Grant N. Horne

"Brawling and Squabbling Towards the 21^st Century"

It's a special pleasure being here today. A real honor being invited to join the Arthur Page Society's Hall of Fame. After Jack Koten called telling me the news, I wrote Bill Nielsen, Jean Farinelli, Bruce Harrison and Jack, giving them my side of the story: There are many, many accomplished public relations professionals in the Page society and, therefore, this honor is truly special because it's given by respected peers. It is also an honor being in the company of the estimable founders of the Page society - Ed Block, Jack Koten and Larry Foster - and of those other luminaries who already have been inducted into the Hall of Fame.

I've been privileged to labor in the public relations vineyard for almost 40 years. During that time, I've come to realize that the professional organizations and associations with which we affiliate, locally, regionally and especially at the national level, do make a difference; they play a key role in advancing our professional capabilities and our careers. I have also learned they provide measurable benefits to the companies we serve. I've watched the Arthur Page Society develop and flourish during the past 15 years. By providing a forum for discussion of the major, critical aspects of our field, the Society facilitates the pursuit of quality and excellence in the public relations profession.

Take a look as I did recently, at the themes of the Annual Meetings, the Keynote Addresses and Distinguished and Hall of Fame lectures since the Society's inception in 1984. You can find a list in the front of the always-useful Annual Membership Directory. The focus and relevance of the Society's accomplishments are impressive. No other national forum offers us senior public relations professionals the same quality opportunity to perfect our craft. In large measure that results from the enduring principles on which the organization was founded - the Arthur W. Page Principles - to which we are committed.

Thus, the honor you bestow on me today is indeed special. I realize that many of you would - and probably should - be standing here in my place. Thank you for this award.

It is the tradition of the Society for the individual being inducted into the Hall of Fame to provide some observations on a topic of his choice.

Today, I would like to talk with you about a subject that fascinates me and, at the same time, gives considerable concern. It's what I'll call the deteriorating atmosphere in America today. I'll share some impressions about it, identify some of its causes, and consider that this deterioration means for the future of the country and the future of our profession.

The atmosphere in the United States today can be summed up in just a few words: brawling and squabbling towards the 21^st Century.

Never before in my lifetime has there been a period - even during World War II which I do remember - when the noise in the land was as adversarial and shrill, harsh and dissonant, as it is in these late 90s. There is simply no precedent for the strident, confrontational wrangling that is occurring in America today. The prophesies of W.B. Yeats seem closer: "The falcon cannot hear the falconer; things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."

Why? What has happened?

Obviously the answer is as complex as the question. There are many reasons. Here are some of them.

The most obvious is contained in the very foundations of our country. A cornerstone of our democratic society, as codified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, is the imperative to individual freedom of speech and freedom of the press. What this means, in a practical sense, is that each person is entitled to express his/her views freely, fully, and frequently. However, the founding fathers did not ordain that a good citizen would be obliged, under law, to listen to another citizen exercising his/her right to free speech. But it was assumed. Through most of our history, it has been a convention, a norm of the civil society, that we validate our right to free speech by listening to one another.

The American concept of democracy has as its premise dialogue, conversation, honest debate, and ultimately consensus. Over the years, the process that describes our discourse has been: From many points of view there emerges the one - "E Pluribus Unum." Earlier in this meeting, Howard Paster pointed out the same concept as it appears in Federalist Paper #10, "factions resolving their differences peacefully."

A second major force creating this noisy atmosphere is the emergence of a litigious society - the use (and misuse) of the law. This dimension continues to raise the decibels. The mood created is not peaceful or courteous, but nasty and confrontational.

The legal profession and its practitioners have achieved unparalleled power in many aspects of American life today - in government, business and in the day-to-day activities of the citizenry. Litigation is pervasive, always an option, frequently an unwanted or unwarranted necessity. If we're not in it, we're thinking about it. Mediation keeps trying, but there's nothing like the real thing. And, today, litigation takes place not only in the courtroom but also on television, in the theater, and even in video games.

To be sure, the law occupies a place of necessity and honor in a democratic society. It isn't my intention to denigrate this fundamental aspect of civility or to belittle its practitioners. The law provides community order and predictability. It protects the rights and property of individuals and their institutions. It is a treasured aspect of our Anglo-Saxon heritage. Practiced at its best in pursuit of truth and justice - and trust me, that can still happen - it justifies the high position we have accorded it.

