Project for Philosophical Evaluations of the Economy |
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewing the exceptional
Dialog between Noah denkt™ and its Alter Ego, first drafted on June15, published on June 23, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question by Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): Do you remember the comment you wrote about the US being an
exceptional country?
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): Sure.
AE: So you also remember that you based your assertion of an American exceptionalism on the expectation of
accessibility, responsiveness and open-mindedness that is so deeply rooted in the US culture?
Nd: Of course! Why do you ask me?
AE: Because there seems to be a sea-change going on in the US as far as this open-mindedness is concerned?
Nd: Why is that?
AE: Well, on Friday (June 13), I heard the comments of a leading PR professional in the US who suggested that in
this scoop driven media world of today company representatives should no longer speak their mind when
answering media questions but much rather adhere to a closely scripted message, if their company is faced with
an impending crisis.
Nd: Oh, now we are in the picture. You are referring to the Starkman interview on CNBC’s “Power Lunch” where
the sacking of Lehman Bros’ CFO Erin Callan was discussed.
AE: Exactly?
Nd: And you think that this suggestion by Mr. Starkman to stick to a scripted message in times of crisis points
towards a sea-change in the US culture?
AE: Absolutely! After all, what else will such an approach result in then company executives having to adopt the
same robotized PR style that Noah denkt™ so emphatically criticised when to referring to other, less egalitarian
cultures?
Nd: Well, certainly this scripted language philosophy does go somewhat against the transparency idea that
otherwise is so treasured by financial markets:
AE: Right! And if this guy Starkman starts to advocate an approach like this on television, that you can be sure
that PR specialist elsewhere will echo message soon. For too much will they want to be perceived as state of the
art professionals as well, that you could now still hope to avoid the sea-change that I have been referring to
earlier.
Nd: Very good analysis. But let’s take a second look at the merit of Mr. Starkman’s argument. Isn’t it true though
that media is way too scoop-driven nowadays that you could still deal with it in an open-minded, non-scripted
fashion?
AE: Well, obviously there is some truth in this. But then again, can you conclude from this then that you have to
give up freedom just because some of its beneficiaries are abusing the rights that this freedom has given them?
Nd: And you really think that the idea of “reading from the same script” can be equated with a move to give up
freedom? After all, this remedy has been prescribed for companies in crisis only. And so it would be grossly
overstated to see therein a general trend. For too limited is the intended constituency here that you could now
still believe this will have an overall impact.
AE: But isn’t it in times of crisis when principles get tested? And isn’t it true that if you loose faith in them in hard
days it is only a matter of time until you will give ‘em up on regular days too?
Nd. Granted! But at the same time this continued openness might mean for a company like Lehman that it won’t
be around a year from now.
AE: Ans would it be better for Lehman to survive the current crisis with a scripted language, and to run into
problems later because of that?
Nd. You want to imply that the decreeing of a scripted approach will lay the grounds for the next crisis that this
company will face?
AE: Absolutely! After all, the existential fight that they survived by imposing a certain verbatim will be so traumatic
for them that once they win this battle they will find it hard to give up what has earlier saved them from extinction.
And so it is only natural that the internal courage in this company will get stifled systematically. For too captured
will the organisation be by its earlier experience that it could now still stimulate the insider dissent that alone can
help it to avoid a future crisis.
Nd: So you stick to your point that it is a short-sighted move to robotize a company’s PR style.
AE: Without a question!
Nd. Good job!.
AE: Thanks, but the question remains whether Noah denkt™ agrees with me that the Starkman comments point
towards a sea-change in the US?
Nd: A little bit, not altogether.
AE: And why is that?
Nd. Because, we cannot believe that it will be possible for US management boards to truly robotize their
underlings.
AE: And why is that?
Nd: Because these underlings have grown up with a certain right to their individuality. And so it will be difficult to
discipline them altogether. For too relaxed is their general attitude that you could now still hope to fully robotize
them.
AE: And you do not see that careerism has already robotized people, especially in the US, to a considerable
extent?
Nd: Well, we see that. But we still have faith that this won’t result in the sea-change that you have been talking
about.
AE: You are a terrible optimist.
Nd: So are you, witness your Lehman argument.
AE: So are we reading from the same page then?
Nd: We believe so.
Dialog between Noah denkt™ and its Alter Ego, first drafted on June15, published on June 23, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question by Alter Ego of Noah denkt™ (AE): Do you remember the comment you wrote about the US being an
exceptional country?
Answer by Noah denkt™ (Nd): Sure.
AE: So you also remember that you based your assertion of an American exceptionalism on the expectation of
accessibility, responsiveness and open-mindedness that is so deeply rooted in the US culture?
