Tune in to Our Morphing Media

Like many other so-called “policy wonks,” I’ve been worrying a lot about the effects of the  media’s increasing shift away from hard news to “infotainment” and political spin.

It’s one thing to disagree about something that we all can see. People can look at the same photograph, listen to the same speech, or read the same draft of a pending bill, and disagree about its meaning or, in the case of proposed legislation, whether it’s a good idea. But in our current media environment—characterized by multiple cable channels and blogs, and featuring “commentators” with extreme philosophies and varying degrees of sanity—we are often not even looking at the same reality. We may use the same words, but those words mean different things to different people.

It reminds me of the time before cell phones when a friend and I agreed to meet for lunch at “the tearoom.” Back then, two downtown department stores had tearooms, and I went to one of them while she went to the other. This made conversation difficult, in much the same way that our current media environment does.

A number of journalists have written about what this morphing of the media bodes for our ability to sustain democratic discourse.  Several have echoed an observation by media historian Paul Starr, who wrote that “journalism isn’t just about uncovering facts and framing stories; it is about assembling a public to read and react to those stories.”

In other words, there is a difference between an audience and a public. Journalism is about more than dissemination of news; its about the creation of shared awareness. It’s about occupying the same reality (or eating at the same tearoom).  So today’s situation raises troubling questions.

When these current changes shake out, will we be an audience, or a public?

Are we developing a media landscape that encourages disgruntled Americans to choose the news they prefer to believe?

If traditional media outlets like newspapers continue to lose market share to blogs, talk radio and cable “news” shows, as it appears they will, what are the likely consequences for our common civic life? With a diminished role for authoritative journalism—the kind that checks facts and separates conjecture and opinion from actual news—how can Americans  make wise choices between conflicting policy options?

On November 11^th  at 11:30, I will pose these and other questions to a stellar panel that includes James W. Brown, recently retired Dean of Journalism at IUPUI, Bruce Hetrick, CEO of Hetrick Communications in Indianapolis, and the Indianapolis Star’s political columnist, Matt Tully.  The panel is being sponsored by the Indiana Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration, and it will be available to other ASPA Chapters via the Internet—I believe the term is “Webinar”—and podcast.  

 If you are worried too, tune in! Check with your local ASPA Chapter to find out how and when.

Mentorship

I recently had the honor of participating in a panel discussion regarding women and minorities in science and technology.  Our discussion revolved around how we can encourage women and minorities to enter science and technology careers, and how we can make the case to these groups early on in life.

We, the panelists all spoke to different perspectives on the topic, yet we all came to the same conclusions.  It is critical to implement mentor programs in schools and encourage existing practitioners to serve as role models.  I realized as we were talking, that I’ve had some great mentors when it came to technology.  Mostly my mentor/mentee relationships have been informal, but good relationships nonetheless.  In my public administration career, however, I don’t feel like I’ve really had the opportunity for a good mentor.

I’m not complaining.  I don’t feel like I am missing out.  I am curious, though:  Have you had a mentor in your public administration career?  How have they helped you?

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS MAKING “ETHICS” RIGHT?

In the galloping shadows of time and history, we have become victims of the systemic assault of the truth.  There is no such thing as “making ethics right.”  The state of what is called ethics is based on one’s culture, ego, ethics, character, need for power, and heritage, among many other innumerable factors.  The state of being ethical is seen through one’s own prism and follows them through their own beliefs, fear, welcoming the excitement of being at the center of attention through so-called passion, demagoguery and demonology.  There are thousands of cases to prove this.  I will provide one personal example:

I was the first female visiting professor at the U.S. Air War College.  My husband, obviously was the only male spouse.  We paid five dollars to join the spouse club.  When my two year contract was finished, they gave us back our five dollars; they had never held a meeting during my two year tenure.  The general of the base and the colonel of my original academic department did not know what to do with a woman.  The general called me a street fighter, and the colonel took away my teaching – at GS 15- GS16 level, and I was sitting at my desk with no assignment.  Was that ethical?  How many federal employees are sitting at desks doing absolutely nothing?  Knowing it was not ethical, I was invited to join another academic war college department, and started lecturing at bases around the country, and at the Central Intelligence Agency.  I “climbed above” the general and the colonel to earn my salary, and make a difference!

