Fortunately, the media were there almost instantaneously
reporting on the events, and journalists from dozens of countries were on the
ground within hours. Viewers were dependent on professional reporting to
present accurate and up-to-date information on what was known about all things
related to the attacks.
What got my attention in the hours and days after November
13 were the facts, speculation, and revised statements about what happened.
News reports after a major catastrophe are, in my view, always a developing
story. We learn a little bit at the beginning, increasingly more as the hours
and days go on, and if we’re lucky, one day we get the truth about what really
happened. That is just the way it goes with big and complicated events such as
the attacks.
I noticed three media trends develop over the past week, and
I want to mention them today and show how they relate to us in our daily lives.
The lessons learned thus far from the Paris news coverage are directly
applicable to us at work and elsewhere.
1. Initial accounts
are seldom true or complete; facts change.
There was simply too much going on in the hours and first day
or so after the events to know exactly what happened, how it happened, why it
happened, and who did it. This may seem obvious, and that is why I am pointing
it out today. It is noted that the media is not privy to all the information
that law enforcement and intelligence agencies know at any particular moment,
so it would make sense that the French authorities would withhold some of their
information for fear of compromising their investigation.
In the attacks, I noticed that it took about a half-day
before we began to get solid and credible information. Some of this differed
substantially from the initial reports on the night of the attacks. Was it one
group that attacked all locations, or were there multiple teams that had
different missions? In what order did the attacks occur? Were all the
assailants dead as was initially reported, or, as we later found out, did one
escape into the night? Again, this is just the way it is: Not all information
is known at the beginning.
That is why we who work in or with organizations must be relentlessly
proactive at the beginning of an
assignment or project, regardless of the scope. For us to get all the
information we need to make decisions or adjust course, this information
gathering is heavy at the beginning while it remains constant and intense throughout
the project. Information gathering never ends, nor should it. In the macro and micro environments
in which we operate, change is inevitable and the facts and assumptions change
frequently. Communication to, from, and throughout all levels of our organizations
is key to successful outcomes.
If we are to make the right decisions along the way, we have
to act just like French law enforcement and the international community are acting
right now. They are relentless in their attempt to get fresh and correct
information each day, because each day gives them the opportunity to get closer
to the end of their most immediate problem, or project. The media are doing the
same thing by being open to this truth, accepting the constant change, doing
their job by validating their sources, and reporting what we should know. So
for us, the lesson learned is to work hard on a project, but be open to changes
in our facts, assumptions, and environments so that we too can succeed at what
we’re doing.
2. If someone says
something is true, that is not necessarily so.
During the Paris coverage over the past week, we heard from
witnesses and news commentators who gave their opinions on what had happened
and why. The first-hand witness statements tended to be accurate, though in a
several instances I noticed that some people extended their testimony by
making some questionable statements about what they saw happen. In addition,
some witness statements directly contradicted the accounts of others. I will
not judge them on this; they went through an intense and tragic situation that
will haunt them for many years.
As for the media, they reported what they knew: raw information
and solid facts once verified. Yet again, there were numerous instances where a
television journalist would make a statement, and the next day this would be
proved false. Is it the fault of the journalists? In most cases the answer is
no because that is the nature of their job; that is, report what is known,
verify when necessary, and update later as facts become clear.
As a notable example, we heard at various times with
authority that the weapons used in the music hall were shotguns, automatic
weapons, and explosives—lots of each. As of today, we do not know exactly which weapons were
used because the final report is not complete, but it would not surprise me if
the mix of weapons changes, given that there are only so many types of weapons
that a team of terrorists can carry without detection before an attack.
In our lives at work and elsewhere, people give us advice,
answers to questions, their opinion, first-hand accounts, and what they
perceive as facts. Our job is to assess this trove of information and determine
which is valid, factual, and useful. What I am mentioning should not be new to
you, but it bears repeating that just because someone says something is true,
that does not make it true. I can give you several unbelievable personal
examples of this, but I will let you explore this truism on your own. While at
work, make it a personal commitment to be more discerning of the vast amount of
information and so-called facts that fall into your lap.
3. If you say you’re
going to do something, do it.
I observed, in general, that the television media did not
overstate what they knew or what they could tell us about the attacks on
Paris. News reports seemed to be refreshingly frank with the viewers. This
balanced approach to their job appealed to me, and I commend it. However, I did
notice three glaring missteps by two different television networks; I
would be remiss if I did not mention the incidents, which all referred to one
victim’s stunning tale of survival.
A Parisian was in harm’s way, and it looked like she was
going to get severely injured. My issue with the television reporting is that
the reporters promised to the viewer that the incredible story of the lady
would soon be told to us in a few minutes. In all three cases, about 20-30
seconds were used in the story’s promotional teaser, which also told us to
stay tuned to hear “all of the details.” Well, I stayed tuned, and I did not
hear the details.
It turns out in all three instances, the same video footage
of the lady’s ordeal was shown along with some commentary, but the networks
never delivered on their promise to me, the viewer. After waiting for the
networks to give me the entire story, they eventually spent around 15 seconds
showing and describing 80% of the lady’s ordeal, and then her story was over
with not a clue as to how it ended; then it was on to the next story. More time
was spent on the buildup to the story than on the story itself. In the end, I
was left hanging and begging for more information on the lady’s condition,
which was never revealed. Fortunately a couple of days later, I discovered on
television that the lady survived her terror and was doing well.
The lessons are not to overpromise and underdeliver; don’t renege
on your promise; and don’t insult someone’s intelligence. These truths are self-evident,
and we can see their use in all aspects of our daily life. When we promise to do
something and don’t do it, we lose credibility and stature to those with whom
we interact. Avoid it.
Next month, we’ll get back on track with some easy fixes for
daily writing. Thank you for your time today, and please bookmark my blog.
https://www.twitter.com/randallponder @randallponder
No comments:
Post a Comment