Podcasts about agenda setting

Live Work with Ruben: Part 1 of 2 Working with Performance Anxiety in Real Time Hosts: Kevin Cornelius, LMFT Dr. David Burns Guests: Dr. Jill Levitt Ruben Land In this live work from a recent Tuesday Group, we had the opportunity to work with Ruben, a highly capable and thoughtful clinician, who brought a struggle that many therapists quietly share: intense performance anxiety in evaluative situations, especially in the presence of authority figures or people he deeply admires. What made this work especially powerful is that Ruben was actively experiencing anxiety in the moment, allowing us to "get in the car with him" rather than talk about the problem abstractly. We began, as always in TEAM-CBT, with Testing. Ruben had completed a Brief Mood Survey, which showed relatively low baseline symptoms—just mild anxiety and minimal depression or anger. However, when we reviewed his Daily Mood Log, anchored to a specific situation (leading a group under supervision), we saw a very different picture: anxiety at 70%, feelings of inferiority and defectiveness at 80%, embarrassment at 70%. This contrast highlights a core principle: symptoms are often situational and state-dependent, and without anchoring in a specific moment, we risk missing the true intensity of the problem. From there, we moved into Empathy, where Jill did a beautiful job modeling the Five Secrets of Effective Communication. She captured Ruben's internal experience with precision: the pressure to perform, the fear of saying the wrong thing, the spiral of anxiety leading to cognitive blanking, and the secondary anxiety about appearing anxious. She also identified both the internal loop ("I'm anxious about being anxious") and the interpersonal fears ("they'll think I'm a fraud," "I'm wasting their time"). David complemented this with curiosity and gentle inquiry, helping to deepen the conceptualization without getting lost in theory. Importantly, we conducted an empathy check, asking Ruben to grade us on thought empathy, feeling empathy, and warmth. He gave A+ ratings across the board, with a slight adjustment on thought empathy when he introduced an additional element: a compulsive need to check and recheck, suggesting a subtle OCD-like process. This moment is critical—without the empathy check, we would have missed an important maintaining factor. Only after strong empathy did we move into Agenda Setting, which is often the most counterintuitive and transformative part of TEAM-CBT. David began with the Invitation, asking whether Ruben wanted help or more support. Ruben was ready to "roll up his sleeves," which is essential—no imposed agenda. Then we used the Miracle Question to clarify goals: Ruben wanted to feel less anxious, maintain fluency, and stay present in high-stakes situations. Next came the Magic Button, targeting outcome resistance. When asked if he would eliminate all his negative feelings, Ruben said no—he wanted to keep some anxiety. This is exactly what we hope for. It opens the door to Positive Reframing, where we honor the symptoms rather than pathologize them. Together, we identified numerous positive values and benefits of his anxiety and self-doubt: Anxiety motivates preparation and effort It enhances connection through vulnerability It reflects caring deeply about others and their time Feelings of inadequacy keep him humble and growth-oriented Fear of judgment protects him and signals high standards Even the thought "I might be a fraud" reflects a desire to be authentic and competent At one point, Ruben articulated that his anxiety shows he values others and wants to contribute meaningfully—this is a profound reframe. Jill and David reinforced these insights, helping him see that his "symptoms" are actually expressions of his values system in action. We also explored a key factor: his anxiety is amplified in performative, evaluative contexts, especially with authority figures, and is less intense in vulnerable, non-evaluative settings. This distinction is clinically crucial and guides both conceptualization and intervention. Another powerful moment came when Ruben acknowledged that self-disclosure reduces his anxiety, supporting the idea that "shame requires secrecy." When he hides his anxiety, it intensifies; when he shares it, it softens. This is both a therapeutic tool and a treatment target. After thoroughly addressing resistance, we moved into Goal Setting, asking Ruben not what he wants to eliminate, but what he wants to dial down. This is a hallmark of TEAM: Anxiety: 70 → 30 Shame: 30 → 20 Inadequacy: 80 → 30 Embarrassment: 70 → 20 We then transitioned into Methods, targeting the thought: "My speech is too slow, and I sound foolish, ignorant, and boring." Jill began with a classic but essential step: identify the distortions. Ruben quickly identified all-or-nothing thinking, overgeneralization, mental filter, discounting positives, mind reading, fortune telling, labeling, self-blame, and hidden "shoulds." This is an important teaching point: when a thought contains nearly all distortions, it's not a problem—it's a goldmine. From there, rather than staying intellectual, we offered multiple method pathways—Externalization of Voices, Feared Fantasy, Be Specific, and Double Standard—modeling flexibility and collaboration. Ruben chose Externalization of Voices, which became the central method. David stepped in as the Negative Ruben, delivering the attack clearly and forcefully. This is essential—the more vivid the critic, the more powerful the response. Ruben responded using a blend of acceptance ("it's true I sometimes pause"), self-defense, and realism (some people may not like it, and that's okay). He won "big," but not "huge," which is a key TEAM moment—we don't settle for partial wins. They then moved into role reversal, and this is where things deepened. When Ruben played the critic and David responded, David modeled a powerful combination of self-acceptance, counterattack, and refusal to buy into the critic's frame. He highlighted that the real problem wasn't slow speech—it was the constant inner criticism. Ruben immediately recognized this as a "huge" win. Ruben then practiced again, this time integrating acceptance, values ("my heart is in the right place"), and counterattack ("the bigger problem is your nagging voice"). This time it felt huge. Next, they targeted a different thought: "If I screw up, David will be disgusted and see I'm a worthless, selfish fraud." This brought up more anxiety, and Ruben got stuck. Jill did something very important here—she paused the method and returned to empathy, naming the pressure to "do it right" and the performance anxiety happening inside the exercise itself. After empathy, they resumed. Jill modeled a powerful response in role reversal that included radical acceptance of imperfection ("I expect to screw up"), a growth mindset ("that's why I collect feedback"), and a reframe of failure as essential to learning. She also gently challenged the distortion of David as a harsh authority figure and emphasized choosing supportive learning environments. Ruben then extended this insight even further, saying, "the more I fail, the better… the more vulnerable I am, the less I appear like a fraud." This was a genuine shift. They then moved into Feared Fantasy, with David playing "David from Hell," saying things like "you're incompetent," "you're worthless," and "you should find another profession." Ruben responded by using Be Specific, asking what exactly he had done wrong. When the answer became "you paused," the entire structure of the criticism collapsed. Ruben saw the absurdity and described the experience as a weight lifting. This is a classic TEAM moment—when global, harsh judgments are reduced to specific, manageable behaviors, they lose their power. They extended this further with the thought "I'm wasting people's time." Through additional role plays, Ruben practiced self-defense and purpose clarification, David used humor and counterattack, and Jill demonstrated Be Specific in a very precise way—asking exactly how long a pause should be, exposing the irrationality of the standard. The work then expanded to include the group. Participants used Externalization of Voices to challenge Ruben's thoughts, and Ruben responded with increasing strength and clarity, using self-acceptance and reversal of beliefs (for example, recognizing that vulnerability actually increases connection). David then introduced the Survey Technique, asking Ruben to directly check his assumptions with the group. The responses were striking—people reported never noticing pauses, experiencing him as thoughtful and engaging, and feeling more connected because of his style. This directly disconfirmed his mind reading and labeling. At the end, they returned to Testing. Anxiety went from 70 to 0, shame from 30 to 0, inadequacy from 80 to 10, embarrassment from 70 to 0, rejection from 40 to 0, and frustration from 30 to 0. Ruben reported that the change felt real and that his belief in the negative thoughts had dropped dramatically. When asked what created the breakthrough, Ruben identified two key moments. First, a deep emotional realization that the goal is actually to make mistakes—that failure is not something to avoid but something to embrace. Second, a shift in how he saw authority figures—recognizing that the perceived gap between himself and others was distorted. As that sense of separation dissolved, so did much of the anxiety. David highlighted that much of our suffering comes from that artificial separation—seeing others as powerful and ourselves as deficient. Jill added an important layer: when we assume others are harsh, judgmental, and critical, we are also distorting them, not just ourselves. Some key clinical takeaways: Externalization of Voices becomes especially powerful when it includes emotion, repetition, and role reversal. Feared Fantasy works best when the criticism becomes specific and even a bit absurd. The Survey Technique is extremely effective for dismantling mind-reading. And often, breakthrough comes when patients fully embrace failure and let go of perfectionism. Let Us Know What You Think of This Episode Please use this link to take a very brief survey and share your opinion with us about this episode Contact Information You can reach Jill Levitt, PhD Jill Levitt . Jill is cofounder and Director of Clinical Training at The Feeling Good Institute (www.feelinggoodinstitute.com) in Mountain View, California.  Ruben Land is an Associate Social Worker at Feeling Good Institute. He provides psychotherapy, using TEAM-CBT, and is available to work with clients in California. You can reach Ruben at ruben@feelinggoodinstitute.com and visit him online at this link. Kevin Cornelius, LMFT is a Level 5 Certified Master TEAM-CBT Therapist and Trainer and the Clinical Director of Feeling Good Institute--Silicon Valley. He specializes in the treatment of trauma, anxiety, depression, relationship problems and insomnia. You can reach Kevin at kevin@feelinggoodinstitute.com and visit his website at www.tools4change.me. You can reach Dr. Burns at david@feelinggood.com. Feeling down in these turbulent times? Take a ride on our Feeling Great app. Feeling Great feels wonderful! You owe it to yourself to feel GREAT! Give the Greatest Gifts of ALL--Love and Happiness!

