Comments on: Of death panels, Hitler, and the healthcare controversy: media literacy, now more than ever

By: Diane Levin

Diane Levin — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:14:03 +0000

Alasdair, I appreciate the perspective from someone who is not US citizen. You’ve raised some truly insightful questions that we’d do well to ponder.

Unfortunately, as is the case with so many debates, too many people, confident they have the answers, have little interest in questions. All the more reason to promote media literacy – we must not only be willing to ask questions, but we must develop the ability to pose smart ones.

Thanks again for your comment and for taking the time to visit this blog, Alasdair.

By: Alasdair Reed

Alasdair Reed — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:43:18 +0000

I am not a citizen of the United States, however it pains me to see the depths to which the whole health care debate has plummeted. and the effect it is having on American society One question that arises to me in relation to situations such as this. Are those involved looking deep enough into the question or issues at hand? and what are the real issues at hand? At a glance, and I will admit my view is a cursory one, it seems that health care is almost a side issue, or even a smoke screen. The arguments here are about
values and rights. “My right to hold a particular value” eg “The rights of the free market to decide is best” or “Social health policies are good for everybody” and this combination of rights and values are often explosive, especially in a strongly rights driven society such as the US (but not only the US), which also has strongly held values of all stripes. Values are so often adopted unquestioningly , from the family, society, religion and other sources . The questions that may not often be asked is. How do our values serve us? Are they serving us as we would wish?
An examination of this question could reveal some surprising results on both sides of the political divide, and also prevent the manipulation of people’s adherence to their values for purposes that could be, actually in the long contrary to the spirit of those values.

By: Diane Levin

Diane Levin — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:03:02 +0000

Hi, Clayton, always nice to see you’ve been here. I’ve often made the case that everyone needs conflict resolution training, and in particular our elected and appointed officials who would certainly benefit from acquiring some consensus-building skills. There’s a unique role for our profession to play there.

However, I personally don’t buy the idea that we have to value all opinions. (Just to be clear, I’m not talking about my professional role as neutral – obviously it’s not in my job description to tell a client outright that he’s full of crap – I can however ask probing questions that can have him test reality for himself. I’m talking about my actions as a private citizen.) I just read an interesting criticism of liberalism’s failure to condemn the outrageous public lies and deception that some opponents of health care have disseminated. It’s a little high-strung but provocative enough to be well worth reading. This quote in particular stood out:

But the secular response to fundamentalism isn’t science, it’s kumbaya, a campfire that requires reason and ignorance to pay mutual respect, a moral cowardice that values pluralism more than it values values.

I’m with the author of that article on that. I’m weary of the notion that we should somehow be respectful of others’ opinions, no matter how ill-founded or crazy or dangerous. I would frankly like to see more true argument in the public sphere, based on reason, logic, and rationality just for once. We need more vigorous competition in the marketplace of ideas. While I don’t accept the premise that all opinions are equally valuable, I do think that all opinions should be ruthlessly subjected to rigorous examination, testing, and debunking if necessary. We need more honesty in these discussions from all sides – as well as some truth-based condemnation of viewpoints that deserve our opprobrium.

By: Clayton Gilman

Clayton Gilman — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:16:35 +0000

Hi Diane, there’s a much simpler answer here and that is based on the Barny Frank “experience”. Anyone in the media, perhaps as part of their PR training, and if in a position of power representing “all people”, should set the example and not “polarize” a situation with their speech or selection of terminology. Frank should have been “neutral” from the start and taken the woman’s remarks in stride. I must say though that it’s not just citizens who watch media that need to become savvy, politics has now “de-volved” into pure chaos with our President now getting sucked into the vortex and unable to stand back from the fray and event his speech is inflaming to many nowadays. Thus, our only option for “us” out in “our world” is to continue to set the example and value all people and opinions so that the environment of civility is established in a moment in order to have rational discussion in subsequent eye blinks in time…this moment creates our past, which influences the future.

By: Diane Levin

Diane Levin — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:37:35 +0000

Ruthy and Michael, I appreciate your comments. I have never at any point in my lifetime felt more dismayed by the state of civil discourse, and it’s a relief to know that I’m not alone in my frustration. Thank you for your voices here.

Unfortunately ignorance is an equal opportunity employer – we can find it and its foot soldiers massed all along the ideological spectrum. And a well-informed and media-literate citizenry seems, sadly, not to be in the interests of those who occupy the bastions of power, wherever it exists. But I agree with the European Commission that democracy depends on it. I like what James Madison had to say: “A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” Over two hundred years later, and despite all our technological marvels and our 21st century progress, we’re still waiting for the realization of the dreams of the Enlightenment.

By: Michael Dallahan

Michael Dallahan — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:17:20 +0000

Diane
Thank you for a great read. I share your dismay with much of the rhetoric used in the health care “debate”. Please no more calling each other Nazis and no more references to “death panels”. Unfortunately, fear and anxiety typically trump logic and reason when trying to sort through such difficult issues.

By: Ruthy Kohorn Rosenberg

Ruthy Kohorn Rosenberg — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:05:41 +0000

I had same immediate reaction to Barney Frank and then rethought it. Although I don’t think that he could have engaged her exactly because of media illiteracy and ignorance. You tried to engage about July 4 and it didn’t work. It seems to me that there needs to be some sort of push back from everyone who ‘knows’ including politicians and journalists, but I fear that there are just enough people willing to take any opportunity to follow other agendas – power and money. I’m feeling very dispirited about all of this. Thank you for exploring this subject. We need to make it in everyone’s interests to be educated and spread knowledge not ‘ignorances’.

By: Diane Levin

Diane Levin — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 23:46:52 +0000

John, thanks so much, both for your comment and for the link to Souter’s remarks. Good stuff!

By: John Lassey

John Lassey — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 23:03:04 +0000

Nice post, Diane. In much the same vein, check out Justice Souter’s remarks at this month’s ABA convention.

http://www.abanow.org/2009/08/souter-tells-aba-annual-meeting-opening-assembly-that-civic-education-is-critical-to-preserving-an-independent-judiciary/