Seems like we’re all tired of the remote vs. office work debate.
 
When the pandemic hit nearly three years ago, there was no dispute. Working from home (WFH) became a necessity. Covid hasn’t gone away, but with vaccines and other measures in place, gathering in offices is (usually) less risky. 
 
That doesn’t mean employees are eager to start commuting again. Most insist that working remotely makes them more productive, brings better work-life balance, and leaves them more inclined to stick with an employer who allows it.
 
But not every employer agrees. Just this week, Disney CEO Bob Iger joined a growing chorus of business leaders summoning employees back to the office. Forgoing the carrot for the stick, Igor insisted that the power of collaboration and creativity dims outside of an in-person setting.
 
The office requirement risks fallout. This recent piece from Fortune magazine described it as “the Four Horsemen of forced return to the office”: resistance, attrition, “quiet quitting,” and loss of workforce diversity.
 
So what’s a business leader to do? Offer the carrot of remote work? Or wield the stick of an in-person mandate?
 
I’ll confess I’m not a fan of the stick as a leadership tool. Yes, sometimes it’s necessary. But in my experience, the more a leader turns to it, the less effective they prove to be.
 
This debate is a classic case of the need to think and act differently. As is often true with issues like this, it’s more complicated than it seems. That means the solution isn’t going to be simple. We need to move past the either-or argument by starting from a place of trust and collaboration. Communicators can play an important role.
 
Are you a champion of working from home? Show the measurable benefits, starting with the business impact. Track productivity improvements, how WFH affects recruitment and retention, where the company saves money, and how creativity, professional growth and employee morale are enhanced through tech tools.
 
Are you convinced that in-person engagement is essential? Demonstrate how that’s true. Intentionally create ways for people to interact while in the office. Report on how that engagement makes a measurable difference. And be present yourself; requiring people to show up while you don’t, even for good reasons, won’t help your case.
 
Finally, wherever you stand on this argument, be open to compromise. Many businesses have turned to hybrid options – some days in person, some remote. Success isn’t guaranteed, as it depends on the business, each worker’s role and desires, and available technology. Even so, this approach can work if leaders and employees are open to doing what it takes reasonably and equitably.
 
Communicators can help both sides come together by helping them explore their own reasoning, understand others’ perspectives, and collaborate on what’s best for everyone. In doing so, we show the vital business role we can play as conveners and relationship builders.

If the author of the biblical Ecclesiastes were around today—or if the late Pete Seeger could rewrite his song, “Turn! Turn! Turn!”—he’d probably add this line to his famous section about time:
 
“A time to text, and a time to refrain from texting.”
 
It’s good advice for communicators—and something a UK surgery center will likely heed from now on.
 
Askern Medical Practice in Doncaster, England, bungled big time after a text message it sent to patients to wish them a happy holiday instead told them they had aggressive lung cancer. It also directed recipients to fill out a form for claiming benefits under a terminal illness.
 
After an hour of panic among possibly hundreds of people, the surgery center followed up with another text message: “Please accept our sincere apologies for the previous text message sent. This has been sent in error. Our message to you should have read [w]e wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. In case of emergency please contact NHS 111.”
 
(I’ll bet more than a few recipients are ringing up that National Health Service emergency number.)
 
As far as crisis communication goes, Askern got the first part right. They realized their error and quickly used the same platform to apologize and correct it. But by adding the intended holiday greeting—which looks like a weak attempt to tap people’s goodwill and humor—Askern comes across as shockingly insincere (not to mention making itself the butt of countless memes). Nearly a week later, Askern has yet to respond to media queries or do any other follow-up with patients. That makes their faux pas a lot worse.
 
Organizations often treat crisis communication like a Band-Aid: slap it on quickly and ignore the wound till it heals on its own. That might work for a paper cut; it’s useless for a severed artery.
 
Regardless of the crisis, every organization should think through the immediate and long-term communication needs. Start with empathy, transparency and accountability—acknowledge the impact on those affected, sympathize, take responsibility for addressing the crisis. Be clear on what’s happened, who is affected directly and indirectly, what do they need to know, how can we tell them, how quickly can we tell them, how often will we update them.
 
