Practicing Radical Empathy
KQED News Strategies
As with our broader investigation into KQED’s transformation, I expected my time with the newsroom to reveal an evolution in technology, processes and culture. Then, in a plot twist worthy of a spy thriller set in some dystopian future, Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, fake news stories ricocheted across social media, and the President of the United States declared journalists enemies of the people.
Those events left me wondering: How has KQED’s newsroom responded to these challenges? Moreover, how have the changes they’ve made in the past 18 months as part of the organization’s transformation efforts affected their ability to do so?
The answers I’ve found to those questions reveal KQED’s core values and the critical benefits (and responsibilities) that come with serving local audiences. When asked to reflect on the current circumstances, Vice President of News Holly Kernan responded:
“I think this is an opportunity for KQED to double down on a cornerstone of our existing strategy and to clearly articulate a major piece of our mission and embrace the fact that this is indeed our moment and we are almost uniquely poised to step up, because we serve our audiences as citizens and not consumers.
We are independent, mission driven media, funded by the people who believe so fervently in the role we play in their lives. What we do — independently, outside of the constraints of commercial imperatives, and in the interests of people — is more important to a healthy democracy than ever before in my lifetime.”
The mission is clear, but what does it look like in practice? How does one practice journalism and serve audiences in this climate? These questions arose not only from our research but also from KQED’s staff, board members and audiences. With respect to the newsroom, Kernan described her guiding principle:
Practicing journalism doesn’t make you an objective person. You have to be reflective of your own biases. Be a seeker of answers, practice radical empathy, understand others’ perspectives, and advocate for the First Amendment, truth and an informed and active citizenry.
Practice radical empathy. It strikes me that with this phrase, Kernan is weighing in on the debate swirling through news media outlets these days regarding journalistic best practices. So, I thought it would be useful to take a closer look at the role of radical empathy in some of the recent stories and initiatives produced by KQED news.
Practicing Empathy: The Ghost Ship Fire
On December 2, a fire in an Oakland warehouse used as an artists’ live/work collective killed 36 people and devastated the Bay Area artistic community. KQED news reporters and arts producers covered this story in a manner that conveyed deep empathy for the victims and the artistic community. National news outlets picked up the story of the fire, but none were able to offer the depth of perspective offered by this local media organization.
Reporters provided facts and details and an analysis of the broader issues that led to the fire, such as housing costs, missed inspections, and landlord neglect. Beyond that basic reporting, though, producers created multiple pieces on the emotional weight of the tragedy, including memorial profiles of the artists who lost their lives, including this one:
Staff members did not need to search for empathy to understand the loss felt by this community. The artist profiled above was a member of the KQED arts team. The memorial profiles reflected their own grief in a way that not only spoke to a community of artists but also helped more removed audience members connect with the tragedy.
Modeling Radical Empathy: Eye to Eye
Taking another’s perspective comes more naturally the closer one is to a given community, generating an instinctive understanding and genuine connection that fosters empathy. Radical empathy takes things to a new level. The more removed one is from the community or culture of a given story, the more difficult it can be to make that connection — both for journalists and audiences.
During a December strategic planning meeting of KQED’s content area managers (i.e., News, Arts, Science and Learning), I was struck by the extent to which the conversation encompassed not cool story ideas or new technologies to try but rather desire to (a) connect more deeply and with broader audience groups and (b) connect those audience groups to one another. Clearly, the recent election cycle and stories of deep divides among various groups of citizens — Republican and Democrat, urban and rural, wealthy and working class, whites and minorities, and so on — weighed heavily on these managers.
Though the media portray California, especially the Bay Area, as a liberal mecca, that portrayal is only partially true. Trump did perform poorly in San Francisco County, garnering just 10% of the votes, according to the New York Times. However, he received one-third of all votes cast in CA. That’s 3.5 million citizens who clearly do not correspond with the common stereotype of California as the bluest of blue states. In the wake of the most divisive presidential election in modern history, how then could KQED’s news team best serve it’s broad, regional audiences?
Eye to Eye, a special radio series, is one effort by the news team to bridge the political and cultural divide and provide a model for civil discourse. In the show description, reporter Guy Marzorati describes their desire, in response to audience concerns, to offer a space for people to discuss political perspectives and issues respectfully and honestly:
In short, we want to get folks talking face to face, even if they don’t see eye to eye.
On the program, multiple Bay Area citizens from different walks of life and political views engage in a dialogue about current issues. In comments about the program, some listeners expressed anger and wanted KQED to contradict and even shut down a guest they felt were spreading false information.
Kernan has been clear that KQED news does and will continue to hold politicians, experts and public officials accountable and call out questionable data; however, that’s not the goal of this show. With Eye to Eye, the team wants to bridge gaps, offer multiple viewpoints and create empathy and understanding among audience members. The aim is not for one side or the other to win an argument, its for each side (and listeners) to better understand where their fellow citizens are coming from and to step, however briefly, into their shoes. Other listeners seemed to understand and appreciate that, as displayed in this Facebook comment:
Hanging out with friends for the Super Bowl, we were talking about the political echo-chamber we live in and trying to make sense of how to move forward. Then, driving home, listening to KQED, [we] heard a program that stages dialogue across political beliefs. It was amazing to hear people from all walks of life and voting history respectfully discuss the issues. Turns out they agreed on a lot of things — mostly, the disappearance of the middle class being a fundamental root cause. Gives me hope, looking forward to following the series as an example of what we should be doing!
By fostering conversation among diverse members of the Bay Area community, this program highlights a way for individuals who disagree not only to hold respectful conversations but also to find common ground on the issues that affect all of them. Contrast this approach to the one typically on display on the average cable news network or talk radio program in which public officials and various experts shout at one another or stubbornly repeat empty talking points.
One can see radical empathy at work across the spectrum of KQED’s news team’s stories, spanning politics, race, natural disasters, and homelessness. It has also been one driver behind the changes Kernan has made to the newsroom in the past two years, all with an eye toward better understanding, connecting with and serving the needs of audiences in the Bay Area and throughout California. Next up, we’ll take a look at some of the ways they’re accomplishing that mission.