Do you really win the negotiation if it means losing the relationship?You might think that successful negotiation means getting what you want here and now. But Stan Christensen says this short-sighted view is selling many negotiators short.Christensen is a professional negotiator, host of the All Things Negotiation podcast, and instructor of one of Stanford's most popular courses on the subject. His core insight: most negotiations happen with people you'll see again — which means success isn't about claiming victory, it's about building long-term, mutually beneficial relationships. “Most people think of negotiation statically,” he says. “It's you and I. There's a fixed pie. We're trying to get more for ourself and less for the other party. In reality, 95% of negotiations are gonna be with people you see again, so I define success as contributing to the value of the long-term relationship.”In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Christensen and host Matt Abrahams explore what it takes to negotiate well — from the power of listening and asking questions to managing emotions and communicating for collaboration. Whether you're negotiating a business deal or just deciding where to go to dinner, Christensen shows why every negotiation is an opportunity to strengthen the relationship.Episode Reference Links:Stan ChristensenAll Things Negotiation PodcastEp.15 The Art of Negotiation: How to Get More of What You WantEp.204 Tough Talks: Turn Tension Into Trust Connect:Premium Signup >>>> Think Fast Talk Smart PremiumEmail Questions & Feedback >>> hello@fastersmarter.ioEpisode Transcripts >>> Think Fast Talk Smart WebsiteNewsletter Signup + English Language Learning >>> FasterSmarter.ioThink Fast Talk Smart >>> LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTubeMatt Abrahams >>> LinkedIn Chapters:(00:00) - Introduction (02:11) - What Is Negotiation? (02:50) - Negotiating Every Day (03:52) - The Power of Listening (05:25) - Asking Better Questions (07:26) - Handling Emotions (08:24) - Authentic Emotion (09:22) - Body Language Matters (10:13) - Collaboration in Negotiation (11:51) - Framing Conversations (13:16) - Setting the Agenda (14:38) - Co-Creating Structure (16:14) - A Common Negotiation Mistake (16:53) - Why Start a Podcast (17:57) - Learning from Guests (18:54) - The Final Three Questions (26:15) - Conclusion ********Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.Unleash your Superhuman potential with AI that meets you where you work. Learn more at superhuman.comJoin our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community and become the communicator you want to be. 

Wer bestimmt eigentlich das Agenda-Setting in der öffentlichen Arena und welches Thema ein anderes verdrängt. Michel Friedman spricht in der neuen Folge von ZUKUNFT DENKEN über das, womit wir…

Why Isn't TEAM More Popular? Why Do So Many Therapists Resist TEAM CBT? Featuring Matt May, MD Why has the therapeutic community been so resistant to TEAM? This topic has been a concern to me or many years. To be honest, it isn't new. From the very start of cognitive therapy, when I was first learning it, I began modifying it to make it more dynamic, powerful, and effective. But to be honest, I ran into a small (at the time) of Beck loyalists who branded me as an "outsider," something Beck also did when my book, Feeling Good, began to sell and gain popularity. This saddened and frustrated me, and still does, but it had some great spin-off. On my own, my ideas and approaches grew rapidly, and there was no scarcity of young therapists who wanted to work with me.  Below, you will ready Matt's take on why TEAM CBT has not caught on better, followed by my own thoughts. So read, and enjoy, and feel free to share your own thinking on this topic!  On the live podcast, you will hear our lively discussion with our beloved and brilliant host, Rhonda! Thanks for listening today!  Matt, Rhonda, and David Matt's take: Hi David, I'm excited to discuss this topic!  Also, I agree we would be hard-pressed to cover it in an hour, which I believe is the goal for the podcast. So, why isn't TEAM isn't more popular?  My short answer is that TEAM isn't more popular because many therapists don't want to learn it. Those reasons will vary from one person to another and relate to concepts in the model, itself, like 'process resistance' and 'outcome resistance'. While biological factors, like deficits in cognitive flexibility and neuroplasticity, the 'primacy effect' and age-related changes in the brain, combined with the complexity of the TEAM model, will make it near-impossible for some folks to learn it, these barriers are hard to address with our current technology For the purpose of this conversation, it probably makes more sense to consider the psychological barriers therapists have to adopting a model that is scientifically proven to be superior to other approaches.  As a proponent of TEAM and an instructor, I'd love to know what I'm doing wrong, in presenting the model and how to get more people excited about learning it.  While more research would help us see the problem more clearly, here are some factors that likely play a role: It seems humans have a hard time adopting new truths, regardless of the field being considered. I believe it was Schopenhauer who said all new truths go through three phases on the way to acceptance:  People will ridicule it, violently oppose it, then say they knew it all along as self-evident! One cause of this is something called the 'primacy effect'. People preferentially retain the first version of a story they hear.  If that information is corrected, later, they will continue to believe the first version they heard.  Biological Factors play a role in learning, including genetics, aging, illness and toxic exposure. 'Switching gears', mentally, is more challenging in people with Schizophrenia and their first-degree relatives, for example.  We know that neuroplasticity is greatest in our youth and declines over our lifespan.  Hence the importance of early education and attending to our overall health, habits, nutrition and medical care.       Socioeconomic and Cultural factors certainly play a role.  This is well documented in the book, 'The Emperor's New Drugs', showing how marketing prevailed over science in promoting "antidepressants".  Many therapists in training tell me, 'oh, they wouldn't let me use a measurement tool where I work'.   Lack of 'Critical Thinking'. What people believe often has nothing to do with what is evidence-based or logical.  Many people reject global warming despite the evidence and prefer to believe in conspiracy theories.  We tend to preferentially believe what someone says if we feel a kinship or loyalty to that person or view them as an 'expert'. People might believe RFK Jr. when he says immunizations are dangerous, for example, because he is in their political party and in a position of power, rather than review the science for themselves. Sunk-Cost Fallacy:  People who have gone through training may have a sense that they have invested too much time and money in their education to discard that model and start afresh. Even if we covered this in just a few minutes, we'd still be up against the hardest part of TEAM to learn, Agenda Setting.   Lots of 'Good Reasons' NOT to have open hands, explore topics paradoxically, and reasons this is challenging, technically. So, yeah, we'll have a lot to discuss and I'm looking forward to that! Sincerely, Matt Here is David's list Taking a page out of your book, Matt, our field is filled with so-called "schools" of therapy that function much like cults, most with a narcissistic "leader" at the helm. In a cult, members are required to be absolutely loyal, and to believe in claims the guru makes that have little or no evidence to back them up. For example, most "schools" of therapy claim to know "the" cause of emotional distress, when the causes of depression and other forms of emotional disturbance are still not known. What I have been suggesting is that we get rid of all the schools of therapy and usher in a new era of science-based, data-driven therapy, which would amount to a revolution in our field. This idea, which I feel passionate about, always meets with stiff and hostel opposition / push back. People just don't want to hear it. TEAM integrates high-level empathy and compassion with firm accountability. Give Stanford story with Sunny Choi, and the statement that "Stanford graduate students and faculty cannot be held accountable for doing psychotherapy homework. The need insight-oriented therapy!" This angrily issued statement conveyed, actually, two cult-like (to my thinking) components: First, we KNOW that patients should not be asked to do psychotherapy homework between sessions. Second, we KNOW that "insight-oriented therapy" is the treatment, without ever evaluating them. TEAM focuses on the here and now, and emphasize a "fractal" approach to treatment, where the same distortions and self-defeating beliefs will be embedded in the patient's negative thoughts and feelings every time she or he is upset. So, when you change the present, you have already changed the past. Whereas most therapies have traditionally (and still) focus on the past, thinking they will find the cause of the patient's distress in some pattern or traumatic event. TEAM focuses on rapid change in the here and now, where as many (most?) therapies focus on talk therapy that unfolds slowly, over a period of months, years, or even more. This DOES provide a powerful financial incentive to do "talk therapy," since this drastically provides financial security and reduces the incredible pressure of constantly have to find new patients. TEAM is very challenging to learn. I have taught over 50,000 therapists in the past 35 years or more, through my supervision of graduate students and psychiatric residents, my weekly training group at Stanford, and my workshops, including intensive, around the US and Canada. And one lesson that has emerged is just how difficult it is to learn TEAM. It requires a high level of intelligence and aptitude, and an unusual dedication and commitment. A great many of the most important tools, like Assessment of Resistance, and Externalization of Voices with the CAT, Self-Defense, and the Acceptance Paradox, are extremely difficult to learn and master.  And most give up, and drop out, in favor of some simpler and more formulaic therapy that is easy to learn. TEAM training requires constant role-playing with specific and immediate feedback on your performance, which includes bot a letter grade (A, B, C, etc.) as well as what you did that was effective, and where you fell short and might need to fine-tune your technique with frequent role reversals, always with feedback. This means lots of criticism along the way, which many (most?) therapists do not like. And although we repeatedly emphasize the philosophy of "joyous failure," and "learning through failure," most people do not buy it emotionally. We all want success and compliments! And NOT the "great death" of the self." The "great death" permeates every phase of the T E A M process. At the T = Testing, you will nearly always learn that your perceptions of your patients feel, and how they feel about you, are way off base. This is critically important, but painful for most, as it is a direct body blow to our "need" to be in the role of "expert." Unlike most other forms of therapy, we require therapists to measure patients' feelings, "in the here and now," at the start and end of every therapy session, using brief, highly reliable scales that assess feelings of depression, suicidal urges, anxiety, anger, and also happiness, as well as relationship satisfaction or discord. These scales function like an "emotional X-ray machine," allowing therapists for the first time to see exactly how effective or ineffective you were in every therapy session. Can you take it? On the positive side, this information will allow you to fine tune the therapy and learn from all of your patients every day. On the negative side, you may not want to have to "see" your failures before your eyes at every session with every patient. David: Tell the story of Tuesday group patient who proudly showed me her depression (and other scores) over the previous year with one of her patients. . . But there was absolutely no improvement in any scale. This was shocking and it made me very sad. My goal is to get dramatic changes within a single session. This "great death" continues during the E phase. TEAM therapists are required to ask "What's my grade on empathy" during the session, and also patients fill out the Empathy Scale and other scales on the "Patient's Evaluation of Therapy Session" right after the session. These scales are set up to make therapist failure common, almost universal at first. A warm and curious dialogue about where the therapist went wrong can revolutionize the therapy and deepen the relationship—quickly. But at what cost to the fragile ego of the insecure shrink? The "great death" continues with A = Paradoxical Agenda Setting. You give up your role as the "expert:" or "helper" or "rescuer," which many therapist refuse to do, and instead "become" the patient's subconscious resistance, arguing, with compassion and logic, that there are many GOOD reasons NOT to change. This freaks therapists out! The "great death" continues with the M = Methods phase of the session. I have developed roughly 140 methods to help people challenge distorted negative thoughts and self-defeating beliefs, and have always taught that no one method will work for everyone who's depressed and anxious. So you will have to try many methods, using the Recovery Circle, to find the one that works for each patient. But these methods are challenging to learn, and most therapists don't seem to have the intelligence, aptitude, or commitment to learning how to use them. Many of the methods and insights of TEAM or subtle nuances that many therapists do not "get" or perhaps do not want to "get." Example, the ACT training group, where someone held up the Feeling Good book and said, "We do not want THIS!" They falsely believed that "leaning into" your feelings is always the answer, and wrong believed that TEAM tried to make people happy all the time—called Toxic Positivity—whereas nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I mentioned healthy negative feelings as early as, I think, Chapter 3 in Feeling Good, "Sadness is Not Depression," where I told the story of an elderly man who died on the Stanford inpatient medical service one evening when I was a medical student. Much of what I teach is shocking and at odds with what people are taught in graduate school. For example, the idea that most people with depression and anxiety—NOT everybody!—can be effectively treated in a single, extended therapy session. Curses! That sounds horrible! And even worse-sounding is the idea that change typically happens suddenly, at the very moment patients stop believing their distorted thoughts. Of course, since most therapists have not seen these phenomena, due perhaps to not having the skill, they insist instead that David is some type of fool, liar, or con artis. Okee Dokee! People—therapists and patients alike—do not "get" a great many of the key ideas in TEAM. For example, let's say the socially anxious patient totally believes the thought, "I shouldn't be so screwed up!" the necessary and sufficient conditions for emotional change. The necessary condition: The Positive Thought (PT) must be 100% true. Rationalizations and half-truths have never helped anybody. The sufficient condition: The PT must drastically reduce your belief in the negative thought. And that's when your negative thoughts will suddenly change. There is even more of what I teach is shocking and at odds with what people believe. For example, 2,000 years ago Epictetus stated they key premise of all the cognitive therapies: "People are disturbed, not by things, or events, but by the views they have of them". And recently, our research team has provided proof of this for the first time, in a study of nearly 7,000 users of our Feeling Great app, using sophisticated statistical modeling techniques. So, the three tenants of cognitive therapies, including TEAM, are: First, you FEEL the way you THINK. In other words, all of your positive and negative feelings result from your thoughts in the here-and-now. Second, depression and anxiety are the world's oldest cons. In other words, your negative thoughts, like "I'm not as good as I should be," or "I'm a hopeless case,"—will be loaded with many of the ten cognitive distortions and are extremely misleading—but you don't realize this when you're upset. You will believe these thoughts with all your heart and feel CERTAIN that they are 100% true. Third, you can CHANGE the way you FEEL. But lots of people will won't have it. They keep insisting on theories that simply aren't true—that emotions cause thoughts, for example—and on methods that may have little or no "punch" above and beyond the placebo effect. Story of Tuesday group student who was scolded in her graduate school counseling program for using the words "thought" or cognition during a therapy session. She was told ONLY to focus on feelings. Many people—therapists and patients alike—strongly believe that therapist empathy is THE key to healing. I have developed many powerful empathy tracking and training methods, but our clinical experience and research has shown, over and over, that therapist empathy is NOT the key to healing. They keys involve using TEAM systematically, and the rapid healing happens during the A and M for the most part. But those are the hard parts! Other problems include the idea that we can convert normal human emotional distress into a series of "mental disorders" that are listed in the DSM, the "bible" of the American Psychiatric Association. In TEAM, we consider each patient's patterns of suffering at the start of therapy, quickly and easily screened by the EASY Diagnostic System, but monitor therapy and patient progress with simple tools that measure feelings, like depression, anxiety, anger, and more. But this is an argument for another day. There's a lot more issues, too. Have I, David, contributed to the resistance to TEAM? Absolutely I have. I plead guilty as accused, and I'm proud of it. I'm totally aware that people—maybe even you— get turned off by criticism, and naturally recoil to protect your "in group," as Matt so clearly pointed out, and maintain loyalty to your "leader," whether it's Freud, Jung, Beck, Hayes, Rogers, or whoever. People are more emotional than rational, and people can be intentionally cruel and deceptive, too, all in the name of what they believe. We see that in our politics these days too. People believe things that are totally false, and wildly implausible, because the group or leader says it's true, it's the way things are. I'm a strong believer that science and truth will win out in the long run. Is this inevitable? I'm not totally confident, and have my doubts, but I am also filled with hope, and look to a future with more therapists like our beloved Matt May, MD and others who have dared to venture in a radically new direction, much like the early astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus who dared to challenge the superstitious teachings of the Catholic church. Those brave and brilliant early souls said, "things are NOT the way you think!" And they used data and mathematical modeling to prove their points. But there were a hundreds years of intimidation and suffering until people finally began to catch on to the then-ridiculous and outrageous ideas that the sun does NOT actually revolve around the earth, and that the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Those NOTS changed history. Can it happen again in the fields of psychiatry and psychotherapy? I hope so, and I've been giving my all, in my teaching, research, clinical work and writing, to make this happen. Sadly, I've fallen far short of my dream, but I'm thankful every day for what I've got, and the wonderful colleagues I'm privileged to know and love. Warmly, David, Matt and Rhonda