The other issue raised in Askern’s case is the use of texting. Yes, it’s convenient and often useful. But communicators may want to take a hard look at whether it’s being used appropriately—and not just in crisis situations. Some messages, even process-related ones, are best delivered in a more thoughtful and personal way. A phone call, video chat or in-person meeting seems infinitely better for a cancer case than a text message.
 
Communicating effectively isn’t a checklist. In good times or bad, it means understanding what your audience needs, and being both empathetic and thorough in bringing that to them.

Now I know
She has a built-in ability
To take everything she sees.
—Genesis, “Invisible Touch”
 
When facing the most crucial moments of communication, many of today’s leaders have become cowards.
 
Yes, I’m referring to the mass layoffs at Twitter, where half the workforce was pink-slipped via email. Yet that’s hardly the first time a company booted people by impersonal means. Last December, for instance, Better.com CEO Vishal Garg laid off 900 employees on a collective Zoom call. In 2020, restaurant chain Dig opted to alert its downsized workers via text message.
 
These practices aren’t limited to employers, either. Last week the firm that’s handled my accounting for the past decade opted to cut its smaller-client base. While I understand the business reasons, I didn’t find their approach—a largely impersonal form letter topped with a bold-font headline, “Notice of termination of our engagement”—particularly client-friendly.
 
What’s driving this lean into using tech tools to deliver bad news? True, no one likes to be the bearer of it. I’ve had to deliver layoff news to individuals four times in my career, and speak to news media and communities on behalf of companies dozens of times more. Every one of those experiences was gut-wrenching. But emotional distress isn’t an excuse for lobbing notes from behind a digital wall.
 
Technology is supposed to support good communication, not replace it.
 
The leadership at Stripe understands that. When the payment software company alerted its workforce of layoffs, it started with a remarkably honest memo from its founders explaining why. As I understand it, that will be followed by personal outreach to those affected.
 
When I met with my new accountant this week, I mentioned how the last one parted ways. They noted how they, too, had let small clients go in the past, and that it always involved a letter--after a personal phone call.
 
Is it fun? Absolutely not. But courage and empathy are essential for great leaders and great communication.

It’s time we started holding organizations—and ourselves—to that standard again.

There’s a lesson most of us learn at a very young age: Don’t take someone else’s stuff without permission.
 
But it seems not everyone got the memo.
 
For example, a hunger relief charity in Kalamazoo, Michigan, launched an online fundraising drive to build a library named in honor of actor LeVar Burton. The website included the actor’s name and image, along with the library’s logo. Problem is, Burton didn’t know anything about it—and he wasn’t impressed when he found out.
 
Now the charity is dealing with negative press on a national scale, the potential for legal action by Burton, and an investigation by the Michigan Attorney General.
 
If anyone deserves to have his name on a library, it’s LeVar Burton. A champion of child literacy, Burton hosted the PBS-TV series Reading Rainbow for 23 years. (On the off-chance you missed that award-winning show, you might know him as Lt. Commander Geordi LaForge on Star Trek: The Next Generation, or from his breakthrough role as Kunta Kinte in the 1977 mini-series, Roots.)
 
That, of course, isn’t the issue.
 
The charity’s founder insists that while planning the library, he reached out to Burton “numerous times” asking for his endorsement, but the actor never responded. And so the nonprofit apparently embraced that old Latin proverb, “Qui tacet consentire videtur”—in short, "silence gives consent."
 
For the record, that’s not how any of this works.
 
Using someone’s name without permission to solicit money is an obvious no-no. But communicators would do well to recognize another teachable moment here and ask themselves a hard question: How often do we appropriate someone else’s materials for our own use?
 
The internet makes puts an enormous amount of intellectual property literally at our fingertips. It’s easy to convince ourselves that it’s okay to use—and if someone objects, well, it’s simpler to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.
 
Again, that’s not how any of this works. Good intentions (like starting a library in someone’s name) don’t make it right. Neither does ease of access. Content creators bring talent and expertise to their work, and they deserve to be paid when their stuff is used.
 
