Categories
culture

Public Journalism


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

After an entire book showing the disappointing aspects of what effects we are seeing in our society from journalism it was bittsweet to read about the push toward a more constructive approach to journalism called public journalism. (The bitter being that this was written in the mid 1990’s and things seem no better – if not worse – now than they were then.) The essence of public journalism is encapsulated in the idea that the media organizations embrace the reality that they are not imply observers and reporters in society, but also participants. It is the admission that what they do matters and makes a difference. The controversy come through differing views on what it means to participate positively. Those who misunderstand the idea of public journalism might easily interpret that proactive stance as meddling by the media. On the other hand, defenders of the idea view this approach as the best form of journalism because the approach is no longer apathetic about the effects that come from the reporting that they do.

Personally I can see the objections to the idea of active meddling but I feel that objection is misplaced. Even the best reporters and news organizations will have biases in what they cover and how they cover things. Most observers can see this easily, but anyone who is serious about using the news will be better able to compensate for those biases when those biases are not hidden by an exaggerated guise of objectivity. The best in journalism would acknowledge the perspective that the reporter or organization subscribes to but would also report facts that disagree with their perspective. Not only that, but they would seek to develop their perspectives in accordance with the facts that they are able to find. If they are actively seeking to make a positive impact in their community they would find it beneficial to go beyond the easy reporting and dig into the facts that are not so easily obtained.

I found the description of the efforts of various papers around the country to actively engage citizens in the process of developing public policy and exploring social issues in their areas to be encouraging. Sadly I see no evidence that those efforts have continued to develop inthe years since this was written. Perhaps that is a result of where I am, or perhaps the movement has lost its momentum. I hope it is only the first option.

Categories
culture

Lippmann vs Dewey


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

In his final chapter, James Fallows introduces the argument between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey that took place through their writings in the 1920’s regarding what constituted the most desirable form of representative government. I would like to read more of their original writing, but for now let me react to what Fallows has covered.

Lippmann argued that the world was too large and complex to allow for an expectation that the common citizen could be sufficiently informed to make wise decisions on many policy issues. Government, with it’s ability to draw upon the knowledge of experts should therefore have a relatively free hand in creating the policies that would best serve the nation. The extension to this attitude was that the journalist was expected to play the role of expert in explaining the expert government actions to the people.

Dewey argued that without a healthy democratic process no government could be expected to consistently make wise choices for the nation, no matter how much expert information they had available to them. The implications of this would be that the journalist should play the role of examiner and fact finder (as should the elected official), but that the decision should generally play out in the court of public opinion.

The arguments of Lippmann certainly are accurate in describing the complexity of the world – a world that is even more complex when it is not tempered by the moderating influence of broad democratic participation based on broadly disseminated information. However, my own biases have me leaning in favor of the perspective of Dewey that the very process of public democracy has benefits which we cannot afford to set aside.

Journalists have a special role in society in that they have the opportunity to study an issue and dig beneath the surface to examine the realities that escape the surface understanding of that issue. I believe the real problem lies in cases where a journalist, acting as an expert, not only tells their readers what they believe, but fails to report facts contrary to their own beliefs thus preventing the consumers from making an informed choice.

Does anyone else know more about Dewey or Lippmann?

Categories
life

Pursuit of Liberty Forum


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Maybe I should call this a "pre-announcement" but I wanted to let everyone know that I am setting up a forum where anyone who is interested in talking politics is welcome to help shape my political thinking. The forum exists but will be taking real shape as I have time to shape it to meet my needs. I will have forums based on the governments over me and will not object if others want to create forums for other states, counties, cities, etc. I also plan to have forums on specific topics where we discuss the topic independent of a specific political entity. Feel free to register now.

I would heartily encourage anyone who reads and comments here to participate and help me shape my perspectives on issues I have not, and in some cases will not end up writing about on this blog. I admit that I start this with the selfish aim of taking advantage of the wisdom of this crowd, but I hope that it can become a useful resource for other as well. I will be encouraging people to participate here from groups that I get involved with such as a party or a citizens group (I hope to be involved in more such groups as I was before I moved).

Categories
life meta

Speaking My Native Language


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I have always tried to maintain a very civilized and respectful tone here when discussing issues that are sometimes charged with emotion in the public arena. I have been reading the book Why We Whisper and I began to recognize that my efforts to be civil had resulted in my speaking a dialect that is not native to me – secularism. I recognize that my effort not to shout had resulted in a timid whispering of my opinions for which I would not like to be known. The result is that my declared stances are weakened by an often apologetic tone when I take a position on some issues. I have determined that I can no longer do that. From now on I will be more willing to state my positions without apology and without an effort to articulate my position using secular terminology.