Social Media wird im Wahlkampf oft zur Projektionsfläche.Für Hoffnungen, für Ängste – und für ziemlich viele Mythen.Die einen sagen: Ohne Social Media geht heute gar nichts mehr.Die anderen: Das bringt doch sowieso keine Stimmen.In dieser Folge von YOU WIN! – dem Social-Media-Politik-Podcast sortieren wir genau dieses Spannungsfeld. Gemeinsam mit Prof. Dr. Frank Brettschneider, Kommunikationswissenschaftler an der Universität Hohenheim, werfen wir einen wissenschaftlichen Blick auf die Frage, welche Rolle Social Media im Wahlkampf tatsächlich spielt – und wo seine Grenzen liegen.Es geht um Social Media als Teil eines orchestrierten Wahlkampfs, um Agenda-Setting statt Meinungsumschwung, um Bubbles, Emotionalisierung und Reichweite – aber auch um Dialog, Community und demokratische Chancen.

Hello and Welcome to the Cynic weekly.   Due to unforeseen last-minute change of circumstances, we are unable to record and release an episode of the Cynic Weekly as we would normally do on the Wednesday of a Europa League game.   However, we have decided to release This weeks episode of The Agenda, which we recorded on Monday and records at midday every Monday as part of the Cynic podcast subscription service.Welcome to The Agenda – Setting the scene for your week in the world of The Cynic and Celtic.We break down The Cynic schedule for the upcoming week and what you can expect.Gall is joined by Kieran and Lorenzo as they bring you up to date with all the goings on at Celtic.We discuss the performance in the Scottish Cup and our expectations for our Europa League tie in Italy. We also discuss the failings at boardroom level of the club.We cover all of the recent transfer news including Maswanhise, Wind and Lawrence before discussing the game against Hearts and what that could mean for the rest of the season.

Gesprächsführung im B2B ist kein Smalltalk, sondern das Lenkrad eines Termins. Fragetechnik stellt Fragen, Gesprächsführung steuert den Weg. Discovery, also Bedarfsermittlung, ist die Kernarbeit, weil ohne Diagnose jede Empfehlung wackelt. Aus vielen Projekten kennen wir die Szene: Es werden früh Features erklärt, dann hagelt es Detailfragen, und am Ende fehlt ein klares Commit. Zuhören reicht selten. Besser gemeinsam vorankommen: In der Community Vertrieb&Verkauf teilen wir Praxis, Beispiele und Templates, die im echten Kundengespräch tragen. Hier andocken: https://stephanheinrich.com/skool Gesprächsführung vs. Fragetechnik: Fragetechnik ist Werkzeug, Gesprächsführung ist Regie. Wer führt, setzt Rahmen, Ziel und nächste Schritte. Discovery als Herzstück: Wir prüfen Hypothesen, verstehen Wirkzusammenhänge und klären, was intern wirklich zählt. Ohne echtes Verständnis bleiben Angebote austauschbar. Wenn wir die Gesprächsführung abgeben: Der Termin kippt in Q&A, es geht um Details und Preise, Tempo und Richtung liegen beim Kunden. Ergebnis: schwache Next Steps. Struktur, die trägt: Agenda-Setting, Zeitrahmen, Zielbild, Check-in, Diagnosefragen, Recap, klare Next Steps mit Datum und Verantwortlichen. Bewährte Methoden: SPIN, MEDDICC, Challenger, Solution Selling. Nicht dogmatisch, sondern als Navigation, die durch komplexe Kaufprozesse führt. Praktisches Beispiel: Statt Feature-Demo fragen wir erst nach Kontext und Wirkung, etwa 'Worauf zahlt dieses Projekt intern ein?' und 'Was müsste passieren, damit es für das Buying Team Priorität gewinnt?' Credo im Alltag: 'Verstehen statt überzeugen-wollen'. Fakten bleiben wichtig, doch Entscheidungen brauchen auch Gefühl, Risikoabschätzung und Nutzenbild. Call to Action: Wir verankern gesprächsführung im Alltag mit einem klaren Ablauf, praxistauglichen Fragen und einer kurzen Checkliste. Der Blog-Artikel führt Schritt für Schritt durch und liefert die Vorlage für den nächsten Kundentermin. Zum Blog-Artikel: https://stephanheinrich.com/verkaufsgespraech/gespraechsfuehrung/