Even an honest mistake is still a mistake. Last year I found myself paying a modest-yet-painful, settlement after using three news images to go along with related blogs. While I still believe I used the photos appropriately under fair use—and there’s evidence to suggest my experience was essentially “legal extortion”—I chose not to fight it. Even if I was right, I felt they had a point. Someone else created those images and deserved both credit and compensation for their use. When I sent the check, I added an apology.
 
I often talk about how PR should serve as the conscience of the organizations we serve. That’s a tremendous responsibility, one that’s vital today more than ever. It means asking the tough questions, even when the organization doesn’t want to hear them. It means checking on our own behavior, making sure it’s ethically above board at all times. It means owning our mistakes when we make them, learning the lesson and doing better.
 
Let’s make sure the lesson from the Burton library brouhaha sinks in for all of us.

Almost exactly two decades ago, on a humid July day, I’d just finished an early morning workout—especially early, in fact, as my boss had asked me to come in at 6:30 a.m. for a reason he didn’t share—when I checked my voicemail:
 
A local business reporter left a message asking about an announcement that our company was being acquired.
 
I still remember the emotions that bubbled up in that moment. As it was my third merger or acquisition in just seven years, so I wasn’t particularly surprised; indeed, the deal seemed to make sense on paper. But that didn’t dim the natural anxiety nor the apprehension over how my life, and those of many others, had just taken a huge left turn.
 
Today I’m thinking of the thousands of Kellogg employees who might be feeling the same.
 
Kellogg Co. marked the summer solstice by announcing it would split into three independent companies. The biggest one will focus on global snack foods, along with international cereal and noodles, and frozen breakfast foods in North America. The other two will target cereal and plant-based foods in North America.
 
It’s a tremendous change for the Michigan-based company that employs 31,000 people worldwide. No doubt the people at the current headquarters in Battle Creek—not to mention those across the community—are wondering what it all means for them.
 
For the record, I worked briefly at Kellogg years ago, and I have collaborated with their team many times while supporting my nonprofit clients. I know many of their communication pros, and I’m confident they’re doing all the right things to connect with employees.
 
For the rest of us in the profession, we ought to take this news as a reminder to do two things: brush up on strategic planning for communicating big changes, and recommit ourselves to robust communication with employees. On the latter, here are some things to keep in mind:

• Prioritize internal communication planning. Companies are limited in how transparent they can be about mergers until they’re officially announced, and most of the immediate attention goes to informing investors and the news media. But that’s no reason to put internal communications on the back burner during the lead up. Employees will feel blindsided when the announcement comes. If there isn’t a plan to engage with them right away, their anxiety and resentment will grow. They will also create a narrative of their own very quickly—one that isn’t helpful to anyone. Have an internal communication plan ready to roll at once.
• Make internal communications robust and frequent. Consider employees just as important (at least) as shareholders or journalists or government leaders. I’m not suggesting you move the priority list around; I’m saying you must put staff on equal footing with external audiences when it comes to your communications. Resist the temptation to make employee communication an “and also” exercise.
• Empathize and humanize. It’s easy for leaders who’ve been “in the know” for a while and have had time to process the news emotionally to forget that employees need that time, too. They need to hear that it’s okay to feel anxious. They need to hear (and see evidence) that leaders care about them. They’re looking for tools to help them cope, from how to process their feelings to channels for learning and understanding what happens next. Think of it like this: If your doctor suddenly told you that you have a life-threatening illness, what information and emotional support would you expect right away? How frustrated and frightened would you be if you didn’t get it? What employees need post-announcement is just as important.
• Bring all the answers you can. I’ve seen leaders speak to employees after a merger announcement with little or no effort to bring answers to basic questions. That’s silly (and disrespectful) because those questions are going to be the same regardless of the deal’s details. People want to know how the merger affects their job, their co-workers, their day-to-day tasks, their future, their benefits, etc. It’s okay if the answer to some questions is “We don’t know yet.” Acknowledging them, providing even partial answers, and committing to bringing solutions as soon as possible—and keeping that promise—helps quell the initial anxiety while helping them focus on the next steps. That in turn can reduce losses in productivity and strengthen retention.
• Listen and adapt. If you honestly pay attention to your employees, they’ll tell you how they’re dealing with the news and what they need to get through it. Listen to what they say. Update your communication strategy. And give them credit.

