How to deter without inciting violence

How to deter without inciting

News producers usually shouldn’t deter.

Deterrence is unfriendly and can deprive populations of improving relations. Fearful vocabulary words can prompt a variety of undesirable responses, such as slowing national economic growth. It’s an undesirable influence upon populations when done too frequently.

But some news communication teams - for short and intermittent timeframes only - are tasked with deterring anyway, to avoid unwanted foreign impositions and to convince domestic audiences to respect authority. So this information is offered on how to deter safely.

The most important thing to understand is the distinction between deterrent communication and incitement. They seem the same because both are frightening. But some forms of incitement aren’t protected free speech in the United States, because incitement is dangerous. So communication teams must show great care to avoid inciting when deterring.

Here are the dictionary definitions of them:

de·ter·rence

The action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.

in·cite·ment

The action of provoking violent behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully.

The distinction between deterrent and inciting communication will become clear in this article.

Most communication teams that deter use scary stories and imagery. The basic idea is to frighten people - the way horror movies can - by directing attention to the undesirable results of unwanted behaviors. When people imagine consequences of unwanted behaviors, they sometimes won’t exhibit them.

Anti-smoking advertisements are a classic example of deterrent persuasion. They show potential dire consequences from smoking until cancerous growths develop. Advertisers get smokers to stop by dramatically depicting bloody coughs produced from cancerous lungs:

Governments regularly discourage/encourage behaviors this way. They convince populations to pay their fair share annually by showing that some people are incarcerated. And they attempt to dissuade other governments from imposing on them with stories about mutually assured destruction. All sorts of horrifying stories can produce behavior modification.

A good metaphor for the right amount of deterrence is raising infants. If you’re too mean to young children, they won’t love you. So parents spoil their children, and make them feel peaceful and loving instead. This creates a lifetime of loyalty. Parents mostly communicate peacefully and lovingly. Parents do scold and set limits through deterrence, but as infrequently as possible. The same thing should be true between communication teams that really can create peace and love between them with predominantly “peaceful” and “loving” patterning.

Be very careful not to deter your audience away, because people tune out of excessive negativity. And ans importantly, be very careful not to accidentally incite when attempting to deter. This is the most important lesson on this page. The goal of deterrence is to avoid conflict, not to create one. So AVOID over-using inciting vocabulary words that direct attention to violent actions. For instance, excessive frequency of the vocabulary words “kill,” “invade,” “attack” and “die” can incite conflict by prompting those behaviors (sometimes automatically, and within one’s own population). Excessively presented violent images can incite as well.

Communication teams must also be careful not to undermine good reputations too provocatively. Some amount of speaking well of one’s own team while belittling the other one is common these days. But care should be shown to avoid unfair innuendo and unfair selective presentation of facts that could result in physical responses to communication.

Many leaders and governments have the ability to destroy other governments, communication teams and entire populations. There is no benefit whatsoever from provoking or inciting them. You may be astonished at how well a small amount of deterrence works, and how well all people respond to peaceful, loving and cooperative patterning instead.

The best deterrent communication does NOT over do it, which can cost market share. Great deterrence is selective about vocabulary word frequency, and respectful of all sides. People - including leaders - are very susceptible to fear. A very small amount of frightening video production or government press releases can be enough. The best production leaves open the possibility of things working out well for everyone involved.

Patterning usually affects both foreign and domestic governments (and populations) the same way. For instance, all else equal:

- If the most frequently used word in a story is “surrender,” people on all sides will feel like surrendering.

- If the most frequently used word in a story is “stand down,” people on all sides will be more likely to stand down.

- If the most frequently used words are “fear” and “anxiety,” people on all sides will tend to fear each other. (“Fear retaliation” is a brilliantly deterrent phrase. Other synonyms of “fear” and “anxiety” can deter without inciting, too. Just be careful not to over use them in the news too continuously because they can have deleterious effects on ratings and the economy. Audiences tune out of too much doom and gloom. And average citizens may shy away from economically important gathering places such as malls, restaurants and most importantly their offices if fear-inducing words are used too frequently.)

