Listening to the rebroadcast of "Forum" on KQED, they're talking about SOPA and PIPA, they have a guy from Google, and a guy from NBC Universal, and they're having a very good discussion. They're making me think harder about the issues, presenting it as a nuanced issue, and assuaging my outrage to a certain extent.
That's not to say I didn't do some yelling in the car at this vogon from Insanely Huge Media Conglomerate dodging questions. Yeah, yeah, I get his point that the online world should have theft laws, just like the physical world. But even so the idea of the federal government shutting down sites just sickens me. I liked it better when art hadn't been dismembered and maimed so it could fit into business models as "Intellectual Property."
I just want to point out that any debate is going to be biased, you can't avoid that. But even when it is biased, you can attempt to minimize the bias, and you can encourage thorough discussion. I haven't taken a course on debate, so I'm not sure of the theoretical basis for productive discussion. But I know it when I hear it.
Does anyone but me realize that discussing divisive issues can actually lead to a solution? That it's not just about getting one's point of view across? And certainly not just about getting higher Nielsen Ratings? Not only that, but the quality of public discussion will directly influence the quality of thinking that goes on about these issues. Better thinking means finding better solutions quicker. Who wouldn't want that?
News and radio and magazines need to make money, but I would greatly appreciate it if they would realize that there are higher needs than making money, and businesses that publish multimedia material are in the perfect position to influence things in a positive way. This won't necessarily make you money in the short run, but it will give you a legacy that will live beyond your product or company name. It's a tall order to have a profitable and "not evil" business, as Google can attest, but I wouldn't mind if a few more businesses actually aspired to that in more than just their mission statements.
It makes me want to start a non-profit that is specifically dedicated to productive public debate. It might prepare citizens better for town hall meetings and legislative hearings. In a democracy, if "the people" rule, then we also have the responsibility of rulers, to be more than just a member of a mindless horde, to see both sides of the issue, to be devoted to oneself, but also to consider things beyond.
Granted, it's hard enough to make a living these days without trying to consider things beyond one's own needs, but it's something that can be done, and every little bit helps. Organized religion has given "faith" a bad rap, but I think it can be applied without danger in this sense: to have faith that the good acts you do and the extra time and work you put in will benefit someone along the way, if you've thought it out right. You may not see these things happen right in front of you, but they will happen, and they'll happen even after you're gone.
I really enjoyed this posting, Chris.
ReplyDeleteI listened to this debate on All Things Considered yesterday (I thought Krasne's replacement did a fairer and more balanced job than Krasne himself might have done). At a certain point, I turned off the radio and actually said aloud, "Shit, you're both right, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to solve this problem."
I agree with all your points except one: I don't think the problem is solely one of debating skills or even of skills articulating one's position -- that would be easy to fix. I think there's a lack of CRITICAL THINKING that pervades our public discourse -- and I think it's worse here than in other countries. (Think back to a certain political discussion you may have witnessed this past summer, in which I was a participant.) I don't know how to fix that, because I don't know whether critical thinking is something that can be taught.
Thanks for a thought-provoking posting.
Dewey, you just referenced Hitchhiker's Guide in political discussion. I doff my hat to you.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, though, SOPA and PIPA are dangerous. I'm a big watcher of Channel Awesome/That Guy With the Glasses, and it is websites such as those -- as always, the seemingly forgotten "little guys" in American business -- who could be shut down for no decent reason by the Conglom-Os.
Thanks for the comments guys! I totally know that feeling of "you're both right," and it especially comes up listening to NPR.
ReplyDelete