Listen to much of the hyperbole at the United Nations this week.  How much is truth?  How much is ego?  Where is truth?  Ethics cannot be made right. People have to want to see and hear the truth, and act accordingly.  The problem is that each person’s sense of truth is different than another’s.  How can we make the future “right,” if “to thine own self be true, ” many  are not, and live a masked life, to die accordingly, cremated at the stake or as they say in the funeral business, “the funeral director did a good job in the facial makeover.

P.S.  Anne Frank, who lived in hiding during Amsterdam’s Nazis occupation, about 1941, and who died at the age of 15, is quoted in her diary, “…I still believe people are good at heart…!”

Caroline S. Westerhof, Ph.D.

Basing Policies on Evidence

Those of us who teach policy classes tend to harp on the importance of basing our public policies on evidence—by beginning with the question, not the answer. For example: What sorts of environmental policies does the relevant literature on climate change suggest? What does criminal justice research teach us about what sorts of drug policies are likely to be effective?

Or perhaps: What does the scientific literature tell us about the efficacy of torture?

We are just beginning to learn the dimensions of the Bush Administration’s policies for dealing with detainees. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has vigorously defended that Administration’s “enhanced interrogation’ techniques as necessary to ensure our safety.

What does the evidence suggest?

A recent paper by Shane O’Mara in Trends in Cognitive Sciences consults the neuroscience literature to see what it tells us about using techniques like stress positions and abuse to get accurate information out of detainees. O’Mara says the belief that abuse and torture are effective simply does not conform to what we know about how the brain works.

According to O’Mara, the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex—the areas where the brain processes, stores and retrieves memories—“are profoundly altered by stress hormones.” Stress them enough and they produce false memories. The suspects being tortured incorporate allegations made by their captors into their own versions of reality. In other words, even they don’t know they are lying.

I admit to being a shameless fan of Star Trek, the Next Generation. The series took pride in its fidelity to available science. It was at its best when it tackled human rights issues, and one example that I’ve always remembered was a two-part story about Captain Picard’s capture–and torture–by a lizard-like race called the Cardassians. At first, Picard resisted the pain and humiliation. Each time the interrogator began a “session,” he would show four lights and ask Picard how many he saw. The ”correct” answer was five, but a defiant Picard insisted there were only four. 

At the very end, when his interrogator was once again demanding that Picard tell him how many lights there were, he was rescued. Later, however, as he recounted the experience to the ship’s counselor, he told her that he was about to tell his tormentor he saw five—not simply to escape the pain, but because by that time he actually did see five!

The adoption of harsh interrogation policies cost America dearly: we lost moral capital abroad and the trust of citizens at home. It will take time and effort to rebuild both. It’s hard to see how the trade-off would have been worth it even if torture worked.  But it doesn’t.

Had the Administration consulted the relevant science—as the writers of this TV episode did—perhaps those costs could have been avoided.

How Much Communication is Too Much?

Blogs. Facebook. Twitter. Websites. Linked  In. My Space. Text Messaging. E-mail Updates. Phone Calls.  All these new-age methods of communicating leads me to ask the question – “How Much Communication is too Much Communication?”

On some days, I would say I average about 30 e-mails between my personal and professional e-mail accounts.  Not all of them are – well – substantive but each relay an important message from somewhere about something.  After e-mail, there are several people I follow on twitter, local blogs I read, news sites I visit to stay up on current events, and friends I enjoy connecting with on Facebook.  I need a few more hours in every day to manage my communication.

As public administrators, we are responsible for keeping up with a fast paced environment being knowledgeable about current events and informed about the community.  With all these messages being communicated, I’m interested to know how others manage.