Stefan Lassnig spricht mit Luis Paulitsch von der "DATUM-Stiftung" und Autor eines Buchs über alternative Medien über Definition, Geschichte und demokratiepolitische Bedeutung von sogenannten "alternativen Medien". Historisch reichen alternative Medien von Flugschriften der Reformation über linke Studierenden-, Frauen- und Umweltbewegungen bis zu heutigen digitalen Angeboten, die eine Gegenöffentlichkeit zum Mainstream beanspruchen. Heute sind viele dieser Projekte eng mit rechtspopulistischen oder rechtsextremen Milieus vernetzt, nutzen Social Media, um Empörung zu schüren, Verschwörungsnarrative zu verbreiten und Reichweite über ihre eigentliche Szene hinaus zu erzielen.  Paulitsch unterscheidet zwischen demokratiebereichernden Alternativmedien, die Lücken im Mediensystem schließen, und Propagandamedien, die Desinformation verbreiten und medienethische Standards missachten. Ein von ihm mitentwickelter Kriterienkatalog (u.a. Bekenntnis zu Rechtsstaat, Grundrechten, Fehlerkultur, Transparenz von Eigentum und Finanzierung) soll helfen, förderwürdigen Journalismus von politisch motivierten Kampagnenmedien zu trennen. Anhand von Beispielen wie Exxpress und Njus werden Fragen nach Finanzierung, Oligarchisierung der Medienlandschaft, Nähe zu Parteien und ausländischem Einfluss (etwa aus Russland) diskutiert. Kritisiert wird auch, dass etablierte Medien propagandistische Projekte und ihre Geldflüsse lange zu wenig investigativ beobachtet haben, obwohl diese im digitalen Raum mittels Vernetzung und koordinierter Kampagnen Agenda Setting betreiben. Abschließend plädiert Paulitsch für eine Reform der Medienförderung zugunsten von Qualitätsjournalismus, strengere Kriterien für öffentliche Gelder, mehr investigativen und klimabezogenen Medienjournalismus sowie kreative zivilgesellschaftliche Gegenangebote im digitalen Raum.Links zur FolgeAlternative Medien. Definition, Geschichte und Bedeutung von Luis Paulitsch (Springer-Verlag)Alles Journalismus, oder was? (Kriterienkatalog auf Seite 26)Podcast-Tipp der WocheLadies Cut Wir würden uns sehr freuen, wenn Du "Ganz offen gesagt" auf einem der folgenden Wege unterstützt:Werde Unterstützer:in auf SteadyKaufe ein Premium-Abo auf AppleKaufe Artikel in unserem FanshopSchalte Werbung in unserem PodcastFeedback bitte an redaktion@ganzoffengesagt.atTranskripte und Fotos zu den Folgen findest Du auf podcastradio.at

Send us a textEver have a client drop a “by the way” just as their hand hits the doorknob? We tackle the fix: agenda setting that captures every concern upfront, keeps appointments on track, and strengthens trust without adding time. With guests Drs. Jane Shaw, Kat Sutherland, and Natasha Janke, we map the science and the steps behind a small change that delivers big wins for veterinary teams and clients alike.We walk through the practical anatomy of a better visit: start with a solid introduction, gather the client's full list using open-ended questions, resist premature problem solving, summarize the agenda aloud, then triage together. You'll hear how this approach anchors relationship-centered care, improves client satisfaction, and supports adherence—key predictors of better outcomes. Our guests explain how to insert the veterinary agenda transparently for topics like dental care, weight management, behavior, and nutrition, all without sidelining what the client values most.From classroom to clinic, we cover training that sticks: scripting that sounds natural, team roles that share the workload, and habits that prevent doorknob disclosures. We unpack common pitfalls—closed questions, one-and-done lists, and diving too deep too soon—and offer simple replacements you can try today. Plus, we spotlight current research, where the evidence is strong, and what's next for measuring appointment efficiency, client and veterinarian satisfaction, and late-rising concerns.Ready to try it? Start every appointment with a complete agenda, confirm it, and choose what fits today. Subscribe for more conversations that sharpen clinical communication, share this episode with your team, and leave a quick review to help others find the show.JAVMA article: https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.25.06.0377INTERESTED IN SUBMITTING YOUR MANUSCRIPT TO JAVMA ® OR AJVR ® ? JAVMA ® : https://avma.org/JAVMAAuthors AJVR ® : https://avma.org/AJVRAuthorsFOLLOW US:JAVMA ® : Facebook: Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - JAVMA | Facebook Instagram: JAVMA (@avma_javma) • Instagram photos and videos Twitter: JAVMA (@AVMAJAVMA) / Twitter AJVR ® : Facebook: American Journal of Veterinary Research - AJVR | Facebook Instagram: AJVR (@ajvroa) • Instagram photos and videos Twitter: AJVR (@AJVROA) / Twitter JAVMA ® and AJVR ® LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/company/avma-journals

Warum ist der Prüfungsausschuss mehr als nur ein Kontrollgremium innerhalb des Aufsichtsrats und welche Rolle spielt das strategische Agenda Setting?In dieser Episode des The Agenda Podcasts spricht Prof. Dr. Franca Ruhwedel, Professorin für Finanzen und Rechnungswesen an der Hochschule Rhein-Waal in Kamp-Lintfort sowie Vorsitzende des Prüfungsausschusses in den Aufsichtsräten der United Internet AG, der thyssenkrupp nucera sowie der Verve Group, über neue Verantwortlichkeiten, verschärfte Regeln und eine neue Art der Zusammenarbeit.Zusammen mit Sherpany Podcast-Host Ingo Notthoff erörtert sie die traditionellen Aufgaben des Prüfungsausschusses, neue Herausforderungen durch gesetzliche Änderungen und die Chancen des ESG-Reportings für europäische Unternehmen. Dabei betont Prof. Dr. Franca Ruhwedel die Relevanz des Agenda Settings und spricht über das notwendige Vertrauen innerhalb des Aufsichtsrates und in der Zusammenarbeit mit den Vorständen. Die Aufnahme der Episode erfolgte im August 2025.Diese Impulse erhalten Sie in dieser Episode:Der Prüfungsausschuss hat eine zentrale Rolle bei der UnternehmensführungNeue gesetzliche Anforderungen erfordern mehr Expertise im PrüfungsausschussAgenda-Setting ermöglicht es, Impulse für die Weiterentwicklung der Finanzfunktion zu setzen – über die reine Kontrollfunktion hinausNachhaltigkeit wird zunehmend wichtiger für Unternehmen und deren ReputationVertrauen im Aufsichtsrat ist entscheidend für eine effektive ZusammenarbeitRegelmäßige Selbstbeurteilung des Aufsichtsrats fördert die ReflexionEin offener Dialog des Prüfungsausschussvorsitzes mit dem Finanzvorstand auch außerhalb der Sitzungen ist entscheidendThank you for listening! Visit us at Sherpany.com or follow us on LinkedIn for board, board committee, and executive meetings solutions.

Das diesjährige Wacken Open Air hat vor allem eines wieder bewiesen und zwar, dass es Hype generiert ...und das auch online. Davon profitieren auch YouTuber gerne und das ist auch legitim, aber ab wann wird aus cleverem Agenda Setting für die eigene Videoplanung ein reines hinterher rennen von Trends? Lasst uns dieses schwierige Thema gemeinsam erforschen. *Kapitel* 00:00 Einleitung 03:06 Getränkepodcast 08:23 Andis Wochenende 10:04 Coldrain live in Aschaffenburg 16:53 Bandshirts der Woche 20:34 Kommentare kommentiert 41:06 Hauptthema Links zu spannenden YouTube-Kanälen Rotten Noises TV: - Wolle vs. Wacken Teil 1:https://youtu.be/XDIMs5yYCU4?si=3SZ-M9G5LB9maS - Wolle vs. Wacken Teil 2: https://youtu.be/Riah0HvOnzA?si=QyuLZZEbxOSKy6B2 Herr Dark: https://youtu.be/sC3GPSgR7S0?si=ycd9u1KT_Q3cBFBY Flo's Metal World: https://youtu.be/iPcKUV6jwZ4?si=wt95xhK9dZvLVoot Travel With Me - Wacken Playlist: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwNN7CkolRZXFUfndlKOqi4lpd-mbOS&si=sA7-MLJDlaN45qpy Moshpit Passion auf Wacken: https://youtu.be/omTCW7BwMF0?si=9J711B6Q-9mqb5eN Krachmucker TV: https://www.youtube.com/@KrachmuckerTV Goreminister: https://www.youtube.com/@Goreminister TV Jungsmusik: https://www.youtube.com/@TVJungsmusik *Unsere Bands* Adrian singt bei Blakylle: https://www.blakylle.de/ Andi spielt Bass bei Anheim: https://www.facebook.com/Anheimband/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ More Metal to find at http://totgehoert.com ...on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/totgehoert ...on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Totgehoert ...on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/totgehoert?lang=de ...on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/totgehoert/

Welcome to our Ambulatory Survival Series where we sit down with some of the primary care leaders in the program and learn about how we can take the best care of our clinic patients!Author and Host: Dr. Ritika Kompella, Chief Medical Resident, UCONNGuest Speaker: Dr. Angela Stein, Ambulatory Site Director of St. Francis Gengras Clinic, Assistant Professor of Medicine at UCONNAdditional readings:Five Steps to Mastering Agenda Setting | AAFP“What Else?” Setting the Agenda for the Clinical Interview | Annals of Internal Medicine

