Booher BanterYour Resource for the best ideas to improve communications skills.

Have you ever “dismissed” someone because of their grammar?  For example, on a social networking site, have you ever read through someone’s profile and noticed errors like who’s for whose and employee’s for employees or sentences that continued for seven lines without a period?  Seeing so many errors, have you ever clicked away, deciding that maybe a relationship wasn’t in your future?

I’m not talking about an informal style:  Intentional fragments.  Contractions.  Colloquial phrases.  Those are all matters of style—and very appropriate for informal exchanges, like instant messaging.  I’m not even talking about an occasional mistake or typo.  We all make careless errors.  I’m referring to obviously unintentional misspellings, convoluted sentences that leave you scratching your head about meaning, and misused words that make you cringe.

If poor grammar turns you off, I’d like to hear from you.

McGraw-Hill is preparing to launch my new book in November (Booher’s Rules of Business Grammar: 101 Fast and Easy Ways to Correct the Most Common Errors), and I’m currently collecting stories (humorous or sad—depending on your point of view) in which someone’s grammar skills were a big turn-off in a social setting or relationship.

My specific question to you is this:  Have you ever decided not to begin a dating relationship, to break off a relationship, or to hide a friendship or romantic involvement from other friends or work colleagues because of someone’s poor grammar?

Would you help me out by sharing your story?

I’d like to use these (anonymously, of course) in my media campaign when reporters call.  Thanks so much for helping me raise awareness about the link between language and image—social or professional!  As always, I appreciate your input.

Posted at 3:17pm in Books, Communication—Interpersonal, General Communication, Grammar | Permalink | 1 Comment |

The setting of tonight’s debate created a civil interaction that will be central to fence-sitters for the next three weeks as they lean this way and that.  Having the presidential candidates sit eyeball to eyeball in proximity to each other and the moderator tempered both their body language and tone.  (Obama’s smirks and head tosses eased into wide grins and shrugs; McCain’s clenched jaws gave way to raised eyebrows and surprised looks.)  

As a result, the senators looked and sounded like two presidential candidates engaged in the serious issues facing the country.  Regarding the style and structure of their communication on other matters,

McCain Scored Points When He . . .

—Delivered the pithy soundbite:  “If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.”  (It’s hard to overestimate the power of quotable one-liners that summarize a key point.)

—Personalized abstract concepts by referring to small businessman, Joe, the plumber, and how he would not fare so well under an Obama presidency.

—Pointed out specific items to consider in his opponent’s statements.  For example, on the question of criteria for future appointments of Supreme Court justices, he questioned Obama’s meaning for “health of the mother.”  In referring to Obama’s energy policy, he suggested that listeners consider Obama’s word choice that he “would look at” options rather than do them.

—Provided specific examples to support his responses.  Examples:  Wasteful programs he’d cut.  His education plans.   His economic plan and the housing crisis.   His healthcare plan.  Legislation on which he’d voted against Bush.  Reasons Palin would make a better VP than Biden.

—Showed passion about the issues he believed in most strongly.

 McCain Lost Points When He . . .

—Responded to the first few questions in “low gear.”  (He sounded and looked muzzled—as if Obama had permission for a filibuster.   McCain supporters say his sense of civility and politeness stifle him.   Obama supporters say he’s just stiff.  In any case, he looked ill at ease at the outset.)

—Rambled around in the weeds and got far too detailed for the limited time slot.

—Tossed in unrelated details (or at least without a proper transition) so that listeners sometimes thought, “So why are you bringing that up now?”

Obama Scored Points When He . . .

—Summarized his responses briefly before elaborating.  We Americans have a very short attention span.  Obama did an excellent job of stating his vision, his view, or his philosophy in a simple sentence or two.  It’s his trademark:  “We need jobs to get this country going again.”  “We’re in the worst economic situation since the Great Depresssion.”  “People need affordable healthcare.” 

—Continued to repeat his branded core message and talking points.

—Enumerated his key points and ticked them off quickly in bullet-point fashion.  It doesn’t matter whether he’s talking about putting the economy on track, giving us all appropriate healthcare, making us energy independent in 10 years, or creating a superior educational system. One. Two. Three.  Four.  (Just wish those points were as easy to do as they are for politicians to promise and to push through Congress!)