- If the most frequently used words are similar to “innocent,” “absolve,” “freedom” and “exonerate,” there will be far less accusatory behavior from all sides, and you’ll incline your viewers to think you’re innocent, too.

- If the most frequently used words are peaceful ones, all sides may choose peace with each other.

- If the most frequently used words are loving, all sides may love each other.

— You must obviously AVOID using action oriented words similar to “kill” or “attack” too frequently, because catastrophes can result regardless of the underlying logic being expressed. And publications lose their audiences this way. Over months and years, cognitive discomfort can set in and send audiences to other news providers who make them feel better by reassuring them.

Remember…

Your own country is a consumer of communication - not just foreign ones. Communication teams are almost invariably influencing their own leader and population even more than ones in competing countries. Deterrent influences usually affect the morale of one’s own side more than the other.

So producers usually should deter very sparingly. Deterrence risks temporarily detracting relations among countries, harming economies, costing viewers and putting news editors in the unenviable situation of having to edit out inciting words.

So don’t deter!

But when you’re told to deter, produce scary stories that reveal consequences of unwanted actions, making sure your most frequently used words create desirable responses, such as “living,” “survive,” “peace” and “love.”

(And why not just direct attention to something peaceful and approving instead of deterring? If one’s own government and a competing government both stare at the word “peace” sufficiently frequently, or view/read a sufficient number of stories about peace, everyone will be more inclined to be at peace with other. That can be the best way to create desirably peaceful interactions.)

This writer almost never deters because he’s genuinely trying to help everyone on all sides, and wants the most people to appreciate and support his work on peace as possible. Groups and individuals also gain knowledge most successfully by welcoming diversity instead of deterring potentially great people away. A peaceful and reassuring attitude is usually appreciated. But here are two artistic examples - on Gaivna.com and Twitter.com - that are somewhat deterrent anyway made from symbols in popular culture. The deterrence isn’t directed at you or anyone else for that matter - so only watch the movies if they’re educational or fun for you - and not otherwise. They may help you by demonstrating language patterns taught on this page and elsewhere on the website.

Notice that the first example has a few minutes of deterrent words on screen, such as “fear” and “anxiety,” to create those feelings, but goes on to pattern almost exclusively peacefully for the subsequent two hours. That’s sometimes the right ratio of deterrent versus reassuring communication in other medium such as news production. Notice that there are virtually no inciting vocabulary words.

Here is how to pattern “peace” in your scary story.

Remember that your well intentioned influence competes with a century of random and sometimes very contrary influences in popular culture (and to some extent popular culture today). Some societies have experienced far more vitriolic than peaceful patterning over decades. Your influence will compete in effectiveness with everyone else’s. You therefore can do everything right in communication and find yourself confronted unnecessarily anyway, if viewers, readers and listeners have been persuaded too persistently by someone else.

If you have been deterred, respond compassionately:

People usually deter in response to fear and unfair imposition. So some percentage of the time you may be encountering someone or some group who cares deeply about peace and will gladly accept any opportunities for improving relations - even when they may not have presented themselves that way in their deterrent communication. So compassionate responses to deterrence can sometimes create desirable results.

Sometimes people stop deterring when asked politely. So a compassionate response can be surprisingly effective. (Offer to help the other side instead of standing up to them.)

Some people enjoy facing their fears. And you may too even you may not initially. You may someday appreciate communication you didn’t initially. You may be successful responding compassionately instead of confrontationally as a result. You and your population will also benefit the most from great relations with as many individuals and groups as possible.
Deterrence can help you think ahead about possible consequences of actions. So you may realize you have been helped by the informational content of deterrent messages.

The relief all sides feel after resolving differences can surprisingly lead to lifelong friendships forming among leaders and their communication teams who least expect this result. Sometimes deterrence and even conflicts produce lasting emotional issues. But you may also be astonished at how rapidly individuals and groups can become friends with one another when everyone least expect it. Compassion contributes to this possibility.
And be glad that you were deterred instead of physically confronted, because deterrence is inherently temporary and peaceful, whereas physical confrontations can create lasting damage and aren’t. Deterrence is a peaceful form of communication.