Published: 5/24/2020 6:40:04 AM
I love watching sports and I really miss it during the pandemic. It’s not just the games themselves, but I also miss sports commentary because I believe it gives us a model of what a proper discussion or debate should look like.
When live sports comes back, take a moment to watch a sports talk show and look for these three factors that make for a healthy discourse: 1) there are almost no disputes about what the facts are, 2) they make logical, well-evidenced arguments, and 3) there may be some good-natured ribbing, but they don’t engage in character attacks.
Organized sports leagues have gone to great lengths to make sure we get the facts right during the game. There are umpires, officials and referees, and over the years we’ve added tools like instant replay or the cyclops in tennis (which makes sure we get line calls correct – think about how much angst that would have saved John McEnroe).
In addition to making sure we get the calls right during the game, the facts about the game are communicated to the public without spin. Whether you tune in to ESPN, NBC or Fox, you will hear the same facts. If one network reports that the home team has won seven of its last eight games at home, you won’t likely see another network contradicting that information. The sports world is a place where facts matter and are largely not in dispute.
When sports commentators debate issues, they are logical and use evidence. In judging who is the best all-time player at a position, one commentator may argue that it’s about individual statistics and cite those. Another might argue that winning championships is the most important factor and then give information about that. They are not fighting over what the facts are. It is an ideological discussion about how the agreed-upon facts should be weighted or interpreted. Although at times the discussion might be a little heated (Charles Barkley and Shaquille O’Neal, for example), generally the discourse is respectful, and I’ve never seen a sports commentator resort to attacking the character of another commentator.
Well, this is supposed to be a civics article, so I bet you know where I’m going with this. I believe that our political discourse needs to be more like our sports discourse. Let’s look at the three factors as they apply to politics.
We used to have facts that were largely agreed upon in politics. We would watch Edward R. Murrow, sometimes referred to as “the most trusted man in America” or hear Walter Cronkite end the news with “and that’s the way it is.” In the mid- to late 20th century, reporting still focused largely on just getting the facts to the people.
Today, it is much more difficult for Americans to know what the facts are. The line between a news program and entertainment has blurred.
For example, Sean Hannity’s show is often at the top of the television ratings, but his intent is not to be Edward R. Murrow. He has said, “I’m not a journalist, I’m a talk-show host.” In the heyday of the Daily Show when John Stewart was hosting, a high percentage of people said that this is where they got their news. However, back in 2015 when Stewart was on Crossfire, then hosted by Tucker Carlson, Carlson questioned how tough Stewart was being on Democratic guests. Stewart pointed out that he is not a newsman but rather a comedian, saying to Carlson, “You’re on CNN. The show leading into me is puppets making crank phone calls.” Even though Hannity, Stewart and others like them would not identify themselves as journalists, many Americans identify them as a prime source for their news.
Even worse, there are fringe groups that are intentionally misinforming people. Here are the No. 1 and 2 most viewed false articles on Facebook in 2019, according to Business Insider (by the way, we are talking about millions of views): 1) “Trump’s grandfather was a pimp and tax evader; his father a member of the KKK,” and 2) “Nancy Pelosi diverting Social Security money for the impeachment inquiry.” The whole purpose of this type of “reporting” is to sway public opinion with lies or in other instances to try to make the facts unclear when the facts don’t suit their narrative.
In addition, modern leaders and their spokespeople have moved away from evidence-based argument and have leaned into spinning the facts as a primary tactic. Even when we have clear records from nonpartisan agencies, photographs, or audio or video recordings, we still have disputes about the crowd size at the inauguration in 2016 or more recently whether COVID-19 testing is actually available to everyone. Kelly Anne Conway even made the unfortunate comment that she had “alternative facts.” Often, for our leaders, the goal is not to convince using evidence-based argument, it is to stay on message and win the news cycle.
When our leaders are not fighting over what the facts are, they often turn to character attacks.
According to theconversation.com, “Between 1952 and 2008, 31% of the general election ads were character-based. In 2016, character ads made up 76% of the television campaign ads from the general election.” Most of us probably remember a lot of name-calling during the 2016 campaign (“deplorable,” “nasty”), but probably not a lot of substantive, evidence-based discussion of issues.
When discussing how we respond to COVID-19, taxes, environmental policy or other consequential political issues, shouldn’t the quality of the discussion be at least as good as when we debate who was the greatest shortstop of all time or who will win the game this coming weekend?
(Dan Marcus teaches Civics at John Stark Regional High School. He lives in Concord.)
No comments:
Post a Comment