Robert Paterson's Weblog

The Media - Want trust & traction - Get a tribe or offer a Spicy Soup

Terry Heaton wrote a cool post about this slide:

Trust in the media is shrinking rapidly. Something is not working and it is getting worse just as the issues that confront us all need to be reported better.

Terry of course asked the big question of Why? Why is trust in the media falling? He thinks that Jay Rosen's concern about the "Voice from Nowhere" is part of this and adds a strong additional argument that a media source that only has one point of view - its own - feels more and more like a shill. Who trusts a shill?

I would like to add a bit more to both Jay and Terry's arguments. I think that if we go deeper into how culture shapes us and how Tribal culture is we can see more clearly how to react to this situation.

I have been looking at the issue of Cultural Cognition - or the filters that we use to make meaning of the world. Dan Kahan's thesis is that most Americans fit into a set of cultural tribes that determine how they process information. Walter Russell Mead also thinks a great deal about this form of filtering by culture and has defined a set of easy to understand labels to capture the biases of the larger groupings.

Let's jump to the real world of the media to illustrate what this cultural filter means in practice.

In spite of the overall decline in the trust in the media - there are some paradoxes

• NPR is surging - with huge increases in listeners - they say it is because of the demand for sound news - NPR is highly trusted but.....
• Fox is surging too and it too is highly trusted
• CNN is sinking and is not trusted

Why is NPR and Fox rising in numbers and trust while most of the media is falling?

I think that the answer is that both play to the cultural bias of two very important cultural tribes in America

• Fox to the Jacksonians
• NPR to the Jeffersonians
• Rachel Maddow plays to the more liberal wing of the Jeffersonians. Rush Limbaugh to the more extreme wing of the Jacksonians.

If you play to no tribe such as I think is the case for CNN - you get no traction. If you are the voice from nowhere - you will not have people attach strongly to you. 

Dan Kahan's research shows how the cultural fit works.

First of all - The Tribes exist - they can only see what is going on through their filters. They are waiting to attach or to attack what fits or does not fit. If you think that people are not tribal and are not culturally filtered then you miss it all.

Second - no matter what the content! They can sense if the messenger is one of them. No matter what he or she says - the cultural fit of the messenger is the starting point of acceptance or rejection. So at the extreme ends - Rachel is the ideal messenger as is Limbaugh. If you offer no cultural fit for the messenger, then you have missed it all. No one is neutral. Neutral has no power.

Thirdly - how the issue is Framed increases the attachment or the rejection. The lead, the POV, the context all mean that the content - that can be the same in the 2 camps is perceived and reacted to entirely differently. So how you frame is another pivotal issue. You must frame with a tribe in mind.

But suppose you want to bring the tribes closer together? What could you do if you choose not to either Fox or NPR?

• You can tune into several tribes - Terry is going there and I know that Jay is too - Have a big pond with fish that all like swimming in it. Dan Kahan's research has shown that you can get the tribes closer by mixing the messengers up - have messengers that are tuned into a tribe tell the other story
• Create a rich and spice soup with lots of different chunks - in the good old days PBS had William F Buckley as well as Bill Moyers - mix it up but have strong cultural positions and messengers. 
• The closing of gap comes from the mix

The choice is porridge or curry.

If you want to know more about Dan Kahan's thinking here is a neat video series

RESILIENT COMMUNITY: Forget Afghanistan, These are Needed in Detroit etc.

RESILIENT COMMUNITY: Forget Afghanistan, These are Needed in Detroit etc.

The US Military Special Operations Command is building eight "mobile factories" that fit into standard shipping containers.  These factories are based on the successful experience the US Army has had with something similar called the MPH.   From Strategypage:

The MPH was developed when the army realized that the easiest way to get the many rarely requested, but vital, replacement parts to the troops, was to manufacture the parts in the combat zone. In short order, this led to the construction of a portable parts fabrication system, called MPH, that fit into a standard 8x8x20 foot shipping container. The original version used two containers, but smaller equipment and more powerful computers eventually made it possible to use one container.

The key to making this work was the availability of computer controlled machine tools, which can take a block of the proper metal, and machine it into the desired part. The computer controlled machine tools have been around for decades, but the big breakthrough was the development of CAD (Computer Assisted Design) software for PCs in the 1980s, which made the process of designing, and then fabricating, a part much faster. The MPH has a high speed satellite data link, which enables it to obtain the CAD file for a part. Many CAD files are already stored in the MPH. Often, the MPH staff figure out a way to improve a part, based on the broken parts they see, and what the troops tell them.

