We should all have more messy conversations
I enjoy a good argument over politics as much as anyone. Conversations around my childhood dinner table in Australia were filled with fiery debate about world affairs. Someone always played the devil’s advocate just for the sake of a satisfying moment.
So I guess you could say I am a firm believer in the value of robust — occasionally messy — conversation when it comes to politics, policy and current affairs.
In recent years I think we have all seen the dynamics of disagreement over politics start to become, well, less agreeable. I have noticed it both in personal conversations, as well as in public conversations.
I have observed a particular dynamic of disagreement about politics — particularly in conversations online through social media — that I would sum up as the “I’m right, and you’re an idiot” approach. It can be a hugely satisfying approach. I know from personal experience. But it is rarely, if ever, useful.
And, of course, after I moved to the US in late 2015, I saw the dynamics of tribalism and “I’m right and you’re an idiot” on a large scale both in the lead up to, and following, the particularly divisive 2016 election.
During that time, my wheels got turning on the foundations of an idea that would turn into A Civil Divide — the project I am building through CUNY’s Tow-Knight Fellowship in Entrepreneurial Journalism.
When I started conceptualizing A Civil Divide, I assumed that I would build something that worked to tackle these dynamics primarily online.
After all, isn’t new digital technology so often touted as the answer to all existing problems, including in journalism?
I considered:
- Creating a podcast series exploring why people from diverse backgrounds think the way they do, supported by a chatbot in order for audience members to ask questions of the guests in a judgement-free space.
- Building a series of AI-powered challenges you would participate in via a Facebook Messenger bot, gamifying the process of getting people to have conversations they might not ordinarily have.
- Building an online platform for small-group conversations about political issues, moderated by journalists.
But it became clear to me through my user research, and my testing of early products in these spaces, that starting online in order to tackle these dynamics may not really solve the problem at hand (at a societal level), nor create a good product market fit (at a user level).
First off, a meaningful conversation on a tricky issue requires trust, both between those having the conversation, and anyone else moderating or participating in that conversation. Getting people to trust something that exists purely online is a hard sell when starting from scratch.
We have also entered a moment in which people are paying greater attention to how information they communicate online might be used by the platforms they inhabit. When you are asking people to reveal themselves — to be vulnerable — online, this is an issue.
So although we look more and more to online spaces to engage with news and each other, I believe that every conversation should be held in the place and manner that is right for it. Some conversations may be right for Twitter (#MeToo), some may be right for a Facebook group (as demonstrated by Spaceship Media), but many will only really be effective in person.
In my experience there is no better way to have a conversation about a tricky issue with someone you disagree with than in person.
Of course, this is not always practical or possible. But I do believe it is time to re-learn what meaningful and civil conversations can look like online by learning from messy conversations held in real life.
That is why I have decided to begin the first phase of A Civil Divide with a series of in-person events centered around conversations that people might not ordinarily have.
And I want to use what I learn from these experiences to create ways of having better online conversations, as well as to generate stories and reporting. A Civil Divide will be a conversation-first media company.
How does this fit with broader trends in journalism, you may ask.
Well, I believe this is a job for journalists.
And I am not alone in this belief! There are a number of interesting trends happening in the world of journalism that make this a good moment for A Civil Divide.
One is the emergence of journalism outfits that seek to convene communities into productive conversation, such as Spaceship Media, which brings people from different communities together into a journalism-supported dialogue (for example, when it brought women from Alabama who voted for Trump together in a closed Facebook group with women from California who voted for Clinton).
I believe that journalists are well placed to play this role. Journalists are in the business of facts. And they are accustomed to playing a public role in democracy, centered around driving conversations. And it is worth noting here that, according to the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer, while trust in media has gone down, trust in journalists has risen. Why not harness this trust to provide a valuable service to people who seek an extra level of engagement with reporting?
Another involves the new ways in which publishers increasingly seek to engage with their audiences. Publishers increasingly see benefits from bringing their audiences more directly into the editorial process, and a corresponding return in the quest to convert casual readers into paying readers. Dutch publication De Correspondent is working with NYU’s Studio 20 program on exactly this, through The Membership Puzzle Project, as it seeks a path to setting up shop in the US.
‘Two-way’ conversational approaches to audience engagement are becoming mainstream in journalism. (The services provided by Hearken and GroundSource being two examples). And I predict that convening meaningful multi-sided conversations will become a bigger part of the audience engagement equation, as publishers see more opportunities to convene their audiences into conversations that provide value to readers and generate interesting editorial insights.
And more than anything, this is a job for me.
The changing dynamics of disagreement have forced me to reckon with my own approach to difficult conversations about politics. And I have begun to shift the way I approach conversations, both with people I know and with strangers. I have become more curious, less certain of my own way of looking at the world, and more open to changing my perspective. I have also become more certain of my true convictions: those things that I believe after long, hard, testing examination. I see all of these as good things, and feel genuinely enriched by these experiences.
I feel excited, challenged and daunted in equal measures by the prospect of continuing to work in this space.
Sign up for A Civil Divide’s newsletter, and stay in the loop
- In our weekly newsletter we curate stories that help you make sense of divided times. Signing up will ensure that you will be notified when we launch our pilot conversation series.
- You can also follow me here on Medium, where I will continue to publish learnings and developments in this entrepreneurial journey.
- And you can follow me on Twitter.
Are you asking similar questions, or pursuing similar goals, in your own work?
I would love to hear from you. Drop a note to alex@acivildivide.com and I will be in touch.
