Speaking with authority

Everyone is an expert these days. We have lost our confidence in any one news source (and rightly so); but with the glut of available information out there, we tend to choose to believe the one that spins closest to our personal feelings on any one subject and spout off as if we are the authoritative source on the issue.

How do we combat this tendency? What are the reliable sources? Well, so far, I have no answer. I am not the authority. But what I do know is that it is best to use two filters; one for incoming messages and one for outgoing.

Having been in State government for the past 5 years, I can say with authority that words are very important and a ‘just the facts’ approach is best. The only thing that you can be sure of is that everyone is telling you what the proposal or event means to them. Ultimately, however, the only important thing for you to know are Who, What, When and How. Why becomes subjective. In most cases, ‘why’ refers to the conveyor’s interpretation of why this is good or bad; and not why it is happening.

The first filter is the one for receiving information. Try pulling out just the information that is repeated from multiple sources by focusing on the key words that everyone is using. Remove the valuation adjectives like ‘astronomical’ or ‘detrimental’ and just keeping the substantive words like ‘tax hike’ and ’single payor’.  My suggestion is to use the news outlets and other second, and sometimes third, hand information sources to help you decide what you want to know more about and then to seek out the actual source. In most cases, the source is public information (that’s how the news got it).

The second filter is the one you place on how you relay the information to others. You are not an expert on all subjects that you simply hear a lot about. In conversation, do not apply your understanding of a subject or another person’s intentions to your relaying of the information. Give people the facts. Again, the who; the what; the where; and the how.

And finally, I am not saying you shouldn’t have an opinion on the matter. What I advocate is that you state the simple facts, without adjectives or adverbs, and then admit that the remaining content is your personal commentary on the situation. At that point, I don’t care if you do an interpretive dance about the damned thing.

Too often these days, people will repeat rhetorical messages as part of the factual information. Similarly, these same voices like to speak as if the rest of us have something to learn. We need to keep in mind that the information may be important in spite of the way it is relayed; and try to parse the solid stuff out of the rhetorical language.

If you are talking about something you are working on or participating in, then you have first hand knowledge; otherwise, you are far enough removed that you should keep your pointer finger in your pocket.

Unless, of course, we’re talking about me. I am always right.

Honestly, I know I fall into this trap all the time. But I make an attempt to recognize and correct it. I use “I believe” and “I think” a lot as qualifiers. How do you separate the facts from the commentary?

-Bully