In the last six years, MPHs have manufactured over 100,000 parts, on the spot. This saves days, or weeks, that it would take to order the part from the manufacturer, and the MPH part is usually a lot cheaper (because the air freight and manufacturer mark ups to pay for maintaining the part in inventory). The next version of the MPH has a 3-D part builder, which uses metal dust and a laser to build a part.

Hyperlocal manufacturing is real.  Think of it as one of the economic hearts of a thriving resilient community.  It's a revolution already in motion, as you can see in the rapid spread of hackerspaces.  Connect these hackerspaces, and the communities they serve, with networks that allow people to share, buy/sell, modify, customize, etc. designs for products/parts, and we are on our a way to a resilient decentralized economy that can survive the economic dislocation to come.

via globalguerrillas.typepad.com

Add Fab Labs to the mix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fab_lab) and you have the true beginnings of a local community that can make it's own things again. Manufacturing is the next frontier of the "Distributed World" Food and Energy of course are also key parts.

A distributed world that can look after all its needs gives power back to the people - work - jobs and all that we need. With local - food - energy - media and manufacturing - we also will create a local financial system as well.

We have all seen in our lifetime how a centralized world creates the opposite - structural unemployment - dependency and helplessness that sucks resources out of places and people.

Posted via email from Rob's posterous

Immigration - Why can't we talk to each other? - Culture?

Can we find a way to bridge the "yelling gap" in the immigration debate? 

 

Part of my work at KETC as we delve into the topic of Immigration is to look at hundreds of the comments and news items every day. No one is listening! I see no way of bridging the gap conventionally.

So what is going on? Why can't the 2 sides find any common ground? Why can't the one side hear anything that the other says? Why do the important facts for each side mean nothing to the other?

I think the answer must be Cultural. A cultural filter on each side makes it impossible to understand the "Other" so the "Other" must be Stupid or worse Evil. 

If this is true, there is no hope or "finding middle ground" - no hope of finding facts or conventional arguments that may convince both. No hope of a direct conversation on the issues. 

But I think that there is hope in exploring the cognitive and cultural barriers.

If we can see where the "other" is coming from, then maybe we might find a way. If we can see the "other" and what shapes their world view then we might be able to find a common agenda that makes both sides feel OK.

So who are the "Tea Party" folks really? Who are the "Liberals"? Where do they come from? 

 Source:Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White-Male Effect in Risk Perception - Dan M. Kahan, Donald Braman, John Gastil, Paul Slovic, and C. K. Mertz*

Where do you fit on this grid? Let's look at the polar opposites so that we can see the split in America more clearly.

I am mid point bottom right - Strongly Egalitarian and Communitarian. My whole being and so my identity is rooted in the belief that we are really all the same and that community is the best way to look at anything.

I am very uncomfortable in hierarchies. I see a lot of grey and not much black and white. In the American Context these values tend to be Jeffersonian - anti all formal positional authority - idea based - very cool about religion - family is what works - acceptance of difference - yearning for the new - global - feminine - nurturing -  these are the values you see on the Statue of Liberty.

If you fit in the opposite quadrant - top left - You are strongly individualistic and while you hate tyranny you feel comfortable in formal hierarchies such as a church or the military. 

You are clear about what is right or wrong. Black and White are clear and there is no grey. Legal or not - it's simple. Much of the American culture is drawn from this perspective. Dislike of Central Government - Stand on your own two feet. Respect the law. Honor and Duty. Formal Christian Religion is a cornerstone of America - So is the Traditional Family - Eurocentric - Strongly masculine - self reliant. These can be described as Jacksonian values.

Both sides dislike central authority. But Jeffersonians dislike all authority whereas Jacksonian likes hierarchy.

There is common ground between the 2 groups but also deep divisions:(Here is the best piece I know on this split - there is a complete description at the link author Walter Russell Read)

One way to grasp the difference between the two schools is to see that both Jeffersonians and Jacksonians are civil libertarians, passionately attached to the Constitution and especially to the Bill of Rights, and deeply concerned to preserve the liberties of ordinary Americans. But while the Jeffersonians are most profoundly devoted to the First Amendment, protecting the freedom of speech and prohibiting a federal establishment of religion, Jacksonians see the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, as the citadel of liberty. Jeffersonians join the American Civil Liberties Union; Jacksonians join the National Rifle Association. In so doing, both are convinced that they are standing at the barricades of freedom.

So let's now apply this screen to some of the issues that swirl around the Immigration debate.

