On this week’s “O Show” our debate on bullying in the wake of a suicide by an area highschool student generated such an overwhelming response I feel compelled to argue my point further.

The word “bully” brings to mind nostalgic notions of Biff bugging George McFly in the 80’s classic flick Back to the Future. You know - the archetypal high school bully from a bad family that picks on the weakling until the weakling has a confidence building ephiphany and stands up to the bully. The story ends sweetly with the bully working for the former weakling later in life.

Or the ad featured on the back of comic books where the bully kicked sand on the weakling on the beach until the weakling took up weight lifting and came back looking like Atlas. Then he got the girls and all was well with the universe. How quaint.

But there is nothing quaint about today’s bullying. George McFly was not subject to online harassment campaigns, brutal beatings, or character assassinations through social media and body building certainly doesn’t stop these social media attacks.

Most importantly McFly and the weakling on the beach were never bullied to the point of contemplating suicide.

But kids today are committing suicide because of bullying. What had changed? Are they weaker? Do they lack social skills from their parents to handle a bully? Is society just too soft these days - not requiring kids to “man-up” and deal?

I reject all of these antiquated notions. Technology and changes in our culture where kids have access to adult media and adopt adult behaviours at an earlier age, makes bullying by boys and girls so insidious that it is causing wonderful people to end their lives.

So what can be done? One bullied boy in Eastern Canada stopped going to school until the school held a rally to raise awareness and support him.

Some schools go beyond the weakly enforced “zero tolerance policy” to create safe spaces and support groups. 

Parents can learn to talk to their kids assertively about school and pay close attention to telltale signs their child is being victimized.

But I think we can do better. As I said on the show, in any other context in our society bullying is assault.

Let’s stop using the “schoolyard bully” language and the rite of passage nonsense it conjures up, and call this cruel, soul crushing behavior what it actually is - “assault”.

Maybe once we give it a serious name we will start treating it seriously.

All jokes aside (but do send me your answers to the title question for fun) what do these three have in common?

Failed attempts at message control.

Let’s take Weiner – his foolish use of social media (Twitter is a broadcast system NOT a private conversation), his week of narcissistically courting national media interviews only to lie to the even more narcissistic anchors, and his disastrous press conference where he broke all the rules of crisis management, made for a historic screw up of message control.

Specifically, he did not reinforce his mea-culpa with real action or proof that he would change his ways. He also ventured into unbelievably dangerous ground hypothesizing about the ages of the girls to whom he may have sent lewd photos and messages. Third, he gave actual clips that were so damning and unnecessary, his future opponents won’t even have to edit their attack ads. And finally, he broke the cardinal rule by staying up there too long. The more you say, the more you can say wrong.

Frankly, the narcissism that got him in the mess in the first place is the same that kept him up there, sucking in all of the negative attention. How bad was it? PR professors will teach about it. I will use it in my media training courses. The world will now refer to screwing up a communication as “weinering it”. It was that bad.

In the same week as Weinergate we found ourselves talking locally about the public school board’s attempt to control the communication of its trustees. As you see in the clip, the actions are too close to the scandal time-wise to appear as anything less than a blunt attempt at damage control. Like Weiner, they should have given a little more thought to the strategy of controlling their messaging crisis before going public with this hammer. And back to the Mayor’s office - their attempt to limit media access to those with a boss was both the subject of my last blog post and another example of how NOT to attempt message control.

So Weiner, school board, and Mayor’s office here are three simple tips:

1. Take a good look at your audience and their CURRENT communication habits, needs, and expectation. Communication and crisis management are evolving.

2. Take a deep breath before launching anymore defences of your attempts at message control. Don’t further Weiner it.

3. Understand that (as my husband is so fond of saying) control is an illusion. Encoding your message properly so your audience can decode it, and receive it as intended, is a good strategy.

Grasping for control however, is not.

See the U.S. Representative for New York’s 9th congressional district Weiner it.

In my earlier post I raised the issue of the lack of opportunity for Hamiltonians to have in-depth discussions on issues through our traditional local media (I’m not talking news here). I also explained why I think those discussions are needed and how that gaps analysis prompted my team to launch the Chats from the Lair podcast.

Almost instantly I was criticized for letting traditional media off the hook, not discussing in depth why they do not offer they opportunity, and not offering ideas on how they can improve etc. (I was also criticized for shamelessly plugging the new podcast, but since lack of opportunities in traditional media prompted the advent of CFTL, discussing it is germane to the post - a plug sure but hardly shameless).