 
Big changes in the workplace, whether it’s a merger or a major restructuring, don’t have to throw the workforce into panic or the business into chaos. Communication that’s strategic, meaningful and empathetic can smooth the transition.

“In my view, the best of humanity is in our exercise of empathy and compassion. It's when we challenge ourselves to walk in the shoes of someone whose pain or plight might seem so different than yours that it's almost incomprehensible.” – Sarah McBride, Delaware State Senator
 
My last blog pushed the idea that communicators should be champions of empathy to their leaders. Then along came an example of what happens when leaders don’t pay attention.
 
Vishal Garg, the CEO of digital mortgage company Better.com, invited 900 employees, about 15% of the company, to a Zoom session on December 1. Once everyone was logged in, he fired them.
 
“If you’re on this call, you are part of the unlucky group that is being laid off,” Garg told his workers. “Your employment here is terminated effective immediately.”
 
Garg did offer those affected some severance. However, his attempt at empathy soon turned to the last person on the call it should go to: himself.
 
“This is the second time in my career I’m doing this, and I do not want to do this. The last time I did it I cried. Um, this time, I hope to be stronger,” Garg said.
 
A few things worth noting:
 
One, it’s not unusual for companies to lay off employees at year’s end before new corporate budgets kick in. I’m no fan of this, of course; if layoffs have to happen, businesses should let people know far in advance. There are ways to mitigate the risks of operational disruptions and early exits. Better.com deciding to do it in December, and to immediate effect, is not out of the norm—though it should be.
 
Two, for good or ill, taking to Zoom is the pandemic era’s version of a mass meeting of employees. I’ve participated in the latter, and it can be heartbreaking to watch as people learn their jobs are going away. What makes such an in-person meeting valuable, though, is the chance for employees to ask questions (and for leaders to answer), support one another, and collectively come to grips with what’s happening. Options like Zoom, Teams or Skype take away that opportunity while making bad-news delivery a little too convenient. If a virtual gathering is the only option, it needs to be structured so the same opportunities exist—Q&A, directly engaging leaders, providing tools for connecting with resources, even optional breakout rooms for people to gather. As far as I know, none of that was part of Better.com’s approach.
 
Three, and this is the big one that Garg either dismissed or was too tone deaf to realize: It’s not about the CEO. Not even a little bit. While I can sympathize to a degree with his discomfort, whether he weeps when telling 900 people they don’t have jobs is irrelevant. Those people (and their families) are what matter.
 
Not that Garg is an empathetic character, if other reports are true.
 
On the other hand, Better.com’s communication leadership chose a tough, personal path. When Garg refused their counsel for a more sensitive approach and pulled his Zoom stunt, they quit en masse.
 
Perhaps Garg is starting to recognize his monumental insensitivity. Today he issued an apology, stating that he “failed to show the appropriate amount of respect and appreciation for the individuals who were affected.” No doubt the deluge of negative publicity has something to do with it.
 
This devastating event underscores the consequences when we don’t continually exercise empathy: The heart turns flabby and cold, people suffer, and business reputations are trashed.
 
I admire the communicators who left Better.com when their CEO rejected their guidance and embraced his own indifference. The fallout should show the business world what happens when it fails to listen to the champions of empathy. Let's hope it's a lesson learned.

That time when selfless compassion saved an entire civilization:
 
In December 1968, NBC aired an episode of the original Star Trek series, titled “The Empath.” In the story, powerful aliens called Vians kidnap Kirk, Spock and McCoy, along with Gem, a mute woman from another planet. The Vians torture Kirk and McCoy, the latter to the point of death. (The brutality of the scenes, mild by modern standards but jarring back then, prompted the UK to ban the episode for 26 years.) Turns out the aliens are using the Starfleet officers to test Gem and see if her people are worthy to rescue from an exploding star. Gem has the power to transfer another person’s injuries (both physical and emotional) onto herself. Thus, to save McCoy and her world, she must endure the same agony and risk her own death.
 