Er ist einer der stillen Marvel-SHEROES des Investigativen Journalismus in Deutschland und steht realistisch und felsenfest auf demokratischen Grundsätzen: Daniel Drepper. Nach seinen Enthüllungen über Machtmissbrauch durch Ex-Bild-Chefredakteur Julian Reichelt verlor nicht nur Reichelt seinen Job sondern auch Drepper und sein Team. Die Recherchen mit seinem Team um die berüchtigte „Row Zero“ bei der Band Rammstein befeuerten die #metoo-Debatten in Deutschland und der Musikszene weltweit. Drepper war Mitbegründer des Recherche-Kollektivs „Correctiv“ und ist Vorsitzender des „Netzwerks Recherche“, das 2004 das „Informationsfreiheitsgesetz“ mit auf den Weg brachte. Darüber schrieb Drepper übrigens bereits 2013 seine Diplom-Arbeit, bevor er sich an der Columbia University auf Investigativen Journalismus spezialisierte. Drepper wurde für seine journalistische Arbeiten vielfach ausgezeichnet und ist heute Leiter des Rechercheverbunds NDR, WDR und Süddeutsche Zeitung. Bei FREIHEIT DELUXE erzählt Daniel Drepper, was investigativen Journalismus für ihn ausmacht: Nicht nur über Themen zu berichten, die Andere auf die Agenda setzen, sondern selbst Missstände aufzudecken und die Informationen der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich zu machen, um damit Diskussionen anzustoßen. Die ist mit Jagoda Marinić auch gleich in vollem Gange, denn die beiden rollen auf, was die Recherchen um Reichelt und Rammstein verändert haben - oder auch nicht. Sie ergründen, wie Gegenstrategien inzwischen eingesetzt werden, um journalistische Arbeit zu diskreditieren. Dabei geht es auch um die Angriffe aus der Politik, etwa mit der drohenden Einschränkung des Informationsfreiheitsgesetzes oder der „Kleinen Anfrage“ der CDU zur Finanzierung gemeinnütziger Vereine in Deutschland. Doch Daniel Drepper und Jagoda Marinić sprechen auch konkret und konstruktiv darüber, wie Menschen in Deutschland selbst das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz für sich nutzen können oder dazu beitragen können, skandalöse Zustände öffentlich zu machen. Und schließlich erzählt Daniel Drepper ganz persönlich, was ihn antreibt und warum Pressefreiheit für ihn ganz plastische Bedeutung hat. Hier hört ihr, was Pressefreiheit für Daniel Drepper bedeutet (2:59) inwiefern Agenda-Setting im Journalismus funktionieren kann (13:42) wie das Team um Juliane Löffler und Daniel Drepper die Causa Reichelt aufdeckte (21:26) was passiert, wenn sein Team Tipps bekommt (32:08) welche Rolle „Litigation PR“ inzwischen spielt (44:05) worum es beim „Informationsfreiheitsgesetz“ geht (58:51) wie er auf die Enthüllungen von „Correctiv“ zum Geheimtreffen in Potsdam schaut (1:05:24) welche Verpflichtungen er für den Journalismus in Deutschland sieht (1:17:47) FREIHEIT DELUXE mit Jagoda Marinić ist eine Produktion des Hessischen Rundfunks in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Börsenverein des deutschen Buchhandels. Redaktionsteam: Andrea Geißler und Christoph Scheffer. Ihr erreicht uns per Mail: freiheitdeluxe@hr.de

Er ist einer der stillen Marvel-SHEROES des Investigativen Journalismus in Deutschland und steht realistisch und felsenfest auf demokratischen Grundsätzen: Daniel Drepper. Nach seinen Enthüllungen über Machtmissbrauch durch Ex-Bild-Chefredakteur Julian Reichelt verlor nicht nur Reichelt seinen Job sondern auch Drepper und sein Team. Die Recherchen mit seinem Team um die berüchtigte „Row Zero“ bei der Band Rammstein befeuerten die #metoo-Debatten in Deutschland und der Musikszene weltweit. Drepper war Mitbegründer des Recherche-Kollektivs „Correctiv“ und ist Vorsitzender des „Netzwerks Recherche“, das 2004 das „Informationsfreiheitsgesetz“ mit auf den Weg brachte. Darüber schrieb Drepper übrigens bereits 2013 seine Diplom-Arbeit, bevor er sich an der Columbia University auf Investigativen Journalismus spezialisierte. Drepper wurde für seine journalistische Arbeiten vielfach ausgezeichnet und ist heute Leiter des Rechercheverbunds NDR, WDR und Süddeutsche Zeitung. Bei FREIHEIT DELUXE erzählt Daniel Drepper, was investigativen Journalismus für ihn ausmacht: Nicht nur über Themen zu berichten, die Andere auf die Agenda setzen, sondern selbst Missstände aufzudecken und die Informationen der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich zu machen, um damit Diskussionen anzustoßen. Die ist mit Jagoda Marinić auch gleich in vollem Gange, denn die beiden rollen auf, was die Recherchen um Reichelt und Rammstein verändert haben - oder auch nicht. Sie ergründen, wie Gegenstrategien inzwischen eingesetzt werden, um journalistische Arbeit zu diskreditieren. Dabei geht es auch um die Angriffe aus der Politik, etwa mit der drohenden Einschränkung des Informationsfreiheitsgesetzes oder der „Kleinen Anfrage“ der CDU zur Finanzierung gemeinnütziger Vereine in Deutschland. Doch Daniel Drepper und Jagoda Marinić sprechen auch konkret und konstruktiv darüber, wie Menschen in Deutschland selbst das Informationsfreiheitsgesetz für sich nutzen können oder dazu beitragen können, skandalöse Zustände öffentlich zu machen. Und schließlich erzählt Daniel Drepper ganz persönlich, was ihn antreibt und warum Pressefreiheit für ihn ganz plastische Bedeutung hat. Hier hört ihr, was Pressefreiheit für Daniel Drepper bedeutet (2:59) inwiefern Agenda-Setting im Journalismus funktionieren kann (13:42) wie das Team um Juliane Löffler und Daniel Drepper die Causa Reichelt aufdeckte (21:26) was passiert, wenn sein Team Tipps bekommt (32:08) welche Rolle „Litigation PR“ inzwischen spielt (44:05) worum es beim „Informationsfreiheitsgesetz“ geht (58:51) wie er auf die Enthüllungen von „Correctiv“ zum Geheimtreffen in Potsdam schaut (1:05:24) welche Verpflichtungen er für den Journalismus in Deutschland sieht (1:17:47) FREIHEIT DELUXE mit Jagoda Marinić ist eine Produktion des Hessischen Rundfunks in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Börsenverein des deutschen Buchhandels. Redaktionsteam: Andrea Geißler und Christoph Scheffer. Ihr erreicht uns per Mail: freiheitdeluxe@hr.de

Tom Kalil is the CEO of Renaissance Philanthropy. Tom served in the White House for two presidents (Obama and Clinton) and in collaboration with his team worked with the Senate to give every federal agency the authority to support incentive prizes for up to $50 million. Tom also designed and launched dozens of White House science and technology initiatives, including the $40 billion National Nanotechnology Initiative, announced by President Clinton; The BRAIN Initiative, announced by President Obama; The Next Generation Internet initiative, announced by President Clinton and Vice President Gore; and initiatives in advanced materials, robotics, smallsats, data science, and EdTech. About Foresight InstituteForesight Institute is a research organization and non-profit that supports the beneficial development of high-impact technologies. Since our founding in 1987 on a vision of guiding powerful technologies, we have continued to evolve into a many-armed organization that focuses on several fields of science and technology that are too ambitious for legacy institutions to support.Allison DuettmannThe President and CEO of Foresight Institute, Allison Duettmann directs the Intelligent Cooperation, Molecular Machines, Biotech & Health Extension, Neurotech, and Space Programs, alongside Fellowships, Prizes, and Tech Trees. She has also been pivotal in co-initiating the Longevity Prize, pioneering initiatives like Existentialhope.com, and contributing to notable works like "Superintelligence: Coordination & Strategy" and "Gaming the Future".Get Involved with Foresight:Apply to our virtual technical seminars Join our in-person events and workshops Donate: Support Our Work – If you enjoy what we do, please consider this, as we are entirely funded by your donations!Follow Us: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedInNote: Explore every word spoken on this podcast through Fathom.fm, an innovative podcast search engine. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Es gäbe ja auch andere Themen, die Menschen umtreiben, als andauernd nur Migration. Sie kommen aber im aktuellen Wahlkampf kaum vor. Warum? Und was müsste sich strukturell ändern? Darüber spricht Holger Klein mit dem Politik-Journalisten Philip Banse.

Du hast bock auf das Retreat deines Lebens?

'Lottocracy' is a system where political representation is determined randomly. Is this a better system than democracy? We discuss the shortcomings of current electoral democracies, including the influence of media and special interests, and examine innovative models like deliberative democracy and specialized legislative structures. How should we balance between expertise and random selection, and combat elite influence and corruption? [00:00] Introduction to the Thought Experiment [00:52] Moral Obligations in Crisis [05:14] Challenges of Political Institutions [06:51] Electoral Democracy vs. Lottocracy [14:44] Implementing Lottocracy [21:15] Potential Issues and Objections [29:20] Ensuring Representative Participation [36:41] Challenges of Single Party Dominance [37:32] Risks of Random Selection in Politics [38:39] Expertise and Agenda Setting [46:55] Corruption and Influence in Politics [55:34] Social Pressure and Decision Making

Kuram diyor ki… Hem ticaret hem de siyaset için hayati önem taşıyan bir iletişim uygulaması olan“gündem belirleme” (Agenda Setting), iki şekilde tezahür eder, daha doğrusu ‘etmeli'… Ya ortaya çıkmış/atılmış bir gündem konusunda ‘racon kesme' şeklinde (pasif, reaktif) ya da ortada bir konu yokken tam da o konuyu kendiniz yaratarak, durduk yerde, dikkatleri bir anda üzerinize çekmek üzere hamle yaparak (aktif, proaktif)…