I still intend to be civil in manner, but by abandoning the secular terminology I will not avoid taking positions that are considered politically incorrect. As I have in the past, I will still be open to changing my positions in the future when I have been convinced of an error but I will try to avoid situations where people might mistake my true position based on my whispered stances and open declarations of uncertainty.

I appologize in advance to any of my readers who might perceive my writing as becoming more partisan than it has been in the past. I don’t know where this will take me, but I know that I cannot bear to think of myself as one who whispers the truth as if I am afraid to offend anyone or afraid that my positions may come back to haunt me in the future.

In addition to this change to a less wavering voice, I have also determined that it is time for me to find a party to affilite with in order to become more engaged in the political process as a participant rather than just as a pundit. I am still in the process of deciding what party would most closely align with my goals because I intend to make a difference in shaping the way we actually conduct the business of government. I do not intend to participate only in order to say that "I’m a delegate" (or whatever level of participation I actually  achieve). In other words, if I were a delegate, I would be active in shaping the party platform and holding elected officials accountable to that platform not simply attending and casting a vote at the convention.

Categories
culture life meta State

Make “the Silent” a Minority


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Recently my niece approached me to ask questions about politics. She’s a young teenager, years short of being able to vote, but she wants to become informed and involved so that she could positively participate by the time she can vote. The conversation served as a reminder to me of how important it is for our young people to be able to obtain information on political issues that is not tainted by the rancor that often pervades political discussions. In other words we need a clearinghouse for civil civic conversation. I decided that I wanted to form an organization that would work for that purpose.

When I read the plea at Ladies Logic regarding our atrocious levels of participation in Utah (and remembered my own pleas to encourage greater levels of participation here), I realized that the time to act was now and that the need was not only for our youth who are approaching or recently passing the age where they can vote but also for every citizen who can’t bring themselves to really participate in the dirty game of politics – many of whom simply stay out of the discussion and vote without becoming well informed on the issues. We need to reach “the silent majority.”

The group I will be forming will be open to, even encouraging of, participation by people of all political perspectives. The only requirement for participation is a commitment to avoid the playground politics of name calling and guilt by association. The aim of the group will be to draw people out of the silent majority until the silent become the minority by fostering civil dialog between people of differing perspectives. We will not aim to come to a consensus except the consensus that wider participation is better than narrower participation. I would like the group to seek to engage other group members in public discussion of issues so that people who have been silent will have a chance to be exposed to various positions on important issues without the likelyhood of being personally insulted by those who disagree with them. I also would like the group, individually and collectively, to engage in discussing issues with candidates for office and elected officials with an emphasis on local candidates and officials and a balance of local, state, and national issues.

In addition to my own energy, and knowledge I need the energy and experience of others who can help me to spread the word, engage effectively with public officials, organize group efforts, and generate ideas to further these aims.

I would ask anyone who believes in the importance of broad political participation, especially if you are in Utah, to please contact me publicly or privately to help me get this off the ground. Leave me comments or drop me an email if you have interest in participating, ideas about what can and should be done, or if you know of people who could help me in this.

Categories
culture

Put in the Effort


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Maybe I’m just reacting to the tone of the article suggesting that Twitter is taking the place of blogging among elected officials in Utah (and elsewhere) but this quote by Ric Cantrell says it all:

”Maybe this is a sign of the times, but blogging got to be too tedious,” said Ric Cantrell, chief deputy of the Utah Senate, who blogs and uses Twitter on behalf of the Republican majority.

I’m sure that Ric’s view is much more nuanced than those 15 words, but it’s easy for people to get enamored wtih twitter and forget how limited 140 characters can be. Twitter has little if any effectiveness in substantive discussion – that’s where blogs can be a useful means of communication between people. For simple updates I have no problem with the use of Twitter.

Categories
culture

Cultural Vacuum


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I got thinking after Carl asked why I don’t talk about how the government should be focused on supporting the family. Carl is absolutely right that the no-such-thing-as-standard modern family is at the root of all of our social problems. What I have been realizing as I have thought about how we can support the family as the social unit where values that lead to good citizenship and productive adulthood can be fostered is that we have created a Catch-22 for ourselves.

Carl wants to know how government can be used to support the family structure while I contend that only family can support and improve the family structure. As I tried to consider how we might go about removing government from meddling in family matters I realized that doing so would create a vacuum in our social structure because of how much we have come to depend on the government to lend any value to the family concept. Couples get married often for little other reason than to procure the legal or material benefits of marriage conferred by the government. Among the fundamental purposes of families is to provide an environment where children can be taught those skills which are necessary to make them into healthy and productive adults. (Productive being defined as having something to contribute to society.) We have turned over the responsibility for educating our children to the government on an almost universal scale. At the elementary level of education we have developed an opt-out model that is compulsory (you can’t simply opt-out, you must opt out on terms that the educational establishment has agreed to). In higher education the majority of institutions are state funded and state run. Even at private institutions, the largest individual source of funding for students is provided by the government in the form of grants and loans.