Were the Vians to pose a test like that for the human race, I worry we’d never pass.
 
The briefest glance at one’s newsfeed will reveal dozens of media stories and hundreds of comments of people behaving badly. While recent frustrations—from politics to pandemics—may fuel this outrage, it’s hardly a new phenomenon. Our collective struggle to show empathy for other people is as old as … well … people. But these days it seems elevated to a character trait that a lot of folks brag about.
 
Personal rights (which are usually just selfish wants) before the common good. Accusation over acceptance. Ridicule rather than encouragement.
 
These days we seem to revel in our cold-heartedness.
 
During an especially tough period in my career, I served as a spokesperson on site closures and layoffs by my employer. There were business reasons for those decisions, and I always brought them to the conversation. But I also tried to bring something else: empathy.
 
Empathy can come naturally, but it must be nurtured. Whenever possible, I was onsite when the announcements happened. I sat in on employee group meetings, listening to people’s questions and concerns, doing my best to feel what they were feeling. I made sure I knew and could explain how the company planned to support employees and ease the impact on communities. And in media interviews, I always acknowledged the pain felt by everyone impacted.
 
Even now, more than a decade after that period ended, I keep a list of all those locations in my files. Why? So I will always remember how those decisions affected real people.
 
My attempts to empathize, to bring a modicum of compassion to those moments, didn’t change the outcome. Indeed, I paid a price of my own for doing so. But I like to think it mattered to the people, even a little. And if I had to relive those years, I’d choose empathy again.
 
Communicators should be the champions of empathy. I’m not talking about empty platitudes that we think play well as soundbites. I mean genuine care and compassion for others. I mean being brave enough to challenge our clients to a higher level of kindheartedness.
 
If we don’t help them see the value of empathy, who will?
 
In “The Empath,” Gem overcomes her fear of pain and death to partially restore McCoy, nearly dying in the process. When the Vians refuse to intercede, Kirk points out that they’re measuring Gem’s worth by a standard they fail to meet.
 
“You've lost the capacity to feel the emotions you brought Gem here to experience,” he cries. “You don't understand what it is to live. Love and compassion are dead in you.”
 
The Vians eventually admit their flaw, finish healing McCoy and agree to save Gem’s people.
 
Later, when the rest of Kirk’s crew learns of Gem’s empathy, her willingness to risk her life to save another, one of them remarks, “I would say she was a pearl of great price.”
 
More than ever, it’s vital that we bring that pearl to our world, too.

When screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely started writing the movie scripts for Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, COVID-19 was more than four years in the future. They weren’t in a position to know how the world was about to change.
 
But the path they envisioned is proving to be disturbingly accurate—with long-term ramifications for communicators.
 
(Warning: Here be spoilers….)
 
The two Avengers films tell the tale of a cosmic tyrant, Thanos, who blames the universe’s woes on overpopulation. Through age-old gems called Infinity Stones, he gains the power to wipe out half of all life everywhere. Shockingly, he succeeds, until the surviving superhero Avengers reverse his heinous act.
 
Between those two events, five years pass on Earth—a period known as “the Blip.” The abrupt loss of 3.8 billion people is devastating globally and individually. There’s a great scene in Endgame where Steve “Captain America” Rogers leads group therapy: “The world is in our hands,” he tells the group. “We gotta do something with it.”
 
Then, suddenly, everyone comes back—and humanity faces yet another reality, one surprisingly as shattering as what Thanos wrought.
 
Two recent Marvel television series on Disney+, WandaVision and The Falcon and The Winter Soldier, dive deep into the effects of a post-Blip world. WandaVision explores personal grief. The Falcon and The Winter Soldier deals with the global ramifications—political, financial, humanitarian, interpersonal—of removing billions of people for five years and suddenly bringing them back.
 
“Nobody’s stable. Allies are now enemies. Alliances are all torn apart. The world’s broken,” Colonel James “War Machine” Rhodes tells Sam “Falcon” Wilson. “Everybody’s just looking for someone to fix it.”
 
Rhodey could have been talking about the world we live in today.
 
