Matt - Communication: Part 1

Academic Work:

Perhaps one of the most intellectually rich experiences of my undergraduate tenure at GMU was practicing and competing with the university’s nationally recognized Forensics (speech) Team. Nearly every weekend during the academic year, the team traveled to colleges around the nation to compete with students and their respective institutions. At the helm of the GMU squad is acclaimed speech coach and university professor Dr. Peter Pober, who relentlessly sought to refine our communicative skills.

The organizational structure of competitive forensics is deliberate and methodical. While there are several governing bodies that honor tournament results, GMU only competes with the American Forensics Association (AFA). This organization distinguishes events by their abstractness, identifying two fundamental speech-genres: Public Address (PA) and Interpretative Events, which is informally regarded as “interp.” The former is a bit more traditional as the speaker often incorporates basic rhetorical skills to appeal to the audience, whereas the later is primarily theatrical.

The nonverbal actions that complement our speech – both formal and informal – are essential characteristics of the communicative process. As I refined my oratory skills with the team, I discovered the effectiveness of physical gestures to improve my persuasiveness. Indeed, a well rehearsed speech should be entirely “blocked,” where every sentence has an assigned motion. With the progression of the season, I learned to use hand gestures and motions to emphasize particular points in my speech.

The topic of my persuasion speech was emotionally appealing as it identified an unnecessary defect in the medical industry that causes thousands of children to die each year. Although I competed in three different events – all within the PA genre – I was particularly fond of my persuasion speech because I was helping raise awareness for a worthy cause. At the outset of the season I was uncomfortable with the speech because it was not perfectly memorized (the entire ten minute speech must be memorized verbatim) and I spoke in a near robotic manner. However, as I improved the content of the speech and fully learned the text, I was able to effectively convey the message of the speech. My mentor and head coach Dr. Pober enabled me to appreciate the substance of the speech and connect with the audience. Dr. Pober emphasized the importance of fully utilizing body language and tone of voice as a catalyst to persuade the audience. Indeed, with the application of the more subtle means of communication I earned considerably better rankings.

Written Text:

A fundamental characteristic of effective communication is to identify basic inferences by fully employing listening skills. While this is seemingly elementary, people often communicate through subtle means that are easier to dismiss. This can prove problematic as there are modes of communication that are understated and not particularly transparent. The daily application of this scenario can seem a bit trivial; perhaps, misinterpreting an email or when recounting a story, exaggerating the plotline, etc. However, this is particularly problematic in the global context as the security of its citizens may rely on communication and transparency.

Conflict resolution scholar, Joseph Nye contends that war is almost always avoidable by establishing channels of communication with potential national adversaries. In the book Understanding International Conflicts, Nye describes conflicts as “path-dependent” and follows a narrowing funnel with the diplomatic and military blunders of the stakeholders (79). A case study he uses for this model is World War I, which is commonly regarded as unnecessary. Although Nye generally agrees with this basic assertion, he contends that with each misstep the prospect of avoiding war was further diminished; that is, war was not inevitable from the outset – 1870 – but became increasingly likely with the diplomatic blunders of the regional powers. Indeed, he acknowledges that conflicts do not arbitrarily emerge but are the result of previously unresolved feuds or disputes. Thus, it is essential to make proper inferences by establishing transparency and valuing the more subtle forms of communication.

Non-Written Text:

Confidence in America’s public institutions is strikingly low as the tone of political discourse has devolved into rancor and belligerence. With a dreadfully inadequate plan for rebuilding Iraq, an administration marred with cronyism, and the mounting costs of living – notably, the fallible healthcare system – Americans are decidedly unhappy with the state of the union. Public confidence with the Presidents agenda is usually mirrored by surveys that capture sentiment as to whether America is on the “right” “or “wrong” track. This is particularly evident today as 61 percent of surveyed Americans believe that we are heading in the wrong direction as a majority reject the president’s policy in Iraq and his handling of domestic gas prices (LA Times/Bloomberg, 9/21/06). Although such circumstances should be afforded due consideration, a source of political cynicism is the manipulation of public policy for person gain.

A critical element of communication is for one to properly tailor their message to the specific audience. This is not to suggest that one should behave artificially; rather, it is the mere acknowledgement that communication almost always incorporates some level of interaction. Although there are countless rhetorical mechanisms that appeal to certain people or audiences, I think the most important characteristics are for one to be honest and straightforward. The absence of these particular qualities is evident in contemporary American politics as the public is reluctant to trusts its leaders.

Understanding the poor communicative qualities is equally as valuable as those that are not. While the process may demand critical thinking skills (then again, what doesn’t?), the basic application is to learn how to become a better communicator. As a close observer of politics, it has become disturbingly evident that the president and the Congressional Republican leadership are a perfect example of how not to communicate with the electorate – they are misleading and aloof.

Public resentment of the President and the Congressional leadership is partially attributable to the disturbingly flawed policies in Iraq and the mismanagement of Hurricane Katrina. However, the electorate is decidedly unhappy with the conduct of the leadership and the culture of corruption that has engulfed Washington. Since January, four GOP House members have resigned due to charges ranging from bribery, misconduct and the illegal misallocation of campaign funds. Moreover, several members of Congress and their staff remain under federal investigation due to their connections to disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Although Americans have long been suspicious of the motives of politicians, there is an overwhelming consensus that the President and Congress are beholden to special interests. Indeed, a New York Times/CBS Poll revealed that 73 percent of those surveyed believed that Congresspeople were more concerned with serving the needs of special interests groups than those of the public (9/21/06). At the crux of this disconnect is a perception that our elected officials are dishonest and focused on mastering triangulation.

Politics has long been dictated by Washington consultants that measure daily the tide of opinion. This science has leveled the rawness and authenticity familiar of many town hall meetings during the formative years of our democracy. Indeed, will the influence of technology further erode the candidness of elected officials? Perhaps Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show articulated the need for political “straight talk” when he appealed to partisan pundits on CNN’s now defunct show “Crossfire.” Stewart derided bow-tie-wearing conservative Tucker Carlson, as a “political hack” and alleged that their political banter was ruining America. While Stewart ended the Crossfire segment by calling Carlson a certain male organ, the Emmy-award winning comedian made an exceptionally relevant case: our elected officials are poll-driven and disregard the needs of regular people, while appearing on event television spots – like Crossfire – to deliver the daily talking points. In fact, Stewart’s appeal was so convincing that CNN fired the hosts and canceled Crossfire. Maybe we should do the same to the Republican leadership in Washington?

Let us not ignore the mistakes of the President and Republican-led Congress and remember the value of being honest and frank.