A longtime friend sent along this article by a journalist who took training in mediation, and began to see what might be done differently in our political discussions. It references Jonathan Haidt's work, so I'm in already, but it also introduced me to the Center for Narrative and Conflict Resolution at George Mason, and the Difficult Conversations Lab at Columbia, neither of which I had heard of. It's nice to know someone's trying to unlock some secrets.
The idea that attempting to complicate the discussion rather than simplify it reduces tension seems intuitively true to me, as reality tends to be messy and complicated. Whether that actually is so you will have to find out somewhere else.
2 comments:
"Long before the 2016 election, the mainstream news media lost the trust of the public, creating an opening for misinformation and propaganda. If the purpose of journalism is to “see the public into fuller existence,” as Jay Rosen once wrote, it’s hard to conclude that we are succeeding." I suspect there are many who believe what the media prints and televises, but there are many of us who do not. As Prof. Reynolds writes, "It all makes sense if you see the media as Democrats with bylines."
I'm a bit surprised that you're not linking to / criticizing media from
the Intellectual Dark Web.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/intellectual-dark-web
Especially Jordan Peterson, who is becoming a strong anti-PC advocate of more precise yet complicated thinking and speaking.
Post a Comment