—Remained calm and collected, despite issues brought up by his opponent that he would have preferred not to address.   Example: When the moderator asked the candidates if they personally espoused the negative ads their campaigns put out, McCain responded first and sharply attacked Obama for his negative ads, those specifically misrepresenting McCain’s views on immigration and so forth.  Obama responded only generally that he “didn’t mind being attacked for the next 3 weeks” and bridged to talk about “what the voters care about”—healthcare and the economy.

Obama Lost Points When He . . .

—Focused only on a big-picture promise, with no specifics on the how or the costs.

—Overstated the case.  Example:  On the question about whether the candidates personally embraced the attack ads coming from their campaigns, Obama charged “McCain’s ads are 100 percent negative.”

—Did not respond to the question from the moderator or issues raised by his opponent but instead stated the obvious. 

So What Can a Communicator Learn From Tonight’s Debate?

Here are my take-aways for the evening: 

• Setting often dictates the interaction.
• Time limits can play havoc with your ability to address complex issues and plans.  Consider time constraints a major issue in what you should and should not attempt to present in any given time period with specific objectives and audiences.
• The ability to listen critically will serve you well—pay attention to word choice, to what was said, to what was not said, to valid or invalid assumptions, to gaps in logic.
• Quotable one-liners pack a punch.
• Summarizing is paramount to retention.
• Information is not communication.  Communication involves shaping information and ideas into a relevant core message for the intended audience.

Posted at 1:21am in Communication—Oral, General Communication, Uncategorized | Permalink | Add Comment » |

After media interviews earlier today in New York to predict what would happen on stage tonight, I raced home from the airport with only 30 seconds to spare, grabbed a pen and paper, and flipped on the TV to see the candidates spar again.   Anticipation.  Excitement.  Anxiety. 

I turned off the TV 90 minutes later, disappointed and bored.   Basically, it was a re-run of their face-off on September 26.   With the town-hall setting and questions from the audience, I’d hoped to hear questions that would let us get to know things about the candidates not typically covered in their stump speeches.  Not so. 

But since style seemed to be the only thing that differed tonight, I’ll focus there rather than on substance.

Obama’s Communication Style Tonight

He came across as much warmer tonight than in the previous debate and in previous speeches.  Frequently accused of aloofness and elitism, he perhaps has been taking note of Sarah Palin’s popularity and all the ink she has been getting around the country for her personality (albeit typically in a backhanded way).   He even began dropping the “g’s” on the ends of his verbs just as Palin has a habit of doing. 

And when McCain said something he didn’t agree with, he refrained from the snickering, tossing his head back, and rolling his eyes so common in the first debate.  He also called audience members by name and personalized his responses to them. 

Another thing Palin was heavily criticized for in her vice-presidential debate:   Not answering the question asked and instead reframing to present talking points.   (Technically, debaters lose points for this mistake.  But politicians can gain points by reframing and “staying on message” as long as no one notices or cares that they didn’t answer the question.)  Ditto for Obama tonight in four instances.

McCain’s Communication Style Tonight

He was more organized in his responses and less repetitious (for example, in the first debate, he got hung up on the broken record of “earmarks” and “tax cuts”). 

He gave precise summary responses about his plans, views, or philosophy and then gave specific examples from his legislative record or experiences to illustrate them.

Typically, he tells brief anecdotes and uses spontaneous humor.  But tonight he tossed in only a one-liner about his hair and that fell flat—the joke, not the hair.

In fact, the only communicator that spiced things up tonight was Tom Brokaw, when he tossed in a couple of one-liners about the candidates continuing to go overtime in their responses.  When Obama asked for a second rebuttal against the rules, Brokaw tossed up his hands and said, “Sure, why not?  I’m just the hired help.”

A second time when the candidates continued to go over time on the “environmental/green” question, Brokaw insisted, “You see these GREEN lights and red lights?  They mean something!”

In summary:   Both candidates do a better job of communicating their talking points every time they take the stage.  And they should.  They’ve had 18 months to practice!   What I want to know is this:  Why isn’t someone asking tougher questions?  