However, have you noticed something unusual about the legal profession today? This powerful profession has joined forces with the also-powerful information industries, mainly television, and specifically 24-hour cable. Lawyers have become media celebrities and, alas, this merger is having an unfortunate consequence. Together, the lawyers and the information industries are giving unwarranted legitimacy to confrontation and aggression. The brutish style resulting from the new alliance is typically raw emotion taking the form of anger. Stridency exists for its own sake - to hurt, nettle, embarrass, titillate or arouse - not as a search for the higher goals of truth and justice. The result for the society is growing division, a rise in factionalism - gotcha, my side/your side (no our side). Mainly pluribus, little unum. Even more damaging, we're seeing the denigration and decline of dialogue and honest debate in this country, the ability of the citizenry to converse about difference, to disagree cooperatively, to hear one another, to make thoughtful decisions together.

A third major force creating the troubling, noisy atmosphere is, of course, the changing news and information industries themselves. You're familiar with the topic. You live with it every day.

There is common agreement that a free press is essential for a society to be free. We fully support that concept. Yet the media, also, are caught up in a frenzy of harsh cacophony. One views and hears and reads and feels the confrontation every day, especially on 24-hour cable and radio where there is so much available airtime. It's a Tower of Babel out there. Many of the print press also have become caught in he adversarial net; they're racing to keep up with their electronic competitors; they don't want to be left behind or out of the fame - and, yes, it is a game.

As noisy and troublesome as the situation is, it's essential to note that there is still in this country a responsible and brilliant press corps that remains committed to the high standards of journalism as we have known them. But, most unfortunately, TV/radio news formats and much of the print press increasingly take their reporting cues - especially a harsh, confrontational style - from the psycho-babble of their talk show cousins.

At this point, let's think about the public and the public interest in the context of the noisy atmosphere. Let's recall the guiding principle of Mr. Page: "…all business in a democratic country begins with public permission and exists by public approval."

Query: Can the public interest continue to be served in an environment of abrasive, courtroom-style communications? While I can't promise the definitive answer against so many variables, I'll hazard that it's probably "Yes - if." Let me explain.

It's obvious that people are enjoying television's litigative talking-past-each-other, gotcha style. I say "obvious" because viewer ratings are way up. They reached new highs during the O.J. Simpson trial, and they have been at record levels during these long nine months of Clinton, Lewinsky, Starr. MonicaGate is particularly instructive because of the way the public is reacting to the brawling that's occurring in nearly all media outlets, including The New York Times. It's apparent that for months now the media have been anticipating, even eagerly awaiting, a major shift in public opinion regarding the President. They fully expected his ratings on job performance to plummet. That decline, according to the press, wouldn't be the result of our "objective, high-minded" coverage. "No," they believe, "it would occur because the President's behavior was so horrific that the American public will surely realize that if his ratings on the job performance dimension do not decline, that fact of itself will add to the moral outrage." Interestingly, when the ratings on the President's job performance remained constant, the press kept insisting that it was only a question of time until the public would change its opinion. According to the media, "While the public doesn't yet appreciate the seriousness of the crisis - to comprehend how wretched this situation truly is - we anticipate they'll change their minds soon. Tune in tomorrow."

So the media were simply shocked when the President's performance ratings not only remained high, but even went up after the airing of the grand jury testimony. "How can this be after all the attention we've been giving to this?" the media asked.

The point has significant irony because, in reality, it's the press that didn't get it. They were caught off-guard because they have been consumed with one-way conversation - their way. They were talking to, actually shouting as, each other; they were constantly interviewing one another, as if they're the experts. In short, they weren't listening to the public. The point is important for us in the communications business. We're seeing a fundamental change in how the public perceives the role of media in society. Increasingly, people recognize that the media business, and especially television, is more about entertainment, provided by entertainers, than it is about fact. People now understand that what has purported to be objective news and information, in reality is personal or group (media group) opinion packaged up in courtroom-style drama. Only peripherally and tangentially is it about factual, credible information on which informed judgements can be made.

The conclusion is that people actually make a distinction between fact and what is simply opinion dressed in theatrical garb to look like fact. In other words, the public hasn't caved into television noisy hysteria proclaiming that only we have the truth.

