The dominating news story today is the plight of the "Big 3" U.S. automakers and whether or not Congress will pass a $25 billion dollar bailout package to "rescue" the industry. After watching yesterday’s testimony on C-SPAN for over two hours, I have come to one definitive conclusion based on what I have seen.

Don’t do this! Don’t do this! Don’t do this!

Believe it or not, I am not talking about the bailout itself. This forum is about communications and messaging, and I watched executives supposedly fighting for their lives and the lives of their respective companies make severe communications and messaging errors that EVERY person can learn from.

Lesson #1 - I apologize for being repetitive, but ALWAYS remember, YOU are the message. I am still amazed that as all 3 Chairmen came to Washington, hat in hand, pleading poverty and renewed fiscal austerity, each independently decided it was a good idea to take a PRIVATE CORPORATE PLANE for the trip for Detroit to D.C.

Let me put this in context for a small business owner — do you think it would be a good idea, if you were nearly bankrupt, to drive over to your neighborhood bank in a Rolls Royce to plead for a loan? It is astounding that not one of the three Chairmen thought that maybe, just maybe, taking a commercial flight might be a better move. Scary.

Lesson #2 - If you are presenting on a subject, any subject, you MUST be able to answer basic questions. That means at the minimum a practice session with your staff where you are asked questions that are likely to come up.

Senator Menendez (D-NJ) asked the witnesses a very basic question. Where did the $25 billion dollar figure come from? No real answers. He asked again. Again, no real answers. This happened time and again with basic questions. The Senate Democrats are on record as being fairly supportive of a bailout concept. It is unbelievable that the executives present could not answer basic questions justifying their request. One day of preparation would have at least allowed answering basic questions.

Lesson #3 - If you say a lot of different things, you say nothing. If you are making a request, you must have a central message. There was no central message at this hearing, other than "we need money or people will lose their jobs." Even that might have been able to be transformed into a message if the very basic question - If we give you the money, to what (exact) degree does this ensure against layoffs?

Lesson #4 - If you are debating in a situation where you have a team of four like-minded individuals, it is a good idea to prepare together so that you are sending the same message. The testimony given in opposition to the bailout was from a University of Maryland economist, and he seemed to flummox the other witnesses on a regular basis.

Lesson #5 - Get professional communications training. When you are on an international stage, everything you say and do, whether verbal or non verbal, sends a message. There will be a future post analyzing the verbal and non verbal signals and messages sent, both positive and negative, in the near future. One word to the wise — directly reading testimony, especially when asking for something, is not a good idea. Only two things make it worse — not having written the testimony yourself, and not practicing.

My message to the Big 3 over the coming weeks: A lot of damage has been done to your cause, much self-inflicted. Get on the same page, define a singular message, practice articulating that message, practice answering any and all questions (you now have the benefit of knowing what the majority of them will be going forward) and most importantly, be able to clearly, articulately define what the $25 billion will buy — and fly commercial!

A cardinal rule of proper etiquette is “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing.” While this is also a cardinal rule of communications, it can be taken one step further — “If you have nothing to say, say nothing!”

With the absence of a contested election, there appears to be a temporary void in subject matter for Cable TV hosts. Last evening, virtually every cable outlet had a “body language expert” on to analyze the photo-op (reporters were not allowed it the actual meeting) between the President-elect and the soon-to-be former President.

This was not in and of itself an issue. The issue is the fact that there were no “hidden signs” or “hidden messages” being delivered, and the time would have been better utilized doing anything else, including describing what really occurred non-verbally, and that was an act of leadership.

What everyone witnessed was two very proud men, both members of an exclusive club (only 44 in history!), one whose political career to drawing to a close, and one whose political career is on the serious upswing. The race was bitter, there were harsh words, and the President-elect spent a great deal of time campaigning against the current President.

Did all of these “experts” expect a, “aww shucks, no hard feelings” routine? Or maybe a fist-fight?

From a communications standpoint, what we all witnessed were two men making lemonade out of lemons. It was obviously not an overly comfortable situation for either man, and they both put on their best face and did a fine job putting personal differences aside to prevent further polarizing the country.