On cable news, conflict is the name of the game. The major cable networks know the ratings gold is found in the most abrasive verbal confrontation they can generate.
People love to watch one commentator “own” another. They grab those clips and repost them to social media, complete with click-bait captions.
As we observe the political and cultural conversation in this country, it’s important to remember that it’s often brought to you by people trying to make a buck by entertaining you. Not by people who are trying to fix what’s broken.
Achieving understanding and finding a path forward in a pluralistic society is not the primary goal. Generating advertising dollars is.
I found myself thinking about this during our first Legislative Town Hall on AL.com this week. The panel was comprised of four columnists whose political leanings are spread all over the spectrum. We have markedly different instincts about how to get where we think our state should go.
But our exchanges are tempered by mutual respect and recognition that we want the same thing in many ways: an Alabama where people can thrive. A state where opportunity abounds and love of neighbor is the norm.
But will people even listen to a diverse group approach public policy issues respectfully? Does anybody have the patience for civil discourse anymore?
The problem exists beyond the talking heads in partisan media. It’s in the halls of our elected bodies, too.
We more politicians than statesmen and they don’t stop spinning when election day is over. Not even close. They consistently lead conversations with accusations and innuendo. If you’re lucky, you’ll find an actual suggestion for how to make things better buried beneath the press release headlines that scream, “It’s the Other Side’s Fault. All of It.”
But not always.
Many of today’s voters don’t even require a suggestion of how to make it better. They just want to make sure you align with their loathing of the “other,” whatever it is: other party, other class, other race or ethnicity, other special interest group.
They find more fellowship, more camaraderie, in mutual disdain of the “other” than in a shared desire for something better.
I’m not suggesting that all spirited disagreement is bad. There are certainly times when it’s appropriate to put an exclamation point on the end of an exchange. But just as with good writing, you can’t end every sentence with one.
Most of the time, a period is what is called for. The heavy lifting must be done by thoughtfully chosen words.
If you’ll allow me to go all Sunday School on you: what we need is more people who do all things in a fashion consistent with the Fruits of the Spirit: peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control. I’m often dismayed by the extent to which professing Christians believe these standards don’t apply to them when they enter into public debate.
No days off, gang. We don’t get to put bible verses in our Twitter bios and then spend every tweet slinging mud and provoking.
So back to the original question: does civil discourse sell? Does America have an appetite for it?
It won’t sell as quickly as bomb-throwing. But I believe we in the media have a moral obligation to continue to put it out there. To attempt to retrain the palettes of our audiences to desire something better, something more substantive.
This much I know: if we keep serving the listening and reading world junk food for every meal, it’s the only thing for which they’ll have a taste.
Dana Hall McCain writes about faith, culture and public policy for AL.com. You can follow her on Twitter @dhmccain.
"discourse" - Google News
March 28, 2021 at 07:32PM
https://ift.tt/3fm6yaE
Does Alabama have a taste for civil discourse? - AL.com
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
No comments:
Post a Comment