Protecting Yourself When Publicly Communicating

Professional golfer Graeme McDowell was so stunned at the death wishes he received that he regretted being honest.

What we think is honest, respectful communication can still result in anger and ugliness coming back on us, especially with how easy social media makes it to attack someone in general or get close to them on their personal accounts. Maybe there’s something to learn about society, our communication and how to reduce the likelihood of becoming a target.

Let’s start in the middle before moving forward.

“I can’t turn on my Instagram or Twitter account without someone telling me to go die,” said Northern Ireland golfer Graeme McDowell. Most might suspect that he must have said something awful to be deserving of such outrageous behavior.

So what egregious behavior did McDowell commit? He joined the Saudi-backed LIV Golf Tour, along with some fellow professionals, because the money is attractive; normal capitalistic behavior for an adult to benefit themselves and their families now and in the future. The problem with that decision and action however is who is writing the checks to these golfers.

“Before its second event – and its first on US soil – outside Portland, Oregon, last week, players and organizers faced protests from 9/11 survivors and victims’ families who criticized golfers for working with Saudi Arabia, who they say was complicit in the 2001 terrorist attacks,” writes Ben Morse of CNN Sports.

That’s in addition to the tour being bankrolled by “Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) – a sovereign wealth fund chaired by Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia – for the ‘money-grabbing’ nature of the exodus from golf’s traditional tours and for accepting money from a country with a dismal human rights record.

“Bin Salman was named in a US intelligence report as responsible for approving the operation that led to the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, though he has denied involvement. Human rights groups have also criticized the country for conducting mass executions and for its treatment of gay people.”

So it’s not McDowell and big name golfers just choosing to play apart from the United State’s PGA Tour, it’s doing business with a government with a criminal reputation.

McDowell, however, is confused by the rage and abuse directed toward him because he explained himself, and it made sense to him.

“I think we all agree up here, take the Khashoggi situation; we all agree that’s reprehensible. Nobody is going to argue that fact.

“We are not politicians. I know you guys hate that expression, but we are really not, unfortunately. We are professional golfers.

“If Saudi Arabia wanted to use the game of golf as a way for them to get to where they want to be and they have the resources to accelerate that experience, I think we are proud to help them on that journey using the game of golf and the abilities that we have to help grow the sport and take them to where they want to be.”

What makes sense to us doesn’t always pass the smell test with others. The heat McDowell has endured has led him to an understandable conclusion.

“I just wish I had said nothing. I wish I had sat there and shook my head and said, ‘No comment,’ but it’s not who I am,” he said. He continued with explanations, not realizing the court of public opinion has turned a deaf ear to it.

“It’s really hard because I’m being asked questions that there are no right answers to. I’m having my moral integrity attacked all the time when all I’m trying to do is play golf. I’m trying to make a business decision for me and my family.

“I’ve paid my dues in this game over the last 20 years, I’ve tried to carry myself the right way. The tenuous links to what the Saudi regime have done… the horrible things they’ve done – those who have criticized LIV Golf — are trying to link this to golf and playing professional golf.”

Diane Windingland is a virtual speech coach and author

Diane Windingland, a virtual speech coach and author, was receptive to discussing the reactive cultural behavior to disapproval and anger.

At times, humans can be remorselessly offensive and yet other times, they can have little to no bad intent and still receive a reaction that is overwhelmingly negative, obnoxious and shameful.

Consider someone who spoke respectfully about the reality of his career and ethically making money, who receives a lot of nastiness, leading him to believe and respond, “I just wish I had said nothing.”

What does this say about society?

Diversity is a desirable goal for many things, but lately, not so much so for the diversity of thought or speech. Although freedom of speech is a cherished value, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, many feel silenced.

It seems that groupthink has led to a form of vigilante justice that shames, ostracizes, or “cancels” people who voice opinions or ideas outside of the majority's norm, or the norm of a vocal minority.

Looking for targets to attack and causing pain in people's professional or personal lives over what they say may be justified, or it might just be bullying someone into silence. Bullying people into silence leads to an oppressive and polarizing society.

Should death wishes or threats, and other online abuse and hatred ever be the reaction to upset? Are we evolving or devolving as society?

Do we wish to scare people into not communicating any thoughts, even if the communication is not ill intended?

Social media has made it easier for people to spew hatred and online abuse. People often say things online that they might never say to someone's face. This is known as the online disinhibition effect, which can become toxic.

Toxic content gets attention, and what gets attention gets repeated, often with additional comments from people who jump on the bandwagon to heap shame and abuse on a post or statement that was never ill-intended.

Even if you think the person is wrong, you can disagree without being disagreeable.

You can speak up and object using statements such as, “I don't appreciate that comment,” or, “Did you realize that saying that sounds racist?”

Death threats are never appropriate.

As for making honest mistakes in our speech that invite blowback, what can we do to lessen the likelihood that we communicate something verbally or in writing that we believe to be respectful, yet is received as highly offensive and leads to us having to play defense for survival against an onslaught of public criticism?

Too few people think before they speak or post.

Bernard Meltzer, who hosted a radio advice show in the U.S. from 1967 to the mid-1990s, said, “Before you speak, ask yourself if what you are going to say is true, is kind, is necessary, is helpful. If the answer is no, maybe what you are about to say should be left unsaid.”

But, even if you pause to consider your words, you may still say something that others perceive as highly offensive. Or perhaps you are called out on a microaggression. Unfortunately, no one has yet invented a time machine to allow us to go back in time and change our words and actions.

However, you can acknowledge the hurt without making excuses and then apologize for the offense without blaming the other person. Phrases such as, “I'm sorry you feel that way,” puts the blame on others. Instead, say something like, “I'm sorry I offended you,” or “I apologize that my words hurt you. I will choose my words more carefully in the future.”

Windingland has one more recommendation, one that isn’t usually considered yet can prove helpful.

Beware of unconscious bias. You can proactively reduce the likelihood of inadvertently offending by realizing that you may have unconscious bias.

You may not be aware of the stereotypes you hold, some of which may stem from your culture or childhood. Try taking one or more implicit bias tests to gain awareness of your biases. Read up on biased terminology to eliminate bias from your language.