Discourse for Year 2020
John Patrick Shanley, Pulitzer Prize winning author of Doubt, is in town for the premier of the opera. He was included in a panel discussion last night. Joel Kramer, MinnPost and former Star Tribune publisher, shared the stage with Shanley and others.
Shanley recalled listening to the pre- Iraq war talk of the early part of the century. Some said there were WMD. Some said there were not. The objective words of one side were no more convincing than those of the other side. Those who said there were WMD on TV, however, spoke confidently. Those that said there were not spoke ambivalently. This was the inspiration for Shanley's play/movie/opera.
Joel Kramer, on the same stage, spoke about how conservatives doubt climate change despite scientific theory, while liberals express doubt on other subjects via an approach valuing free exchange of opinion. While he is right that hypocrisy is rampant, I have a different take than Kramer. The issue is not that people say indefensible things, it is that media rarely bothers to give the megaphone to those who would move the discussion forward.
Shanley, in his brilliance, identified what was wrong with late 1990's/early 2000's thinking. How something was said was more important than what was said. In the corporate world, Enron spoke confidently and nothing more was required of them until they could not pay their bills. America decided and big media played along with the concept that we didn't have to think through words. Instead, body language, tone and inflection would tell us all we need to know.
2010 to 2015-era thinking has shifted. America now pays attention to words. The major issue America now faces is that standing means everything. Media amplifies the talking points of advocacy organizations where the goal is impact, not truth-- good funding makes an organization credible-- and ignores the points of view of everyone else. People on a bus are generally able to come to consensus about what are the truths, what are the fictions and how to solve our problems. People on busses do not have the megaphone of media.
Joel Kramer should stop reading the press releases of whomever is writing that climate change is not real. No one who is real believes those press releases. The problem isn't conservatives or liberals. The problem is that media gives megaphones to the spokesmen of men with money who benefit financially from points of view. Often, a media outlet, itself, is a megaphone for an ultra-wealthy individual.
A college radio show is perfectly capable of discussing the issues of the day with minimal bias. I co-hosted a show from 2002-2004 and can provide audio that proves it was possible to represent a broad spectrum of views oriented toward solutions.
Americans, however, are not hearing a broad spectrum of points of view. In the 2012 presidential election, Gary Johnson received 0.99% of the vote, Jill Stein received 0.36% of the vote, and 5th place and lower received 0.45% of the vote. In the elections between 1992 to 2000, third parties received much more attention from media-- partly because Ross Perot and others spent money-- and received substantially more votes.
Here is what happens next, Joel Kramer, non-profit media publisher. Media will interview people about important topics, not because these people represent organizations or represent strategies or points of view, but just because they are people capable of independent and creative thought. The way to get past the entrenchment from liberals who believe "A" and conservatives who believe "B" is to not report garbage when that is what they are telling you. Highlight why a particular bias might be in the financial interest of that organization if you must report opinions that no one really believes. More importantly, find independent sources who will tell you "C", "D", "E" and "F". More points of view means more solutions, assuming media provides more megaphones.
Shanley recalled listening to the pre- Iraq war talk of the early part of the century. Some said there were WMD. Some said there were not. The objective words of one side were no more convincing than those of the other side. Those who said there were WMD on TV, however, spoke confidently. Those that said there were not spoke ambivalently. This was the inspiration for Shanley's play/movie/opera.
Joel Kramer, on the same stage, spoke about how conservatives doubt climate change despite scientific theory, while liberals express doubt on other subjects via an approach valuing free exchange of opinion. While he is right that hypocrisy is rampant, I have a different take than Kramer. The issue is not that people say indefensible things, it is that media rarely bothers to give the megaphone to those who would move the discussion forward.
Shanley, in his brilliance, identified what was wrong with late 1990's/early 2000's thinking. How something was said was more important than what was said. In the corporate world, Enron spoke confidently and nothing more was required of them until they could not pay their bills. America decided and big media played along with the concept that we didn't have to think through words. Instead, body language, tone and inflection would tell us all we need to know.
2010 to 2015-era thinking has shifted. America now pays attention to words. The major issue America now faces is that standing means everything. Media amplifies the talking points of advocacy organizations where the goal is impact, not truth-- good funding makes an organization credible-- and ignores the points of view of everyone else. People on a bus are generally able to come to consensus about what are the truths, what are the fictions and how to solve our problems. People on busses do not have the megaphone of media.
Joel Kramer should stop reading the press releases of whomever is writing that climate change is not real. No one who is real believes those press releases. The problem isn't conservatives or liberals. The problem is that media gives megaphones to the spokesmen of men with money who benefit financially from points of view. Often, a media outlet, itself, is a megaphone for an ultra-wealthy individual.
A college radio show is perfectly capable of discussing the issues of the day with minimal bias. I co-hosted a show from 2002-2004 and can provide audio that proves it was possible to represent a broad spectrum of views oriented toward solutions.
Americans, however, are not hearing a broad spectrum of points of view. In the 2012 presidential election, Gary Johnson received 0.99% of the vote, Jill Stein received 0.36% of the vote, and 5th place and lower received 0.45% of the vote. In the elections between 1992 to 2000, third parties received much more attention from media-- partly because Ross Perot and others spent money-- and received substantially more votes.
Here is what happens next, Joel Kramer, non-profit media publisher. Media will interview people about important topics, not because these people represent organizations or represent strategies or points of view, but just because they are people capable of independent and creative thought. The way to get past the entrenchment from liberals who believe "A" and conservatives who believe "B" is to not report garbage when that is what they are telling you. Highlight why a particular bias might be in the financial interest of that organization if you must report opinions that no one really believes. More importantly, find independent sources who will tell you "C", "D", "E" and "F". More points of view means more solutions, assuming media provides more megaphones.
Labels: Don't Vote 2016
posted by David Rasmussen at 11:23 AM
<< Home