Featured Photo is Dr. Amy Huberman The Amy Story, Part 2: The Joys of Doing the Laundry! Amy and her exuberant son, Sasha, and wife, Alena Last week you heard Part 1 of the Amy session, which included T = Testing, E = Empathy, and A = Assessment of Resistance. Today, you will hear Part 2 of Amy's exciting journey from perfectionism to JOY. M = Methods We used a variety of Methods to help Amy challenge her negative thoughts, starting with the first, “I'm failing my patients.” We started with Identify and Explain the Distortions, then went to the Double Standard Technique, and ended up with the Externalization of Voices. As a reminder, you can see Amy's  Daily Mood Log at the start of her session here.. As an exercise, see how many distortions, or thinking errors, you can find in her first Negative Thought, “I'm failing my patients,“ using the list of cognitive distortions on the bottom of her Daily Mood Log. You'll find the list of the ten cognitive distortions if you click here.  After you've identified each distortion, see if you can explain two things about it: Why is this distortion in Amy's thought unrealistic and misleading? Why might it be incredibly unfair and hurtful? You'll find my list of the distortions in this thought at the end of the show notes. But don't look until you've made your list! These techniques we used were effective , as you'll hear on the podcast, especially the Externalization of Voices. You'll hear us doing role-reversals with Amy, and the method that “won the day” was the CAT, or Counter-Attack Technique, combined with the Acceptance Paradox. The Acceptance Paradox involves finding truth in a negative thought with a sense of peace or even humor. The CAT involves confronting the hostile voice in your head and tell it to go fly a kite, or other gentle but firm message You'll enjoy seeing some striking changes in Amy, as her tears and feelings of intense self-doubt are suddenly transformed into joy and laughter. Those changes created strong feelings of joy for Jill and me as well. We both have incredibly fondness and admiration for Amy, and feel great joy as well when she feels joy. Here are Amy's final scores at the end of the session. Emotions % Now % Goal % After Sad, blue, depressed, down, unhappy 80 25 0 Anxious, worried, panicky, nervous, frightened 80 20 0 Guilty, remorseful, bad, ashamed 90 5 0 Worthless, inadequate, defective, incompetent 100 15 5 Lonely, unloved, unwanted, rejected, alone       Embarrassed, foolish, humiliated, self-conscious       Hopeless, discouraged, pessimistic, despairing 90 5 0 Frustrated, stuck, thwarted, defeated 80 5 5 Angry, mad, resentful, annoyed, irritated, upset, furious       Other         The Joyous Dr. Amy! Sudden and dramatic change is pretty trippy, but it isn't much good if it doesn't last. And it won't! Negative thoughts and feelings will always return, because no one can be happy all the time. That's why some relapse prevention training and ongoing practice and refinement of what you've learned can be vitally important. In our follow-up session with Amy one week later she said she'd felt way better during the week, but did, in fact, have some relapses and had to challenge her negative thoughts again. She'd been helped a lot by the idea that it was okay to fail, to seek consultation, and learn, and that failing with patients gave us endless opportunities to learn and grow as therapists. And it was also okay not to have to listen so intently to the attempts of the negative self to put her down. In fact, our misery almost never results from our failures, but from telling ourselves that we “shouldn't” ever fail, and from punishing ourselves mercilessly when we do. One of her most exciting statements in our follow-up session was that she discovered that even something as humble as putting the dirty clothes into the washing machine could be a joyous experience without that negative voice in her brain constantly hollering at her that she wasn't good enough! Teaching points It was hard, at first, for Amy to “see” how distorted and unfair her negative thoughts were. She is an extremely intelligent, accomplished, and beloved colleague, and yet most of us cannot “see” or really “grasp” that we can be pretty mean to when we're feeling down and anxious. I have often said that feeling anxious and depressed is a lot like being in a deep hypnotic trance, telling yourself and believing things that just aren't true. For example, Amy is doing beautiful work with the great majority of her patients, and is doing the exact same thing with the patients who are responding beautifully as she is with the two who are stuck. So, when she tells herself she's a failure, she's clearly involved in All-or-Nothing Thinking. In other words, she's thinking that if she's not perfect, she's a complete failure and a fraud. She also seems to have many Hidden Shoulds (e.g. I SHOULD be able to help every single patient quickly) and Mental Filtering (focusing only on the negatives) and Discounting the Positive (ignoring the positives, as if they didn't count.) The techniques that were the most helpful for Amy were Positive Reframing: that's where we pointed out the positive aspects of Amy's Negative Thoughts and feelings. The Externalization of Voices with Self-Defense, the Acceptance Paradox, and the CAT. Be Specific: Amy was Labeling herself as a “fraud” and a “failure,” and she was Overgeneralizing from two patients to her entire self and career. Jill emphasized Be Specific. In other words, focus on and accept what's real. What's real is that Amy has been valiantly struggling to help two patients who are stuck. She can just accept that, and get some consultation and guidance from a colleague, which would probably help her get unstuck. So, instead of labelling yourself as “a failure” and “a fraud,” which are just mean, vague words, you can tell yourself that you have a specific problem—in Amy's case, getting stuck with two very anxious patients. Then you can focus on getting some help in solving that specific problem—for example, by seeking consultation from a colleague. Jill said that's what she does when she gets stuck. I used to do that every week, especially when I was first learning cognitive therapy. Getting stuck, then, can simply be an opportunity for growth and learning cool new tools. If we never got stuck, we'd never learn anything new! The very moment Amy stopped believing her negative thoughts, her feelings instantly and dramatically changed. That change happened suddenly, over the course of about 30 seconds, and you can SEE it in her face and hear it in her voice. But it won't last forever! Jill pointed out that the belief at the root of Amy's problem was Perfectionism, and the idea that “I should know exactly what to do with all of my patients.” That may be a pleasant fantasy, and it might even motivate us to work hard and achieve, but it's also a recipe for misery! Follow-up Rapid recovery is great, but will it stick? You will hear excerpts from our brief follow-up session one week later for Relapse Prevention Training. The idea is that none of us can feel happy forever, and negative thoughts will creep back into our minds sooner or later. However, you can anticipate this and prepare for it by challenging your negative thoughts with the same techniques that helped you the first time you improved. That's because the details will usually be different every time you're upset, but the pattern of self-critical negative thoughts will usually be the same. And this DID happen to Amy, just as it will happen to you. But this was an opportunity for her to deepen her understanding of perfectionism and to refine and enhance her ability to respond to her negative thoughts. During the weeks following the recording of this podcast, Amy found that she experienced some resistance to using the counterattack technique. She began to feel like she was relating to her perfectionism as an enemy and attacking it—and in doing so, was discounting all the good in it, including the values that came shining through during the Positive Reframing. She found that a better fit for her, instead of the counterattack, was to disarm her perfectionistic thoughts by seeing the truth in them. In fact, you could view this as yet another form of acceptance. When she did this, the perfectionistic voice in her head naturally backed down and gave her the space to do what matters to her unencumbered by self-criticism. I thought it was cool when she described experiencing waves of joy while doing the laundry—an activity that had always felt like a chore to her before, when it was accompanied by thoughts like “I should have finished this laundry days ago.”   She discovered that without beating up on herself, something as humble as doing the laundry could be incredibly rewarding! After our follow-up meeting, I got a lovely email from Amy about the joys of giving up the need for perfection, and sent this follow-up reply to Amy: Thank you, Amy, you are the BEST! I did a four-day intensive in San Antonio years ago with a small group of about 25 therapists. As you know, I always BS and say “As the Buddha so often said . . . “ followed by something goofy or quasi-mystical or whatever, and most people seem to kind of like that and see it as fun or humorous or whatever. Well, I was doing that at the workshop, and at one of the breaks a woman approached me and said she was interested in my Buddhist remarks because she had been raised as a Buddhist in an Asian country where Buddhism is prominent. I panicked and thought I'd been found out and exposed as a fraud. She went on to say that their family gave up Buddhism, however, and she was sad. I asked why they gave up Buddhism, and she explained that her mother suffered from severe depression, and the Buddhists taught that's because you think you “need” things, and if you're a good Buddhist you won't think that way and you won't ever suffer. Since she suffered, she felt like a failure as a Buddhist, so the family gave up Buddhism. I told her that she might not be aware that there are actually two schools of Buddhism. There's low-level Buddhism and high-level Buddhism. In low-level Buddhism, you're not allowed to want or need anything, and you're not allowed to suffer. That's sounds like that was the school of Buddhism your family was raised in. But there's another type of high-level Buddhism. In high level Buddhism you're allowed to suffer and struggle, and screw up, and fail, and all sorts of stuff. She got animated and said, “I didn't know that. Thank you so much. You've restored my faith in Buddhism, and I can't wait to tell my mother!” Aside from my being elderly and half-demented, I hope that makes some sense in light of our work together with Jill! So, if you need any translation or explanation, Amy, I'm inviting you to join the high-level Buddhist therapist group where you're allowed to screw up with some of your patients, or even many! Warmly, david Subsequent Follow-Up I forgot to tell you what happened to Amy's two “stuck patients.” Well, she got some consultation about why these patients might be stuck, which is nearly always an Agenda Setting problem—the therapist is working harder than the patient due to the need to “help,” and this plays into the patient's ambivalence. This struck a chord, and Amy was very excited to see her patients again, and both suddenly got “unstuck,” although in somewhat different ways. And that is why I call it the Acceptance Paradox. The moment YOU change, and accept yourself, your world will also change! Or, to put it differently. We often see the world as “different” or as “other,” thinking we are separated. The Buddhists see the world as “one,” and that is certainly true in therapy as well. Answers to the Quiz Question David's list of Distortions in Amy's Negative Thought: “I'm failing my patients.” 1.     All-or-Nothing Thinking. This is not realistic because Amy is not stuck with all of her patients. And even though she's still far short of her hopes for these two patients, they may feel they are getting lots of TLC and support from Amy. 2.     Overgeneralization. This is misleading because she's overgeneralizing from her two failures to her “self,” and labeling herself as “a fraud and a failure.” She also overgeneralizing to the future, thinking things will never change or improve so she should get a new career. 3.     Mental Filtering. She only focusing on the two patients who are stuck. 4.     Discounting the Positive. She's overlooking the fact that she's going excellent work with a great many people, and has tremendous integrity, skill, and commitment to her patients. 5.     Magnification and Minimization. She's kind of blowing things out of proportion, although it's always good to focus on patients who aren't yes improving. 6.     Emotional Reasoning, She FEELS like a failure so thinks she IS a failure. 7.     Hidden Should Statement. She thinks she SHOULD be perfect! 8.     Labeling. Same as Overgeneralization. See above. 9.     Self-Blame. She's blaming herself instead of loving herself and focusing on getting she help she needs and deserves! Thanks for listening today! Rhonda, Amy, and David  

