Challenging the myth of controlling the narrative

Blogger Neils Bohrmann wrote :

To control the narrative is to control how people think about you.

You don’t leave it up to them to form their own opinion. Rather, you interpret the facts for them.

Everybody is doing it — governments, businesses, and public figures. To hold power is synonymous with shaping the narrative as you see fit.

"Everybody's doing it," Bohrmann writes. I would correct that to "everyone is trying to do it." What business, government, church, or individual does not want to control what people think about them?

Billions of dollars and millions of people are at work everywhere, every day, "controlling" the narrative.

In previous eras, that was a distinct possibility. Today, it is less likely.

When narratives were more easily controlled

A limited number of powerful influencers had access to important information and possessed the power to disseminate it as they pleased, or as it suited their cause. They controlled the narrative.

Was that always - or ever - a good deal? We could point to the obvious, ie, the rise of Hitler and Naziism, and conclude it wasn't wonderful in Germany. We could go back to the era known as the Dark Ages when the Scriptures were in Greek and Latin and millions of people were controlled in their thinking on the matter of God, sin, redemption, and such by the few who could read and interpret the passages. Efforts to put the power into the hands of the common person, in their native tongue were violently opposed. When it was, at last, accomplished, The Enlightenment commenced.

Things have changed

Today, everyone with a social media account and a few hundred "friends" has a voice. Those voices are as varied and unique as the individuals behind them. The people owning the platforms have the power to control the narrative to a degree by suppressing voices with which they disagree or deem dangerous, or at least detrimental to whatever cause they espouse. The power base has shifted, so, unless you control a platform as powerful as Facebook, TikTok, X, or LinkedIn, you face a daunting - if not impossible - task when trying to control the narrative.

Consider the sideline incident during the 2024 Super Bowl, when the Kansas City Chiefs superstar tight end Travis Kelce (Taylor Swift's boyfriend for the non-footballers) was captured screaming in the face of head coach Andy Reid. There was an immediate Internet explosion, with millions of fans offering their two cents on the incident. The optics were terrible. The Chiefs organization and Coach Reid went into damage control after the game. Reid did call Kelce's behavior unacceptable but he also attempted to lessen the blow by saying they have that kind of relationship and regularly get after each other.

If, however, you have not seen one of the multitude of memes using the already infamous photo, I have to tell you that the narrative is out of (their) control. It is in the hands of the people now. Some use the pic for funny joke fodder. Others are creating their narrative. Chiefs fans are spinning while 49ers fans are grinning. The witty are inspired. The sarcastic are salivating.

The difference between Influencer and Controller

As a leader, you can influence the narrative. You cannot control it. Control implies a level of certitude impossible to obtain in a free society. Prison wardens are controllers. Business leaders are influencers. That is how it should be.

Occasionally, I will get on the PlayStation 5 with one of my grandsons to play Madden or one of the other sports games. We each hold a controller in our hands. In the nimble fingers of the grandsons, the controller is just that - a controller. In my less-nimble, more seasoned (which is to say, slower) hands, the controller is more of an influencer. The outcome of my movements is less certain. This may be a poor analogy, but the line I would like to draw is this: the more immature and cock-sure leader attempts to exercise control; the mature leader understands absolute control is impossible and chooses, instead, to influence the narrative. The outcome may be less certain but is more genuine, palatable, and palpable.

The problem with Damage Control

The problem with damage control is that it looks just like what it is.

If I may return to the NFL for another analogy, as a lifelong fan of America's Team, I can tell you there is a level of ire associated with this season's failure to advance past the first round of the playoffs unlike any I have seen before. Dallas Cowboys fans are fed up, especially those old enough to remember the glory days of the 1990s. Those who go back to the original glories of the 1970s when the Cowboys participated in five Super Bowls in a decade find 25 consecutive years of "learning from our losses" almost too much to bear.

In his initial attempt to turn the tide of unpopular opinion, owner Jerry Jones commented that next season, the Cowboys are "all in" on winning.