Nd: Of course! Why do you ask me?
AE: Because there seems to be a sea-change going on in the US as far as this open-mindedness is concerned?
Nd: Why is that?
AE: Well, on Friday (June 13), I heard the comments of a leading PR professional in the US who suggested that in
this scoop driven media world of today company representatives should no longer speak their mind when
answering media questions but much rather adhere to a closely scripted message, if their company is faced with
an impending crisis.
Nd: Oh, now we are in the picture. You are referring to the Starkman interview on CNBC’s “Power Lunch” where
the sacking of Lehman Bros’ CFO Erin Callan was discussed.
AE: Exactly?
Nd: And you think that this suggestion by Mr. Starkman to stick to a scripted message in times of crisis points
towards a sea-change in the US culture?
AE: Absolutely! After all, what else will such an approach result in then company executives having to adopt the
same robotized PR style that Noah denkt™ so emphatically criticised when to referring to other, less egalitarian
cultures?
Nd: Well, certainly this scripted language philosophy does go somewhat against the transparency idea that
otherwise is so treasured by financial markets:
AE: Right! And if this guy Starkman starts to advocate an approach like this on television, that you can be sure
that PR specialist elsewhere will echo message soon. For too much will they want to be perceived as state of the
art professionals as well, that you could now still hope to avoid the sea-change that I have been referring to
earlier.
Nd: Very good analysis. But let’s take a second look at the merit of Mr. Starkman’s argument. Isn’t it true though
that media is way too scoop-driven nowadays that you could still deal with it in an open-minded, non-scripted
fashion?
AE: Well, obviously there is some truth in this. But then again, can you conclude from this then that you have to
give up freedom just because some of its beneficiaries are abusing the rights that this freedom has given them?
Nd: And you really think that the idea of “reading from the same script” can be equated with a move to give up
freedom? After all, this remedy has been prescribed for companies in crisis only. And so it would be grossly
overstated to see therein a general trend. For too limited is the intended constituency here that you could now
still believe this will have an overall impact.
AE: But isn’t it in times of crisis when principles get tested? And isn’t it true that if you loose faith in them in hard
days it is only a matter of time until you will give ‘em up on regular days too?
Nd. Granted! But at the same time this continued openness might mean for a company like Lehman that it won’t
be around a year from now.
AE: Ans would it be better for Lehman to survive the current crisis with a scripted language, and to run into
problems later because of that?
Nd. You want to imply that the decreeing of a scripted approach will lay the grounds for the next crisis that this
company will face?
AE: Absolutely! After all, the existential fight that they survived by imposing a certain verbatim will be so traumatic
for them that once they win this battle they will find it hard to give up what has earlier saved them from extinction.
And so it is only natural that the internal courage in this company will get stifled systematically. For too captured
will the organisation be by its earlier experience that it could now still stimulate the insider dissent that alone can
help it to avoid a future crisis.
Nd: So you stick to your point that it is a short-sighted move to robotize a company’s PR style.
AE: Without a question!
Nd. Good job!.
AE: Thanks, but the question remains whether Noah denkt™ agrees with me that the Starkman comments point
towards a sea-change in the US?
Nd: A little bit, not altogether.
AE: And why is that?
Nd. Because, we cannot believe that it will be possible for US management boards to truly robotize their
underlings.
AE: And why is that?
Nd: Because these underlings have grown up with a certain right to their individuality. And so it will be difficult to
discipline them altogether. For too relaxed is their general attitude that you could now still hope to fully robotize
them.
AE: And you do not see that careerism has already robotized people, especially in the US, to a considerable
extent?
Nd: Well, we see that. But we still have faith that this won’t result in the sea-change that you have been talking
about.
AE: You are a terrible optimist.
Nd: So are you, witness your Lehman argument.
AE: So are we reading from the same page then?
Nd: We believe so.
| © Landei Selbstverlag, owned by Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards, Gerolstein, Germany. All rights reserved. Reminder: Noah denkt™ is a project of Wilhelm ("Wil") Leonards and his Landei Selbstverlag (WL & his LSV). Consequently, all rights to the texts that have been published under the Noah denkt™brand name are reserved by WL & his LSV. The commentary and the reasoning that was provided on this page is for informational and/or educational purposes only and it is not intended to provide tax, legal or investment advice. It should therefore not be construed as an offer to sell, a solicitation of an offer to buy, or a recommendation for any security or any issuer by WL & his LSV or its Noah denkt™ Project. In fact, WL & his LSV encourage the user to understand that he alone is responsible for determining whether any investment, security or strategy is appropriate or suitable for him. And to leave no doubt as to what this means we urge our user to also note our extended Legal Notice. |
__________________________________________________________________________________________