• Legal or not? - Jacksonians - that is the end of the matter - if they are legal it's ok if not they have to go. Jeffersonians - yes legal or not but how can we deport millions and break up families?
• Secure the Border? - Jacksonians - Of course this is the starting point - National Honor and the Nation is at risk. Jeffersonians - yes BUT if we don't deal with the issues that drive people here we wont achieve anything
• Welfare? - Jacksonians - Real Americans don't use welfare anyway - I want the smallest government possible - I want the less taxes possible - millions of free loading immigrants are therefore immoral and wrong. Jeffersonians - we all have to look after each other - of course people need help to adjust
• The Economy - Jacksonians tend to occupy those parts of the economy that has lost very badly in the last 30 years - they are very sensitive to wages being ao low and jobs being so scarce their fears are rooted in decades of bad things being done to them at work. Jeffersonians tend to be in the less formal aspects of the economy and have not suffered so much - they are less dependent on the formal economy. Many are entrepreneurial and want more high end immigrants.
• The State? - Jacksonians - the Feds are using this to get bigger and to tell us what to do - tyranny from the elite is growing and this issue is giving them more power. Jeffersonians - Tyranny is growing from racists locally who are using mob rule - the only defence is the Feds and the constitution
• The Constitution - Jacksonians - see America as a "Tribe" of people like them - White - Christian - citizenship is based on being part of this tribe. Jeffersonians see America as a melting pot where new Americans must assimilate to a set of values that put liberty first. The 14th Amendment is therefore a battles ground between two visions of the nation.

So where do you fit?

Does this view of the 2 sides make sense?

If it does - what do you think we can do to get talking to each other?

Hung Parliament in Australia - Are majorities a thing of the past?

It seems likely that there will not be a decisive result in Australia. In the UK there is a coalition. In Canada no sign of a majority.

With the top 3 parliamentary democracies all with minority governments - this has to be a pattern!

So what does this pattern tell us?

Is the electorate smart in that it rejects simple answers? Is the electorate smart in that it is forcing parties to work out policy across party lines?

Or is it a mystery?

If this is a strong trend, then might there be some move toward PR? For the hold up for a mainstream party is that with PR there will never be a one party government again. But if that is not going to happen anyway - room to shift I think.

No Debate Here | Homeland - #immigration

via explorehomeland.org

For many Americans the issues are simple. Why might this be so?

Posted via email from Rob's posterous

What Are You Afraid of Losing? #immigration

via explorehomeland.org

What is behind the high emotions on the topic of immigration? KETC is going out and asking people the open question of what are you afraid of losing. Here is our first set of replies.

What do you feel you might lose?

Posted via email from Rob's posterous

Is Evil real ?- Is Mainstream Media - its Agent?

Does "Evil" exist? Debatable. But for sure, "Evil Behaviour" exists. And what could be more Evil than manipulating people's fears? 

There is a lot of that going around now - and regretfully the mainstream media helps these people have power to build a platform based on these fears.

They do this in the name of a good idea 'Balance". But how do you balance truth and lies? "Truth or Lies? That is a bit strong Rob?" Well.... The proof is in the pudding. What do many people believe to be true today and how did this happen? Do they believe the truth or lies?

Here is Robert Reich's perspective:

Many Americans (and politicians who the polls) don’t want a mosque at Manhattan’s Ground Zero.

An increasing percent believe the President is a Muslim.

Most Americans approve of Arizona’s new law allowing police to stop anyone who looks Hispanic and demand proof of citizenship.

Most would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally.

Where is all this coming from?  

It’s called fear. When people are deeply anxious about holding on to their homes, their jobs, and their savings, they look for someone to blame. And all too often they find it in “the other” – in people who look or act differently, who come from foreign lands, who have what seem to be strange religions, who cross our borders illegally.

Americans who feel economically insecure may even become paranoid, believing, say, that the President of the United States is secretly one of “them.”

Economic fear is the handmaiden of intolerance. It’s used by demagogues who redirect the fear and anger toward people and groups who aren’t really to blame but are easy scapegoats.

The mainstream media is being manipulated by these people in the name of "Balance". The outcome is that Ignorance is winning over Truth. I am seeing that the best of intentions are creating the worst of outcomes. 

The lies and the fallacies are winning. The "Simple" is crushing the "complex". There is no room for the Complex in Mainstream Media - so the "Simple" and Wrong gets the play.

Why is this happening? Is it just the poor economy? I think it is because the world has become more complex as it has become more connected. Most people can only cope with the simple or the complicated. They have to know the answers. But with Complex situations the answers cannot be known in advance.