COVID-19 is our real-life Blip. For more than a year, our reality has been profoundly altered. Jobs disappeared or changed dramatically. Families have fallen into financial instability. Countless businesses are struggling to survive or have been forced to close. Millions of students are falling behind. Mental health problems are skyrocketing.
 
And most tragic of all, nearly 3 million people have died—565,000 in the United States. Unlike a Marvel film, those people won’t be coming back.
 
Through heroic efforts of scientists and the health care industry, new vaccines and treatments are emerging. They offer hope that the end of our Blip is within sight.
 
But herd immunity won’t fix everything that’s broken.

Conflict, distrust and outright paranoia are hardly new. But life under the coronavirus Blip has stoked their flames.
 
We can no longer agree to disagree; differences of opinion are reason enough to end friendships, disown family, even take a life.
 
We trust little, if anyone or anything—science or faith, journalists or government, physicians or mentors or elections or anyone who is different from ourselves.
 
We dismiss facts. We place blame. We weave inane rationales and conspiracies. We take up arms at our keyboards and aim vitriol at anyone on social media who questions the reality we insist upon.
 
To be sure, I have a perspective on our Blip. But that’s not the point of this blog post. The point is the crucial task before communicators in a post-Blip world.
 
I’m confident we can, as a society, bridge the chasms that have formed in recent years, especially since COVID-19. But it will require communicators to champion the fundamental trait of good communication: interaction. Listening to stakeholders. Understanding and empathizing with their perspective. For too long the job of communicating has been one way—developing your message and pointing it at the masses. (I still cringe whenever I hear someone say, “We need to issue a communication…”.)
 
Communication isn’t something I do to you; it’s something I do with you.
 
The challenge is huge, of course. Different viewpoints will remain. Opposing sides will seek to demonize each other. Some chasms will never be crossed. I’m an optimist, but I’m not naïve.
 
Yet I believe communicators are uniquely equipped to span the gaps where possible—if we embrace, even insist upon, the strategic leadership role we must hold if our mission is to succeed.
 
As Captain America said, the world is in our hands.
 
What will we do to make it better?

There’s an old philosophical question: “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” The reality is, it’s a moot question—because someone is always listening.
 
That was the hard lesson learned by economic development organization Southwest Michigan First. Earlier this month it hired a new CEO with a political past not aligned with its own stated values and those held by most of its community.
 
Lee Chatfield, former Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives, lost his elected office in November due to term limits. You may remember Chatfield as one of the two Michigan GOP leaders (along with Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, currently dealing with controversies of his own) summoned by former President Donald Trump in a futile effort to get the Michigan Legislature to undo the electoral wins by President Joe Biden. (Chatfield later said the issue never came up in their highly criticized confab, though Trump tweeted otherwise.)
 
Much of the condemnation aimed at SMF’s choice of Chatfield was the former legislator’s lack of relevant experience—he’s a former teacher with no business or economic development background. It’s natural, then, that the community would conclude he was chosen for his political assets and connections rather than his ability to grow the local economy.
 
More problematic for SMF is Chatfield’s history on equity issues. A strong conservative, Chatfield opposed efforts to expand Michigan civil rights law to include LGBTQ+ people, claiming it would infringe on religious freedoms. He also questioned whether this population was facing discrimination at all.
 
The Feb. 11 announcement that Chatfield would succeed long-time SMF CEO Ron Kitchens quickly prompted protests. Within days, the City of Kalamazoo pulled funding, the Kalamazoo Community Foundation dropped its membership, and local college presidents serving on the SMF Board protested and one resigned. Rumors swirled that other businesses and organizations were debating whether to stick with Southwest Michigan First. And of course, social media kept the topic top of mind, with calls for boycotts of partners and board members’ businesses percolating. (In the midst of this, SMF deleted the Board of Directors page from its website.)
 
Today, Chatfield tendered his resignation, stating he didn’t want to be a distraction or to “separate a welcoming community.” On the heels of his resignation came a statement from the SMF Board Chair acknowledging the controversy and pledging to make the next search process “open, transparent and inclusive.”
 
From a PR perspective, there is plenty to unpack here.
 