CBS Sports quotes Jones as follows:

"I would anticipate we will be all-in at the end of this year. We will push the hell out of it. It will be going all-in on different people than you've done in the past. We will be going all-in. We've seen some things out of some of the players that we want to be all-in on. Yes, I would say that you will see us this coming year not build for the future. It's the best way I've ever said. That ought to answer a lot of questions."

Excuse me? What? What were you doing this year? Just sort of hoping for the best but not going all in to win? Besides the confusion a Jones quote creates in terms of how difficult his logic and sentence structure are to follow, the message is horrible.

Needless to say, Jones's comment was met with indignation.

Jerry is influencing what he can't control

Jerry Jones's Dallas Cowboys are currently the world's most valuable sports franchise at 9.28 billion dollars. Jones did not build a billion-dollar financial empire with a team that hasn't had a significant victory in a quarter-century without learning a thing or two about damage control.

What does desperation look like? To me, it looks like taking the coach you ran out of town in the 1990s in a well-documented jealous rage and inducting him into the team's Ring of Honor. Then, in what seems a stroke of luck but is more likely genius than luck, that coach leaked that he spent an hour on the phone with Jerry Jones talking about the team and the future after the brutal loss to the Green Bay Packers. Jimmy Johnson says he is back in the fold.

Gee, thanks, Jimmy!

Jerry's subtle message, "Hey, I am all in. I am even talking to Jimmy again."

Who's buying it? Who's willing to give this thing one more year?

All of us, of course. We Dem Boyz and stuff.

Damage Control looks like...

I had this conversation with a friend the other day:

Friend, People are stupid.

Me, Until you want them to be, then they are anything but.

Friend, Touche.

I will not pretend that damage control is never necessary. Often, it is. You cannot, however, rely on the gullibility of your audience. People are not stupid.

In his article Crisis Communication: 5 Steps for Damage Control , Thom Fladung, Managing Partner at Hennes Communications, lists these as essential steps for damage control:

1. Tell the truth.
2. Tell it first.
3. Tell it all - or as much as you can.
4. Tell it fast.
5. Tell it to the people who matter most.

I would encourage reading the entire article, as there is pertinent advice for dealing with Social Media and possible ensuing legal concerns.

If I can't control the Narrative, what can I control?

What can I control?

1. My emotions. Shots fired in anger seldom find the target. There will be collateral damage and unintended consequences.
2. My integrity. As Thomas Fladung writes, "Tell the truth." Don't be dragged to it kicking and screaming. Tell it first. Be careful, though, not to reveal things that are not yours to reveal. Everybody doesn't need to know everything you know.
3. My intentions. Before you move to what you will do or say and how you will do or say it, ask yourself why you do it. Be honest with yourself. Don't tell yourself a lie that you want to believe. Motive is everything.
4. My involvement. Considering numbers 1 - 3, now what will I do? What will I say? Sometimes, the best answer - and the hardest one - is to do or say nothing.

The Old Testament book of 1 Samuel records the time when young David, a former favorite of King Saul's, was on the run for his life because the king had heard people singing songs about David. The kid was already a legend. Saul, jealous and worried about his position, was determined to kill David as a traitor. During that time, as a fugitive, David managed to sneak into where Saul was sleeping one night. He cut a corner of the King's robe to prove he had been there and could have killed the king, had he been inclined. David's men wanted him to kill Saul and end the thing.

David responded to his followers, "The Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the Lord's Anointed..." (1 Samuel 24:6)

The story depicts one man's commitment to the idea that two wrongs will not a right make. He committed himself to not return evil for evil, nor to seek revenge.

Suppose David had assassinated Saul. How would the story of his life change? Would the people have turned on him? Would he have been condemned as a murderer, maybe even put to death himself?

Sometimes, the right thing to do is nothing. That is also nearly always the hardest thing to do.

Get your why straight. Do the things you will be glad to own when the dust settles. Tell the truth (not your truth, but the truth). And always remember this: unless you are the sole narrator, the narrative is not yours to control.