Posted at 11:49pm in Communication—Interpersonal, Communication—Oral, Uncategorized | Permalink | 1 Comment |

Governor Palin and Senator Biden had obviously listened to all the TV pundits give them tips this past week about “what they had to do” to deliver a knock-out punch tonight.  

Biden’s would-be advisers continued to tell him:  1) Be respectful.  Don’t be patronizing.  2) Attack McCain; ignore her.  3) Tie McCain to Bush’s record. 

The pundits’ advice to Palin going into the debate:   1) Relax and be yourself. Connect with the people.  2)  Understand the big-picture policies and answer the questions from that frame of reference and your own experience.  Don’t try to go head-to-head with Biden on the specifics of all his foreign policy experience and travels.  3)  Get aggressive on Obama’s record.

Apparently, both candidates took the advice to heart.  They both scored well on all objectives.

Palin scored points on style when she…

—set up a friendly tone for the debate.  With her microphone live as she first entered the room, she grasped her opponent’s hand and asked, “May I call you Joe?”  She complimented him often, telling him that she respected him for voting his convictions about the war, mentioning the dedication of his wife as a teacher, and mentioning his family’s sacrifice with a son in the National Guard.  

—demonstrated her self-confidence.  Relaxed body language.  Smiling.  Looking comfortably at her opponent, even when disagreeing.  Using humor effectively:  “Say it ain’t so, Joe.  There you go again, talking about change, but looking back at the past.”  She referred to the third-graders getting extra credit for watching the debate.  In the end, she commented that the debate had been “fun” and wished for six or seven more. 

—connected with the audience.  Here, she was the strongest, mentioning several times commonalities with the average family—their concerns, values, and views about healthcare coverage,  paychecks, energy, and national security.

Palin scored points on substance when she…

—took a broad general question generally applied only to McCain’s views and weaved her own experience into the response, such as in her responses about cutting taxes,  dealing with the big oil companies, and working in a bipartisan way in her own state.

—pointed out inconsistencies between Obama’s and Biden’s voting records. (Example:  When Biden attacked McCain for giving “tax breaks to the big oil companies,” Palin shot back with, “Obama voted for those big tax breaks for the oil companies you’re talking about.  I had to take on those big oil companies in my own state.”)

—reframed questions aggressively as opportunity to bring up issues that she wanted to highlight.  (Example: On the question about whether Iran or an unstable Pakistan was more dangerous, she reframed to the issue of Obama’s stance on meeting with leaders of rogue nations without pre-conditions.) (Another example:  When asked about her Achilles heel that the moderator capsuled as “inexperience,” she reframed as a summary of what she brought to the McCain ticket:  her middle-class values and views, her executive experience with energy issues,  her track record in reducing taxes and cutting government waste, and her outside-Washington perspective.)

Palin lost points when she…

—went back to talking points rather than respond to the specific question asked.  (Example:  The  question on nuclear weaponry.) 

—kept repeating the phrase “we’re mavericks.”

Biden scored points on style when he…

—treated Govenor Palin just as any other debating opponent—respectfully—without regard for her gender (contrary to what many had feared because of debates in past presidential races).

—gave concise, crisp answers to the questions asked.

—appeared relaxed, confident, seasoned. 

—looked presidential.  No doubt, his physical appearance is certainly what we’re used to seeing in the White House.

Biden scored points on substance when he…

—selected precise words to shape thinking and drive home key themes.  Examples:  In talking about Obama’s tax plan, Biden referred to it as “fairness for the midddle class”  (versus Palin’s reference to it as “re-distribution of wealth”).

—elaborated on specific foreign policy legislation he has sponsored and trips made to various countries.

Biden lost points when he…

—lapsed into doublespeak and argued about data and controversies that the average viewer doesn’t know about or care about.

—failed to give his personal views in response to questions.  Many, if not most, responses began with, “Barack thinks…” or “Senator Obama’s position is” or “Senator Obama’s record shows that…”  Viewers walked away with the feeling that Biden has not quite bought into Obama yet.  (One exception:  At the close, he did mention knowing what it was like to be a struggling single parent raising children alone and about hard times when his dad lost his job when Joe was a child.)

I called the first debate a draw.  But from a communication coach’s perspective, this one I’ll give to Palin.

Posted at 12:39am in Communication—Oral | Permalink | Add Comment » |