The seemingly rushed, largely opaque selection of Chatfield points to SMF knowing the choice would be controversial. Rather than deal with that proactively, the announcement of his hiring came with relatively little fanfare, surprising for such a high-profile role. One might conclude that the decision-makers hoped a “business as usual” approach might not stir the pot too terribly much.

Maybe SMF believed that most people, like passengers on a cruise ship, don’t think about who steers the boat as long as they know someone’s at the helm. Or it could be SMF believed the end would ultimately justify the controversial political means; as a legislator, Chatfield helped secure state support for a $110 million downtown arena that the organization supports while many in the community oppose.
 
In any case, there’s a sense that some in positions of power at SMF believed they could quickly appoint Chatfield and weather any negative reactions. If that’s the case, they were badly mistaken. Ethically and practically, that’s simply not a viable strategy. Nor is the lack of transparency—a concern for SMF staff, community partners, investors, donors and even board members, not all of whom were invited to be part of the search process. It smacks of the old “smoke-filled back room,” power-play decisions of a bygone era.
 
SMF Board Chair Aaron Ziegler is promising a more robust and visible process for the next search. That’s a good start, assuming SMF makes good on the pledge. But that standard will need to be upheld in much more than this, and whoever gets the nod as the next CEO—a tough job made even tougher by what’s happened—will have to continue carrying that banner with aplomb.
 
For the rest of us, it’s a lesson learned. Even the appearance of back-room decision-making that doesn’t reflect the values of an organization or a community is a doomed venture. We must make choices in the right way, for the right reasons. And for any who think it doesn’t matter, remember: All eyes are on the trees, all ears attuned to the fall. Behave accordingly.

In a fit of pique over chronically lax delivery, I cancelled my local newspaper subscription last summer. I still feel guilty about it.
 
A new analysis on the state of local news hasn’t assuaged my guilt. Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications—yeesh, must be tough to fit all that on a diploma—recently conducted its first-ever industry survey, and the results aren’t good. Nearly 99% of people working in U.S. news media said they were “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the future of local news. Those most worried work for print newspapers and digital-only outlets.
 
The decline in the U.S. news industry is hardly new. Paid newspaper subscriptions have been falling since the 1950s; 65 million Americans live in counties with one or no local newspaper, creating so-called “news deserts.” Advertising revenues have plummeted since 2000, making it tougher to hold onto staff. As a result, newsrooms have shrunk by a quarter since 2008. Broadcast news staff has been more stable, even growing slightly in some years. But the overall trend remains down.
 
The decline means fewer news sources and less coverage (and less oversight) of American institutions, especially government. Reporters are held to a standard of quantity—both in number of stories and in number of clicks—rather than the often slow, methodical work of quality journalism. Some influencers take advantage of this, boldly declaring news media “fake” and even, disturbingly, “enemies of the people.” It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that public trust in journalism suffers; a recent Gallup poll showed 60% of Americans trust news media little or not at all.
 
The Medill survey analysis outlines the risks of this spiral in journalism. “When there are fewer watchdogs holding local government accountable, you can see what grows in that vacuum,” said Stephanie Edgerly, an associate professor who led the study.
 
She went on to point out that advertising dollars will not turn the tide. A different model is needed. Becoming a nonprofit is one approach some media outlets have tried, but the jury is still out on whether that’s the answer. Edgerly and others suggest it will require several strategies—including helping the public understand that investing in local news means better news coverage.
 
And here we come back to my guilty conscience.
 
While I’ve worked for well over three decades in public relations, I still consider myself a journalist at heart. I work alongside local reporters daily, and I appreciate that most of them strive to do the news right—understanding what’s important and relevant, reporting events, analyzing impact, holding institutions and influencers accountable regardless of who they are or what they proclaim.
 
Local journalism isn’t perfect, but it’s essential. Without it, we’re left with propaganda or lean-to-the-extreme sources of information. Worse, we face communities without adequate oversight and citizens without the knowledge they need to fully participate in their communities.
 
So I’m rethinking my subscription. It may be a small investment, but it’s one more barrier to the asphalt that threatens paradise.