The Other Side

I’ve been thinking a great deal about “the other side.” We ask ourselves, “How can people support them? What could they be thinking? What horrible people!” This line of thinking is not helpful or healthy. It just creates distance and distaste. 

No, I am not going to follow that up with an “of course.” Discounting people’s skepticism or distrust of authority does not move any conversation forward. I always want my students to think critically and to analyze information through multiple lenses. Use of those lenses often makes discussion and argument more complex. But our time is one of complexity; simplifying these issues and attitudes got us into this trouble in the first place. 

I keep having an imaginary conversation with someone who sees politics and our country’s current situation very differently than I do. How would such a conversation go? The models online are not helpful. They are entrenchments and trolling. Changing someone’s mind online has become a sour joke. 

So one approach might be: how can we better understand each other? Can we discover places where we are in agreement? Where do we share concerns? 

What if the goal, instead of trying to convince, trap, or trump was to discover, learn, and understand. What if the whole “I am going to get you to join my party and vote differently in the next election” thing was dismissed and, instead, the goal was: can I leave with a more clear understanding of where we agree, where we disagree, and why? 

Would that help make the conversation less shrill? That is another aspect of this division. Defenses and dukes are up, ears are closed, and civility is at a premium. The entire situation reminds me of fights on the middle school playfield. 

How would such a conversation take place? We have divided ourselves into siloed echo chambers, online and off. We “unfriend” people who disagree with us or post things that make us uncomfortable. We socialize with people who either share our views or, if they do not, don’t bring up sensitive topics. We’ll talk sex, money, and religion before we talk politics. 

If such conversations were to happen, how would we keep it polite and focused on understanding? It would have to be small. You don’t have to yell if there is no crowd to yell over. The us vs. them mentality of the sports arena is less likely to develop at a table of four. We do have to keep it from developing. 

There would have to be some simple ground rules that would probably parallel the structure of negotiations or business meetings: no interrupting, use of reflective listening, focus on subjects instead of personal attacks, making sure that each contribution clearly connects to the ones before it, and so on. 

So if we got one or two Democrats and Republicans, supporters of different candidates, and sat down, would we be able to do this with some practice and assistance? 

Yeah, I am thinking that, too: so what? So we sit down and learn more about each other. Might that drive us further apart? Might that horrify us? Might that turn our neighbors into monsters? 

Perhaps. 

But perhaps it might humanize them. Perhaps it might let us understand what others value and how those values translate into political ideas and action. Perhaps it would help us relearn how to civilly disagree and encourage us to build bridges instead of moats. 

We desperately need this right now. I don’t think any political leaders have the ability or foresight to make something like this happen. Their thinking is too polar and partisan. 

So it is up to us. Can we learn about each other? Can we reach across the divide, the aisle, the difference? If we insist on playing winner take all, we lose all. If we take another approach, we could increase the odds of all of us winning. 

Do we really want more of this? Are we willing to stop yelling at our televisions and start talking to each other? 

It turns out that there are organizations working to do this! Recently, a friend emailed me about the American Exchange Program, which puts students from different backgrounds, areas of the country, and points of view in touch with each other. This story from the PBS News Hour provides several other groups who connect adults. 

I encourage you to view the news story (it is also embedded on this page). I have read about some of these organizations. It is time to do more than bemoan the divided nature of our country. It is time to reach across the divide, aisle, and mile – and begin to really unify our country again. 

In Search of Media Integrity: What About Openly Affirming It?

We need a news source for everyone! 

Remember when there was a rule that, if a news story quoted one point of view, they had to provide the opposing viewpoint? The Fairness Doctrine was a rule from the Federal Communications Commission that stated that, if an organization is using a publicly held resource, the airwaves, to share news, that news must be “honest, equitable, and balanced.” 

Cable TV and relaxed regulations made the Fairness Doctrine a thing of the past. Suddenly, every point of view had a news source that was the opposite: unbalanced, biased, and sometimes stretching the truth beyond recognition. Spin and news were indistinguishable. 

Newspapers have frequently been allied with specific political points of view, but these leanings were only supposed to be seen in their editorials and opinion sections. The goal for their news stories was to be as factual and unbiased as possible.

We know that there is a limit to news neutrality. Students studying to become journalists learn about the myth of objective journalism. There are too many factors that can taint objectivity and a writer’s choices about which points of view to share may not be complete. 

Add to this the attempt of strong forces to purposely spread disinformation. Beyond advertisement and opinion, our recent elections have been plagued by powerful forces, both inside and outside the United States, creating propaganda that attempted to change people’s voting behavior. 

If voters can’t figure out what is true, how can they make good choices? If voters rely on sources that have specific agendas or points of view, a feedback loop is created that prevents growth, learning, and change. If voters are overwhelmed by so many different versions of the news, they may retreat to a mindset of choosing which is most comforting or consistent with their points of view rather than making a careful evaluation of the facts. 