„Je mehr ich weiß, desto mehr weiß ich, dass ich nichts weiß!“ Kein anderer Satz beschreibt das Wissenschaftsdilemma der deutschsprachigen Physiotherapie und Sportwissenschaft so gut. Gerade sonnten wir uns noch im Licht der letzten Studie, die unseren Bias füttert, da kommt Daniel Kadlec mit seiner aktuellen Arbeit "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Common Errorsin Meta‑Analyses and Meta‑Regressions in Strength & Conditioning Research“ um die Ecke und berichtet davon, dass in den letzten zwanzig meist zitierten Meta-Analysen signifikante Rechenfehler enthalten sind… und wir dachten, sie wären der Goldstandard. Warum man trotzdem nicht, dem nihilistischen Impuls nachgeben sollte, sämtliche Forschung über Bord zu werfen, darüber unterhalten wir uns mit Tabea Arens, angehende PhDlerin an der MSH Hamburg und Thomas Kott, seines Zeichens Doktor der Mathematik und Schwager von Heppi. Welchen Einfluss haben Publikationszwang, Gate Keeper Phänomene im Agenda Setting der Journals und die Tücken der Statistik auf den Einfluss unserer Studien? Wir wünschen Euch viel Spaß mit der Folge! Shownotes: Daniel Kadlec et al: "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: Common Errors in Meta‑Analyses and Meta‑Regressions in Strength & Conditioning Research“ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-022-01766-0 Natalie Bittencourt et al: "Complex systems approach for sports injuries: Moving from risk factor identification to injury pattern recognition-narrative review and new concept" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305518394_Complex_systems_approach_for_sports_injuries_Moving_from_risk_factor_identification_to_injury_pattern_recognition-narrative_review_and_new_concept Roald Bahr et al: "Why screening tests to predict injury do not work—and probably never will…: a critical review“ https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/50/13/776

E339– Inner Voice – A Heartfelt Chat with Dr. Foojan. In this episode, Dr. Foojan Zeine chats with Dr. David D. Burns, an American psychiatrist and adjunct professor emeritus in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Stanford University School of Medicine. He is the author of bestselling books such as Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy, The Feeling Good Handbook, and Feeling Great: The Revolutionary New Treatment for Depression and Anxiety. Dr. Burns developed an approach to psychotherapy called T.E.A.M. Therapy. T.E.A.M. is an acronym denoting Testing, Empathy, Assessment of Resistance (formerly Agenda Setting), and Methods. TEAM claims to address some of the shortcomings in cognitive therapy and proposes that motivation influences our thoughts, feelings, and actions just as much as our thoughts (or cognitions). Burns states that he draws from at least 15 schools of therapy and hopes that the TEAM approach will be as revolutionary a breakthrough in psychotherapy as C.B.T. was decades ago. www.feelinggood.com, and for the app, go to www.feelinggreat.com. Dr. Burns shared his experience with empathy in joining psychological resistances or conditions for treatment purposes. Check out my website: www.FoojanZeine.com, www.AwarenessIntegration.com, www.Foojan.com

In der vierundneunzigsten Episode unseres populistischen Medien-Podcasts „Voll in die Presse“ spüren wir Populisten in Osteuropa bis Südamerika auf, mit Zwischenstopp bei süddeutschen Naturvölkern. Dabei steht uns Totti als „Kind der Demokratie“ mit politischem Sachverstand zur Seite. Mitgebracht hat sie einen Tennis spielenden Kürbis, eine kampfeslustige Zwiebel und natürlich den einzig wahren Bunga-Bunga-Ritter. Und was haben wir eigentlich mit Barack Obama gemeinsam? Die vollständigen Shownotes mit allen Bildern und Artikel-Links findet ihr unter: www.benanza.de/2024/podcast/vidp94-bayern-blackout-oeko-pariser-und-populisten-twitter-populismus-edition-mit-totti

Agenda Setting erleben wir sehr häufig. Ohne uns dessen bewusst zu sein. Aber so gut wie keine Zeitung und keine Nachrichtensendung berichtet "objektiv." Das betrifft nicht nur die Tendenz in den Artikeln. Sondern auch schon, worüber überhaupt berichtet wird. Welches Thema es auf die Titelseite schafft. Und welches irgendwo an Randnotiz endet. Agenda Setting ist ein wichtiger Teil der politischen Kommunikation. Kann aber auch im Alltag genutzt werden. Genau darüber mehr in dieser Folge.

In our first episode, we reveal exclusive transfer news that could have a big impact on the Premier League title race. Host Lewis Peers is joined by Football Insider editor Wayne Veysey and transfer correspondent Pete O'Rourke to set the agenda and discuss the deals already taking shape ahead of the January window. We have a Ruben Neves exclusive (but, it's not Newcastle United), news on a Liverpool defender deal, a shock Tottenham player move and we also reveal a sensational Aston Villa plan that will raise eyebrows. Newcastle have devised a new three-man signing plan as injury crisis heralds complete U-turn, while a surprise Premier League club is emerging as the most active in the market ahead of January and they are ready to smash their transfer record to achieve their ambitious plans! We also have the latest on big-name moves in January for Jadon Sancho, Kalvin Phillips and Aaron Ramsdale. In the Championship, we discuss Leeds United wonderkid Archie Gray and if a move to Liverpool really could happen. The essential new football podcast for football fans.   Subscribe to https://www.youtube.com/@footballinsiderchannel Follow our Clips page https://www.youtube.com/@footballinsiderchannel/shorts Follow us: Website: https://www.footballinsider247.com/ Facebook:  / insiderfootball    Twitter:  / footyinsider247   Instagram: @football_insider247     ​  

Sports, Media, and Communication Lecture 9 - Agenda Setting. What is it and what are the different types? Also, we discuss gatekeeping and look at a sports highlight.

This week on the show begins the first of three student segments from my Media & Politics course at UVA Wise. Please join Michael Martin and Morgan Blankenship as they chat with Susan Liebell (Saint Joseph's University) and Annelise Russell (University of Kentucky) about the relationship between media coverage and public opinion and the government's focus on guns.

It is one thing to find a desirable location to start up or purchase a practice. It is quite another thing to create an enduring practice brand. The Two-Step Model is a useful process to do this effectively and scientifically.  This episode is a follow-up to our episode on Framing Theory and Agenda Setting of a couple of weeks ago. The question is "How do you build credibility quickly and at a low-cost *and reasonable effort.  That is where the application of this theory really becomes useful. 

Russia seeks to lay siege to remaining Ukrainian forces in the eastern city of Bakhmut; China lays out its economic and policy agenda for the year ahead; and nearly 200 countries reach a landmark deal on the high seas.

This week our episode deals with presenting the reasons the patient base should choose YOUR practice and how you can present the benefits of seeking can in a more persuasive manner. It is based upon tools we call Agenda Setting and Framing Theories and they are cutting-edge market research. They have been proven wildly effective in recent decades to help "move the needle" for healthcare practices to not only choose YOUR practice but to build a loyal and enthusiastic patient base. When you are ready Doctor Demographics can customize your image and practice promotion to make them more effective and targeted. Come to www.DoctorDemographics.com to get a sample report and a price quote.

Hier geht es zu unserem kostenfreien Storytelling Buch: https://www.storytellingbuch.de Welche Themen kann ich z.B. als Dienstleister, Coach oder Berater in Social Media auf Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, Youtube und Co. bringen? Wie müssen meine Themen im B2B Bereich z.B. in einem Industrie-Unternehmen gestaltet sein? Alle Antworten bekommst du hier! Hast du auch eine Frage? Dann sende sie uns an: office@kuvg.de Zu unserem kostenlosen neuen Buch geht es hier: https://www.storytellingbuch.de Hier geht es zu den 7 goldenen Regeln im Copywriting: https://www.geschichtendieverkaufen.de/goldene-regeln Hier findest du unseren YouTube-Kanal: https://www.youtube.com/c/Geschichtendieverkaufen Der Podcast für Content Marketing, Business Storytelling, Social Media und Kommunikation in Marketing, HR und Vertrieb & Sales

Hazte mecenas: https://www.patreon.com/simplepolitica - Existe desde hace décadas un teoría, la de la agenda setting, que nos dice que los temas sobre los que hablan los medios son aquellos temas sobre los que los ciudadanos se basarán para tomar decisiones y hacer valoraciones sobre sus líderes políticos y partidos. _ Comenta y pídenos temas: https://www.simplepolitica.com/contactar/ Echa un vistazo a nuestros cursos: https://www.simplepolitica.com/cursos Síguenos en Twitter: https://twitter.com/simple_politica Síguenos en Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/simple_politica/ Síguenos en Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/simplepolitica

CNN Following Davos Orders, Weaponized Vagueness, & YouTube Censored Us (DNB) Thank you for listening. Help Keep The Show Going With A One Time Donation At The Like Below PayPal.Me To Get Exclusive XR Content, DNB Ad Free, Check Out The Links Below Propaganda Report is creating Podcasts | Patreon Propaganda Report Community (locals.com) Propaganda Report | Rokfin Follow me on Twitter (12) Binkley (@freedomactradio) / Twitter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Profs Jarman and Greer explain how some problems get on the political agenda while others are ignored. How can health policy advocates use Kingdon's 'three streams' model to better understand the political process and their chances of creating change?Find work from the HMP Governance Lab at www.hmpgovernancelab.org and on Twitter @HMPgovlabMusic: 'Blippy Trance' by Kevin MacLeod

Think Tanks? Denkfabriken? Politische Lobbyisten? Drei Begriffe -mit unterschiedlicher Anmutung- für mittlerweile viele Tausend Einrichtungen, die sich dem Agenda-Setting, der Politik-Beratung und der Einflussnahme auf die öffentliche Meinungsbildung verschrieben haben. Der Begriff Think Tank kommt natürlich aus dem angelsächsischen Raum und zu den bekanntesten und ältesten Denkfabriken gehören die Brookings Institution aus den USA oder das Chatham House in Großbritannien. Bei uns in Deutschland sind traditionell eher die parteinahen Stiftungen, wie die Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung und die Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, eine Art Think Tank. In den letzten Jahrzehnten sind jedoch nach US-Vorbild sehr viele weitere Player hinzugekommen. Die meisten Think Tanks haben klare politische Ziele und je nach Art des Think Tanks variiert der Anteil an eigenen wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeitern und überwiegen Marketing- und PR-Experten. Und stets ein Netz an einflussreichen Persönlichkeiten aus der Politik oder der Wirtschaft. Man unterscheidet zwischen staatlichen, akademischen und advokatorischen Denkfabriken. Haben Kritiker Recht, dass gerade diese eher Meister in der agendagerechten Verpackung und Aufbereitung sind und teilweise sehr aggressiv in der Beeinflussung – also toughe Lobbyisten?

