What's Dan Got To Do With It?

The Dan Rather/Bush memo story has brought the blogosphere front and center in American political discourse. It's also put one more brick on the load of journalistic skepticism that started (at least the most recent chapter) with Stephen Glass and Jason Blair. But what's any of that got to do with The TrueTalk Blog?

Well, I came up this quote from BuzzMachine this morning that struck a chord:

It's bigger than Dan Rather. It's bigger than CBS. It's about journalism and Big Media and their relationship with the citizenry and democracy. It's about sharing authority with the people.

"Sharing authority with the people." What does that mean? Well, it hinges on the idea of "authority." "Having authority," "being an authority," and "being in authority" are all common usages with different connotations.

One "has" authority when one speaks with an authoritative voice, when one's point of view has the ring of truth that arises from describing circumstances in ways that resonate with others' experience, and that captures incisively important aspects of those experiences. As a consequence, others then ascribe authority to you.

One is "an authority" when one has accrued a reputation based upon repeatedly speaking with authority. It is a status others convey upon another person over time.

One is "in authority" when one is an incumbent in a position which has responsibilties, rights and privileges attached to it. It is a formal status convey by an institution.

And so, it is possible, for example, for an individual to have authority without being an authority or being in authority. In fact, this is a circumstance we come upon daily. It is the circumstance that has gotten us to the current state of debate concerning journalism. It is the circumstance that we find every day in the organizations in which we spend our lives.

I'm not sure what kind of authority the individual quoted above had in mind.

But regardless of what that person had in mind, I believe this line of thinking highlights one of the greatest challenges/opportunities facing modern institutions: how do those in authority establish methods for interacting with someone who has authority on a particular issue; someone who may, or may not, yet be an authority on that issue? How can those in authority get better at listening to someone who understands a situation (a customer or employee, for instance) - who has authority concerning that situation - and take that authority into account when making decisions regarding that situation? Not just once in a while...but constantly. And, how would things be different if they did?

Those are the question we're asking ourselves and our clients every day.

We'd love to hear your thoughts about authority.

Comments

[connie]

Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now" has a best selling book, "The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Loves Them." She's an independent reporter, with a rapdily expanding audience. I first heard of her when I accepted a flyer at a movie theater. There was jaw dropping news for me on most pages of her book, including political manipulation of the media. It is not a flattering picture of those in authority. Instead, it has a very loud ring of truth to it. And of course she's funny.

I never believed in positional authority, it was full of too many lies. I tried to believe in it, but it simply required too much faking. I'm thinking primarily of corporate experiences and often parental authority.

[Tom Guarriello]

I'll check out the book. The symbiotic relationship between political leaders and media is evident daily: CNN v. FOX; NYT v. Murdoch, Inc., etc. Tragicomic, actually.

I think positional authority is an intriguing issue. Institutions have roles and rights and responsibilities accrue to those roles regardless of the identities of the incumbents.

Kind of like, "tag, you're it."

Now, how the incumbent takes up the positional authority is an entirely different question.