Facts are the issue here. What are the facts? Over and over, we hear people debating if something is factual and often the response is, “I don’t believe that.” A fact is true regardless of any person’s belief in it. Denial of fact is not debate, but delusion. 

So how do we know what is factual? Therein lies the rub! 

At first, I was going to suggest a Wikipedia style crowd-sourced and checked news source. This way, all the interests would have the ability to both be represented and a reader could look at them side by side. 

Aside from articles becoming too long to digest, this idea also requires the creation of another news source and that news source has to reach people. There might be a way to achieve the same goal with our current media outlets. 

Instead, could we create a clear statement of integrity that news sources could endorse, a kind of pact or promise? A media source that signed on with this promise would be saying that the news they presented followed a set of ethical guidelines; it would be a kind of commandments of fair media. 

One doesn’t have to look far to find such a set of values. The Society of Professional Journalists  (https://www.spj.org/) publishes a code of journalistic ethics (https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). In it, they state that 

“Journalists should: 

• Take responsibility for the accuracy of their work. Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible.
• Remember that neither speed nor format excuses inaccuracy.
• Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.
• Gather, update and correct information throughout the life of a news story.
• Be cautious when making promises, but keep the promises they make.
• Identify sources clearly. The public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of sources.
• Consider sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Explain why anonymity was granted.
• Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
• Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information unless traditional, open methods will not yield information vital to the public.
• Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
• Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
• Recognize a special obligation to serve as watchdogs over public affairs and government. Seek to ensure that the public’s business is conducted in the open, and that public records are open to all.
• Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.
• Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
• Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.
• Label advocacy and commentary.
• Never deliberately distort facts or context, including visual information. Clearly label illustrations and re-enactments.
• Never plagiarize. Always attribute.
• Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.
• Show compassion for those who may be affected by news coverage. Use heightened sensitivity when dealing with juveniles, victims of sex crimes, and sources or subjects who are inexperienced or unable to give consent. Consider cultural differences in approach and treatment.
• Recognize that legal access to information differs from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast.
• Realize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than public figures and others who seek power, influence or attention. Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.
• Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity, even if others do.
• Balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.
• Consider the long-term implications of the extended reach and permanence of publication. Provide updated and more complete information as appropriate.
• Act Independently
• Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
• Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; do not pay for access to news. Identify content provided by outside sources, whether paid or not.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage.
• Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content.
• Be Accountable and Transparent
• Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
• Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.
• Acknowledge mistakes and correct them promptly and prominently. Explain corrections and clarifications carefully and clearly.
• Expose unethical conduct in journalism, including within their organizations.
• Abide by the same high standards they expect of others.” 

How would voters find out if their news source were trustworthy? The news source would openly state that it agrees to abide by this universal code of journalistic ethics. If a news source did not make this promise, that, too, would be a message. Much like the UL logo on a product says that Underwriters Laboratories’ tests have found it safe to use, we would know we could trust a media outlet’s promise of integrity because we would clearly know what that means. 

And if a media outlet violated this code? Well, that would be a news story for other sources to carry. 

Reading For Treasure: I Miss The Good Place

Reading for Treasure is my list of articles that are worth your attention. Click here for an introduction!

It’s been a year without The Good Place and I miss it. The finale rightfully won the Hugo award in December and that made me miss it even more. The tone and ideas of this show are a balm for the daily news.  If you haven’t tried it, I hope these articles will persuade you to watch it!  Yes, there are spoilers below, but this show can handle that. Here are some articles, all from a year ago, extolling, examining, and explaining this magnificent series.

The Atlantic wrote many articles about The Good Place. Here are three of the best: 

“The Good Place Was a Metaphor All Along” which discusses the way this show reflected back upon itself and commented on television and even attempted to better its audience. 

The second article, “The Most Optimistic Show on TV is Over” talks about how “The Good Place has spent four seasons asking weighty questions about the vexing condition of being alive: Can human beings become better? If so, how, and what does that even mean?” 

The third article, although titled, “The Good Place Felt Bad in the End”, really delves into the meaning behind the end of the series and wrestles with some wonderful and meaty questions. 

“How the Good Place Redefines Soul Mates” from Syfy Wire is a great description of the power of this series. It spells out some of the wonderful aspects that make this show far more than a simple sitcom. Warning: this article has some serious spoils, so don’t read it until you’ve finished the series.  

“The Good Place Became the Last Great Sitcom on Network TV By Daring its Audience to Be Better” in Time Magazine is a wonderful testimonial to the power of this program. 

Finally, Tor.com had a wonderful recap and tribute to the series, “What We Owe to Each Other Is to Talk About The Good Place’s Finale” which quickly summarizes some of the shows best moments and accomplishments. 

I am currently reading A History of What Comes Next By Sylvian Neuvel