What I'd like to focus on instead is what
played out
for me as I engaged in
conversations
with people about how
the article
landed for them. This essay then is a review of
the way
media coverage, particularly media coverage of
Werner
in general, occurs for me.
When
Werner's workshows up
in the
the world
of public
opinion,
and in particular in the media, it's inevitable it'll be compared,
judged, evaluated, and
opined
about. We (ie that's us: people) compare, judge, evaluate, and
opine
about anything and everything. It's what we do. It's what
our minds
are very, very good at. But these comparisons, judgements,
evaluations, and
opinionsdon't mean anything. Rather they're simply evidence
our mindswork
perfectly
the way
they're supposed to
work.
The majority of people I spoke with (many of whom contacted me asking
if I'd read
the article
- which I had) were surprised and delighted by it - surprised, because
historically, while some media coverage of
Werner
has been great, and while some of it has been iffy at
best, what's also
true
is that a lot of it has been outright hostile. Others expressed
concerns
the article
didn't cover critical aspects of
Werner's work
- or at least what theyconsider
to be critical aspects of
Werner's work.
And still others said it touched more on the current iterations of
Werner's work
like the
Landmark Forum
and the
Leadership Course
(on which, by
the way,
it didn't touch much at all) and not enough on the ground-breaking
earlier iterations like the
est
Training
- you know, they were all "...
woulda ...
coulda ... shoulda ..."
about it.
Given
Carte Blanche And The
Freedom
To
WriteAnything
Comparisons, judgements, evaluations, and
opinions
don't prove that either earlier iterations of
Werner's work
or earlier media coverage of
Werner's work
are worse or better than later ones. Comparing, judging,
evaluating, and
opining
that one's worse or better than the other, is as asinine as criticizing
music from the Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album
for not sounding enough like I Want To Hold Your Hand (or
vice versa). Comparing, judging, evaluating, and
opining
that one is worse or better or the other is better, doesn't make any
difference. When it comes to
the work of
transformation,
if you're going to say or
write
anything about it at all, then say or
write
something that does make a difference.
I like good
news
(who doesn't?). While it's always good to hear good
news,
and while it's always good to read especially accurate
reviews of
Werner's work
(I value accuracy in a review even more than whether or not it's a
favorable review),
the world
of public
opinion,
and in particular the media, are mostly (when
the truth
is told) not good
sources
of accurate information about
the work of
transformation.
The
New York Times article,
particularly given the stature and credibility of the
New York Times
itself, is one of the great exceptions: it's accurate and
favorable. But when they set out to
write
it, there were no guarantees it would go that way. Given carte
blanche, Peter Haldeman and the
New York Times
could have slanted
the article
any
way
they wanted to, focusing on however
Werner's work
occurs for them.
I say it
speaks
to a certain bravery, to a certain courage, a certain willingness to
take risks, that
Werner
gave carte blanche to the
New York Times
to
writeanything, with no editorial say over the final outcome. And with
no agreement or promise in place regarding the final outcome, the
New York Times
could have
written
an article with absolutely any focus they wanted to
create
on
Werner.
That they produced
the article
they actually did produce, given carte blanche and the
freedom
to
writeanything at all ie
without any editorial constraints in place,
speaks
to
the heart of Werner's
work
possibly even more than the content and details of
the article
itself.
Whatever's On The Radio
Now
listen
(and I want to be clear about this):
none of that means the media fails me even if they publish
"bad"
news.
And by "bad" news I just mean inaccurate, unfavorable coverage
("unfavorable", of course, would purely be my speculative
opinion).
Here's
why:
Every time I turn on the radio, I'm under no illusions my favorite tune
will always be
playing.
And if that's what I did expect, then I wouldn't be
relating
to the radio as the radio. Sometimes the radio
plays
tunes I don't like. Sometimes it
plays
tunes I like. Either
way,
it's just the radio. It's
background
noise for when I'm
driving.
Whatever's on, is whatever's on. It's no big deal. It's just the
radio. It doesn't interfere with my
driving.
Like that, whatever
shows up
in the media about
Werner
and
the work of
transformationdoesn't interfere with my
personal
experience of
Werner.
Sure, I don't like some coverage, and I do like some of it, and that's
my
opinion
- and
so what?!
That said, I always have the space for people to hold and to express
and to
writeopinions
which differ from mine. And I recommend you
create
the space for people to hold and to express and to
writeopinions
which differ from yours, too. Here's the thing: what a terrible
example it sets for them if you don't ie if you're unwilling
to ... and ... how little possibility it
creates
for them to eventually discover the value of
Werner's work
for themselves if you don't ie if you're unwilling to.
It's here where I'm totally
free
and uncoerced to experience the beautiful
friendship
on offer by another
regular guy,
who also just
happens
to be one of the great intellectuals of the century - should I choose
to do so, or not. In this regard, I don't look to
opinions
(neither to negative
opinions
nor to positive
opinions)
to validate
Werner's work
for myself - not to to others', not to media coverage's, not to yours,
not even to my own ie especially not to my
own. All of them just get in
the way.