Welcome to The Agenda – Setting the scene for your week in the world of The Cynic and Celtic.We break down The Cynic schedule for the upcoming week and what you can expect.We discuss Celtic's fantastic performance in the 4-0 victory over Ross County at the weekend. We focus on all the recent news including Maeda pulling out of the Japan squad and Kyogo discussing his return. We look over upcoming fixtures and the opportunities the break provides for the manager and squad.Lewis Laird returns with The Colt Report.

This time on Tony's Political Ramblings, I discuss who has the most control over setting the Federal Agenda.REFERENCES:https://www.robertcaro.com/the-books/master-of-the-senate/https://www.amazon.com/Alternatives-Policies-Epilogue-Classics-Political/dp/020500086X

La selezione delle notizie da parte dei media influenza enormemente la nostra percezione della realtà. Ne parlo in questo video a partire da un case history particolare riguardante le morti causa parto.

Digiloglounge Digital | Online Diskussion [30.09.2021] Prof. Dr. Marc Debus spricht mit uns über den Rückgang an Vertrauen in politische Institutionen und welchen Einfluss Online-Aktivitäten von Bürger:innen und die Interaktion mit Politiker:innen auf ihre Wahrnehmung, Einstellungen und Verhalten haben. Die bisherige Forschung hat gezeigt, dass digitale Medienbeteiligung einen positiven, wenn auch geringen Effekt auf die politische Beteiligung hat. Während sich die Wissenschaft meist auf die Erklärung der Größe dieses Effekts konzentriert hat, soll im Projekt von Prof. Dr. Marc Debus, Prof. Dr. Harald Schoen und Dr. Rosa M. Navarrete untersucht werden, wie sich das Agenda Setting von oben nach unten und von unten nach oben durch den Gebrauch digitaler Medien verändert hat. Im Projekt wird unter Anderem analysiert, ob und wie Parteien und Politiker:innen ihre Online-Beteiligung nutzen, um das Verhalten der Bürger:innen zu beeinflussen.

Unsere Gäste Die Global Solutions Initiative ist ein global orientiertes Institut, das aus einem Netzwerk weltbekannter Think Tanks besteht. Er schlägt politische Antworten auf die großen globalen Probleme vor, die von den G20, den G7 und anderen Foren der globalen Governance angegangen werden. Mit Katharina und Christoph spreche ich unter anderem über forschungsbasierte Politikberatung, globales Agenda-Setting und wie wir Wohlstand neu definieren können. https://www.global-solutions-initiative.org/

Jordana Zeldin is the Founder and Sales Coach at Spriing Training. In this episode, Jordana digs into discovery and her D.I.S.A.R.M. agenda-setting framework. It's a killer way to disarm your prospects and get the discovery call started on the right foot. Connect with Jordana on LinkedIn here and Spriing Training here. Resources mentioned in the episode: Show Notes Page  Here are three more ways to get help with your prospecting: Our best bite-sized content. Want my best LinkedIn posts, podcasts, and webinars? Stuff you can implement in 10-15 minutes or less? Look no further. Outbound Squad. A program for reps who crave accountability, structure, and results over theory. If you hate hitting plateaus in your sales career, check it out. Accelerator. Give your team hands-on training and coaching to overcome call reluctance, build meaningful relationships with prospects, and land more meetings through their cold outreach.

The Cynic Weekly for the next few weeks will showcase the content that goes out on our subscription service.Today we present 'The Agenda' which was recorded on Monday 31.05.2021 at midday and released straight after. It records every Monday.Welcome to The Agenda – Setting the scene for your week in the world of The Cynic and Celtic.We break down The Cynic schedule for the upcoming week and what you can expect.We discuss the fallout from Friday night and the news that Eddie Howe will not be the Celtic manager. We look at the timeline of events and the reasoning given from both sides. Ange Postecoglu is then discussed at length.

Die Podcastin kontrovers: Isabel Rohner und Regula Stämpfli über Annalena Baerbock, Medien, Kandidaturen, Schauspielende, Agenda Setting, Kritik & digitale Verleumdungsmaschinen. Die Rohnerin führt ins Thema Kanzlerinnen-Kandidatur ein: Personalentscheidungen bei Union und Grünen. Konkret zu Annalena Baerbock und Robert Habeck, die gemeinsam verkündeten, dass Baerbock die erste grüne Kanzlerinkandidatin wird. Medienbeobachtung von der Rohnerin: 1. Hätten sich zwei Frauen einigen müssen, wäre die Nr. ZWEI NIE so ein Thema gewesen. 2. In der Berichterstattung über die grüne Entscheidung schwang - bewusst oder unbewusst - eine Gönnerhaftigkeit mit: Baerbocks Erfolg wurde über Habeck definiert. So hieß es in den Medien, er habe ihr "die Bühne überlassen", er habe "Macht abgegeben", er habe "verzichtet". Verzichten kann man allerdings nur, wenn man selber einen Anspruch auf eben eine Sache hat. 3. Leerstellen von Sprache und die Gefahr, in übliche Denk- oder Sprachmuster zu verfallen. Übel die Nachfragen im ZEIT-Interview mit Robert Habeck: "Kann eine Nummer 1 eine Nummer 2 werden" oder ob Annalena Baerbock "das Maskottchen des grünen Wahlkampfes" sei.Die Podcastin stimmt überein: Rollen umkehren. Frauen keine Fragen stellen, die Männer nicht auch gestellt werden. Dann heftige Diskussion von Isabel Rohner und Regula Stämpfli über die Schauspielende-Aktion #allesdichtmachen, die auf TWITTER mit #allesschlichtmachen beantwortet wurde. laStaempfli entnervt und mit klarer Positionierung zur Kritik als Parrhesia: Der Zeitgeschichte ist der Mut, die Fähigkeit und auch die Auseinandersetzung mit echter Kritik, d.h. an die Wurzeln gehende Kritik, abhanden gekommen. Rohnerin findet das überhaupt nicht: Die Aktion sei zynisch, verfehlt und führe ins Leere. Die Podcastin stimmt überein, dass sie in dieser Frage mehr als geteilt ist

The latest Cabinet reshuffle sees several women elevated to the highest ranks in government and the establishment of a women's taskforce. But will it leave women doing the heavy lifting? David Crowe, the chief political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, joins Fran and PK.

In this special episode-a look at Agenda Setting Theory. This podcast is taken from one of my college lectures that discusses the impact of this important mass media theory. Take a listen.

Este fue el segmento semanal del programa "Hoy Mismo" con José Elías Torres por WPAB 550 AM PONCE:. Agenda setting theory – teoría de establecer la agenda temática, aplicado a los temas de los turistas desordenados, el aniversario de la pandemia y la controversia entre El Nuevo Día y la senadora de Proyecto Dignidad en torno a las terapias de conversión. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/sandrarodriguezcotto/support

Week 5 (Mar 1) of COMM 226 - The Social Impact of Mass Media This episode covers the theory of Agenda Setting and if, how, and why news media decide which stories are newsworthy and important. With instructor Stephen Warren

In this episode, I discuss three topics related to the media and crime. First, I explore how the news and entertainment media directly effect crime by examining the Great Aggression Model and the Rudder Theory (including copycat criminals). Next I talk about bias in crime reporting, both racial and political. Lastly, I speak to how the media influences criminal justice policy and reform through tactics such as agenda setting and priming, all in an attempt to move forward a political agenda. Sources for this episode: Beale, S. (2006). The News Media's Influence on Criminal Justice Policy: How Market-Driven News Promotes Punitiveness. William and Mary Law Review. *Curiel, R., Cresci, S., Muntean, C., Bishop, S. (2020). Crime and its fear in social media. Palgrave Communications. *Eisen, L, Roeder, O. (2015). America's Faulty Perception of Crime Rates. Brennan Center for Justice. *Ghandoosh, N. (2014). Race and Punishment: Racial Perceptions of Crime and Support for Punative Policies. The Sentencing Project. *Guy, F. (2018). The Columbine Effect and Mass School Shootings.Crime Traveler. Holbrook, R., Hill, T. (2006). Agenda-Setting and Priming in Prime Time Television: Crime Dramas as Political Cues. Political Communication, 22(3), 277-295.  Ifill, G. (1992). The 1992 Campaign: The Democrats; Clinton, in Houston Speech, Assails Bush on Crime. The New York Times. *Lynch, P. (2020). 5 Notorious Copycat Killers in the 20th Century. History Collection. Olasov, I. (2016). Offensive Political Dog-Whistles: You know them when you hear them. Or do you? Vox. *Pew, A., Goldbeck, A., Halsted, C., Zuckerman, D. (2020). Does Media Coverage Inspire Copy Cat Mass Shootings? National Center for Health Research. *Relman, E. (2018). These are the most and least biased new outlets in the US, according to Americans. Business Insider. *Rios, V., Ferguson, C. (2018). News media coverage of crime and violent drug crime. A case for cause of catalyst. Justice Quarterly. Forthcoming. Werner, E. (2015). Media Effects on Attitudes Towards Criminal Justice System. Undergraduate Honors Thesis. *Withers, R. (2018). George H.W. Bush's “Willie Horton” ad will always be the reference point for dog-whistle racism. Vox. **I ran out of characters in the description to put the web addresses for the sources. If you would like any of the websites from the above sources, please email me at crisisofcrime@gmail.com and I will send them to you. Thanks! 

E.J. is joined by special guest host Bryan Jones, director of the Policy Agendas Project. They interview three undergraduate J.J. Pickle Research Fellows, Krysta Kilinski, Matt Maldonado, and Chloe Slusher, about their research and experience working with the Policy Agendas Project. Krysta examines if polarization is caused by the replacement of old members of Congress, or adaptation by existing members. Matt examines how problems first appear in party platforms before moving to State of the Union addresses and Congressional hearings. Chloe examines how the Supreme Court's agenda reacted to the build-up of the federal bureaucracy.