People can be persuaded by information presented in a straightforward, objective way. But they aren't persuaded by confrontational theater pretending to be fact. Thus, persuasion remains the gentle art that we had always thought it was, and reason is still sweet. The credibility of the persuader and trust in the persuader remain fundamental. As my good friend and colleague, Harold Burson, noted on this platform several years ago, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

So what are the lessons for business generally and for the practice of public relations resulting form the deteriorating atmosphere we have been discussing?

1. The public enjoys the entertainment provided by litigious drama that defines the media business today - my side/your side. Gotcha. Who won/who lost.
2. The public doesn't accept entertainment, opinion, surmise or media group-think as fact.
3. The media are losing ground as a source of credible information on which people base beliefs and take action.
4. The public continues to be guided by common sense. People remain basically fair, even-handed. Rationality is alive and well. This isn't America/hysterica after all.

The public's moderate reaction to the events of the past nine months, which came as a surprise to many politicians and to many in the news media, may become one of the more significant results of MonicaGate. The Congress is now considering the future of this Presidency. That is as it should be. But the debate is noisy, nasty, shrill and harsh. Yet in keeping with our time-honored democratic tradition, people want a civil, rational dialogue that is devoid of confrontation for its own sake - Congress imitating cable TV. The result of this disconnect is that the public is simply turned off by the whole proceeding.

In the context of the national clamor and the public's changing expectations, let's take a look at the status and the future of business and our field of public relations. And let's bring Mr. Page and his relevant, estimable principles into the picture. Here are the thoughts of one practitioner.

• In America today, business is more trusted than politicians, lawyers or the news media. Even allowing for disasters like Orange County, Cendant and Long Term Capital Management, business has a reputation for presenting its case with facts, for telling the truth. Business facts tend to be satisfying intellectually. They're occasionally stimulating but never arousing.

• Business is judged more by its action that its rhetoric. People expect that things purchased from a company will do what they were told they will do - and they usually do. If the product or service is not the equal of its hype, the company will suffer now and in the future.

• When people elect their representatives in government, they hope those who are elected will do what they promised to do. However, people have no firm expectation that elected officials will, in fact, keep their promises. People rarely hold politicians accountable for promises except during stressful times such as recession, depression or war - and not always then.

• Business is more in touch with the people of America than either politicians or the media. Business listens to customers because it has to. Business knows what's on people's minds. Business is required to persuade people to accept its products, to adopt its position on legislative issues and to take action at the ballot box.

• Business today acts more in the public interest than either politicians or the media.

• Business plays a long-run game. It conducts research and development and continually looks for better ways to meet its customers' needs and wants - and therefore its shareholders' expectations. It manages for tomorrow.

• Business generates good will by encouraging employees into honest dialogue with customers and community constituents, and by making charitable contributions.

• Business cares about its employees. But it should be doing more with its employees, even in this time of volatile financial markets and global restructuring. In my opinion, the instability of a company labor force may be its biggest vulnerability in today's business climate. We public relations professionals should focus more on this dimension.

As you have discerned by now, I find the atmosphere in America noisy and disturbing. It's getting in the way of the dialogue that this country urgently needs. But the situation is not fatal. I am encouraged by the good will, intelligence, rationality and common sense of the American people - especially those farthest from Washington, DC. The clamor and the cacophony will continue. But they're not crippling the public will. People get it; they understand what's going on. People spot fakes. People celebrate Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. As you have undoubtedly concluded by now: I qualify as a bona-fide post-pessimist.

In our profession, we're experiencing the trauma of staff reductions, wrong-headed reporting relationships, and perceptions by some that public relations is losing power and influence. To my way of thinking, this situation, where it exists, is cyclical, not structural. Been there; done that. What goes around comes around. The need for public relations remains strong. Paying attention to the principles of Mr. Page will help keep it strong - and keep our companies successful. My advice is that you continue providing the one service in your company that nobody else can. Keep counseling, and keep discovering new ways to do it. Beef up your commitment to counseling. Keep the recommendations flowing into the CEO's office.

It's an article of faith in our profession that we public relations chiefs have control over the blank piece of paper, politely known as the first draft. That fact provides leverage. It's a locus of power and influence. It's one way we shape corporate policy. Don't give it up. It's where our counseling intersects with our craft.

Thank you. And again, my appreciation to all you friends and colleagues for this special honor.