First the why. The answer is simple: market forces. It is hard enough for traditional media to survive the rising tide of social media, let alone make the kind of profits they once enjoyed. Making money is a driving force and that often means lighter, faster conversations which are more appealing to a broader market. Try hosting a call-in show like I have many times, and you will know that the lighter the topic the greater the call volume. Greater the call volume higher the ratings. Higher the ratings more you can charge for advertising. 

So it is tough for traditional media to go too deep and give airtime or make space for discussions on issues when advertising revenue is a priority. Is this letting them off the hook? Maybe it is, but I am more a pragmatist than ideologue, so I get their format changes and challenges even if I don’t like them.

How can traditional media improve and provide us the kind of discussion opportunity I think we need and deserve in Hamilton? Per my last point, I actually don’t think they can.

We want quality news and the opportunities to discuss issues. You will watch as the social media world takes over the job of quality discourse.

The reaction to the promotion of this blog on twitter about the reasoning for a new podcast is proving my point. Blog. Twitter. Podcast. New media can and will meet the need for discussion that traditional media realistically no longer can…  like it just did on this issue this afternoon. 

(I think this topic deserves a deeper discussion with an interesting Hamiltonian - Joey, wanna come to the Lair for a podcast?)

As usual on the Michael Coren Show on CTS we talked about a lot of important and interesting  things - from the latest in Libya, to the Immigration Minister’s shameful conduct (resign please - firing your staff doesn’t cut it on this one), to moral issues and pop culture. 

Rather than elaborate on my stated position on any particular issue as I usually do, something else struck me this week. 

Before the show there is about an hour in the green room while we all go through make-up. Michael is never short on stories and the mix of guests always generates some interesting chat which usually carries over to the set.

If you watch Michael’s opening monologue you will notice us in the background already on the set. We wait there while he tapes his opening which usually takes a couple of minutes.

Since he doesn’t use a telecue  he needs us to shut up long enough to concentrate. That is not easy when we are there to talk and before a TV show everyone is a little keyed up. We also have to surrender our blackberries so they don’t go off while shooting the show.

So image me (yes I know I talk A LOT on all the shows I do), radio host John Downs (also talks for a living) and Andrew Lawton, the Canadian King of All Social Media without the ability to talk OR text.

It is ridiculous really, that three adults found mere minutes of silence (verbal and texting) so tough. As Andrew put it when we could talk again ‘when I can’t talk I text’.

So what does that say about us? (sure we all work in media so we are extreme but…ARE we?) what does it say about our culture that silent, distraction-free contemplation feels unnatural?

Hmm… I have to ponder that. Think I’ll blog about it. 

With so much going on in Hamilton (over-hyped blizzard not withstanding) we had a packed show and covered an interesting range of issues. The Pan Am deal (nice to even type those words in spite of how uninspiring the actual outcome is), People vs US Steel rally, study results regarding downtown etc.

What we didn’t talk about to my frustration, was the uprising in Egypt. The reason given by our uber producer Mike Cameron before the show was solid - it doesn’t meet the mandate for hyper local programming. 

After the show taped we all went to Froast (the tribute roast to mayor Fred that powergroup produced and will be airing on cable 14 this Saturday at 5 pm).

 It was a great night, and in the words of Mark Chamberlain, an exorcism for all us (city leaders) on Pan Am. Lots of big laughs and political intrigue. 

After Froast, as is our custom at Powergroup after any event we run, we celebrate with our close friends and crew.

Mike and I got into a discussion again about the uprising in Egypt and why it wasn’t on the show lineup. We are both pretty passionate about tv production, the nature of news, public affairs and what makes Cable 14 great local tv. This wasn’t our first lengthy debate about content and won’t be our last (I hope - one of the reasons I’ve always loved doing tv is working with informed and opinionated people).

My argument to Mike was that the role that social media has played in the Egyptian situation - the power and speed it has given people to unite and rise up for a common goal  - has local ramifications.

 We are all on Facebook or Twitter or online every day. The internet has made the world smaller and peoples’ dreams bigger.

Distance is irrelevant if communication is instantaneous.

As nation after nation in north Africa use social media to potentially become democracies what does it say about our own democratic process? Will our elections continue to fail to engage us and rely on traditional media? Or will social media savvy tip the balance of power?

Mike and I will continue our spirited debates about what constitutes a story that impacts Hamiltonians (as the producer the show topics are his decision.)

What do you think? Should we have talked about it on the show with all the other hyper local stories? Should we address provincial, national or global stories that in some way impact our lives in Hamilton? Let me know and I promise I’ll tell Mike.