The more we receive from the government the more we begin to expect and demand from the government. The more we rely on the government the less we feel inclined to support and be supported by our families. As the government has come to provide all the necessities of health and retirement benefits for the elderly there has been less incentive for children to take any responsibility to care for their aging parents. On the other end, since the government is fully integrated in the family structure and responsible to provide the education, and fill the time of the children through school in place of parents, it becomes more and more common for children to abandon their families, through emancipation or by simply running away, before they are ready and able to take full responsibility for their own care.

As I write I realize that the solution is simple, though difficult. The solution is for families to shoulder the burden of responsibility for educating their children. This does not mean that they cannot have their children in public schools (although to a degree that adds some inherent difficulty to the process) but it does mean that they accept that they are the final authority on what should be taught and they must be willing to fill in the inevitable gaps in any education received outside the home. Besides taking back the responsibility for educating their children, families must also teach their children to demand less from their government – this is one gap that will always be present in a public school education. As each generation takes more of the responsibilities back from the government which naturally devolve to the family the government will have to shrink and the family will once again regain its rightful place in society.

If this practice of families bringing family responsibilities back inside the home were widespread for two generations we would once again have a limited government that provided the protections, structure, and services that had been outlined in the Constitution and we would have a healthy society that would be less prone to the excesses and instability that we see in our nation today.

Categories
culture meta State

Public Discussion


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Obi wan Liberali recently asked others if he was considered liberal. Apparently some of his liberal friends thought he was not liberal enough because he is not inflammatory. The discussion that followed in the comments got me thinking about different sites that I have visited and my perceptions. I try to follow sites across the spectrum of political thinking. In doing so I have found some sites (liberal and conservative) where I cannot bring myself to follow closely. In my case, most of the ones I avoid are liberal. I suspect that a reasonable liberal, such as Obi wan, would find that there are more conservative sites he cannot bring himself to follow closely (I am not suggesting that he does, or should, read across the spectrum – only guessing about what I would find if I were liberal like him). That got me thinking that public discourse could be measured along two axis – liberal/conservative and reasonable/unreasonable.

I believe that reasonable discussants find it easy to read other reasonable discussants across the spectrum and less than reasonable discussants who match up with them ideologically. I also believe that unreasonable discussants provide fuel to other unreasonable discussants who are ideologically opposed to them. In other words it is probably fairly easy to follow those in adjacent quadrants, but unreasonable contributors tend to drive away reasonable contributors who are ideologically opposed to them. (Reasonable contributors probably bore unreasonable contributors who are ideologically opposed to them.)

It’s time for another grid:

I have tried to depict who would be alienated by a person who fell at various positions on the grid. For each dot, those on the other side of the line matching the color of the dot would be alienated (according to my theory).

By way of experiment, I am cross posting this at One Utah to see how the discussion differs since that site attracts a very different set of commentors.

Categories
General

The Wide Middle


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I just discovered The Wide Middle today and I think that the concept of “open source public policy” is an example of how more political discourse ought to take place – based on the assumption that we agree on more things than we disagree on and that we can find solutions where we identify problems. I hope that the discussion takes off – I certainly plan to contribute where I can.

Categories
culture

A New Birth of Freedom


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

How do we rekindle the flame of liberty in the heart of all American citizens?

I have been thinking about that question. It continues to disturb me that high turnout in an election approaches 50% participation. That is evidence of the disengagement that indicates a passive (or absent) desire for freedom unlike the active desires of Americans at the founding of our nation. I have said before that I would be happy with the outcome of any election where turnout topped 70%.

As this has been churning through my mind trying to come to some approach to the question, I started doing some searching through the things I have written before. Most powerfully I found my Independence Day post from last year quoting American by Choice that “true American citizens are made and not born” and that “Americans, both natural and naturalized, must be trained–they must be made.”

I went on to talk about how to transmit this “made” American culture through the way we celebrate our national holidays. Naturally my focus then was on the 4th of July. The more I think about it though, we should be celebrating our American culture by participation in the rituals that made America what it is – that would be exercising our rights to vote and participate in the various levels of government.

A week later I revisited the topic after I had found a list of what could be considered the founding documents of our nation. To that list I would add the Federalist Papers which I found among my searching today. That gives me 103 documents to study and react to as I continue my search for how we make Americans so that we may experience an end to our Uncivil War and find – as Lincoln sought during our Civil War:

“. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (Gettysburg Address)