to return to Heaven saying, "I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, (there) ye may be also."

That was His ultimate answer to the question

"What would Jesus do?"