Are we then stuck? Stuck in a social world that is complex but in a society that cannot cope with complexity? Is our media simply a product of a simple world that has simple issues?

Richard Gayle.

Many things in the world are changing very rapidly. Heuristics and rules of thumb that used to work – simplifications once true because they were in alignment with the real world – no longer provide a useful function. So people use confirmation bias and other rational fallacies to prop up something – anything – that can explain things in a way that gives them comfort.

A changing world is extremely uncomfortable. Toffler wrote about this in Future Shock, one of the great books of the 70s. This shock, like culture shock, leaves many people disconnected and stressed. So, it is natural for people to seek the comfort of just-so stories that can support their replica of the real world

What seems to be happening, though, is that the media, instead of promoting understanding and stifling ignorance, is actually facilitating it. The MSM just does not want to puncture any bubbles supporting Cargo Cult Worlds.

The MSM is actively working then to prevent us from finding solutions. It does not want to inform people of the underlying principles needed to solve many of our problems.

Thus, a lot of the people know that TARP happened after Obama took office. That Social Security cards tell you which bank owns you.That humans were created in their present form 10,000 years ago. That germs do not cause disease. That Cordoba is a purely a symbol of Islamic conquest. That Einstein’s theories of relativity are disproved by Jesus’ action-at-a-distance. That a bike share program is going to lead to increased abortions. That vaccines do more harm than good. That humans are apparently alive and at work on Mars. That climate scientists are wrong about the warming of the world. That Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the world. These are just from the last 2 weeks.

There actually are people of all political persuasions that want to promote understanding, that value ideas over ideology, that are willing to admit that the world is often more complex than we would like.

But these people seem to have smaller and smaller soapboxes in the public arena. And the MSM does everything it can to make them disappear.

If we hope to overcome our problems we have to work for greater understanding and work to overturn Cargo Cult Worlds. Otherwise, we will see a continuing disconnect from reality with an increasing inability to understand the principles underlying our real world problems

Is the media Evil? No I think they are prisoners of a dangerous idea - that all ideas are worthy and that all points of view demand support.

So what about those that exploit our fears? Are they evil? What motivates them? What is the outcome of their work?

I leave you with the story of their ancestor, Father Coughlin. It was he who worked so hard to incite anti semitism in America in the 1930's that meant that America closed its doors before the holocaust. It was he that used the then new media power of radio to capture a large audience of "believers".

How would we apply the ideals of "Balance" to him? What was the price of him not being called out? Was this America's finest hour? I think most can agree that what he did was evil. So how will history judge us?

So what to do? Our media is not designed to cope with complexity. Nothing makes a complex situation worse than by trying to cope with it using the rules for simple.

So the real future, as I see it, for media is not the use of Facebook etc Is not going online etc But is finding out how best to offer up a platform for engaging in complexity. In creating a space where the process that can offer solutions to complex issues, discovery, can take place.

The Cynefin framework is a great place to start

 

The Cynefin framework has five domains. The first four domains are:

• Simple, in which the relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all, the approach is to Sense - Categorise - Respond and we can apply best practice.
• Complicated, in which the relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and/or the application of expert knowledge, the approach is to Sense - Analyze - Respond and we can apply goodpractice.
• Complex, in which the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance, the approach is to Probe - Sense - Respond and we can sense emergent practice.
• Chaotic, in which there is no relationship between cause and effect at systems level, the approach is to Act - Sense - Respond and we can discover novel practice.

The fifth domain is Disorder, which is the state of not knowing what type of causality exists, in which state people will revert to their own comfort zone in making a decision.

More later.

Is this a bit like dying?

What's it like to die consciously? To leave all you know and know that that is what is happening?

That's what my leaving my home and PEI is feeling like for me right now.

I am in limbo and have been for 2 years as we have had out place up for sale. I can't know when our place will sell but it could be any day. I don't know where I am going for sure either. Is this not the same when we think abut our death. 

So I find myself with no plans. I find myself hunkering down to the mundane. Walking the dogs. Mowing. Cooking and cleaning. Maintaining the house. Very simple actions.

I find myself pulling back from my friends and from the life of the Island. It hurts too much to commit when I know I wont be here.

I have been on PEI for 15 years - the longest time I have spent in any one place at a stretch. My home here and my friends on PEI have restored me to life. What a gift! But I am going. My family pulls me. I can't know what this means but I know that my future is tied into the lives of my children and their children and this is the tribe that I have to pay attention to in the last years of my life.

Is this not how we feel when we die too? We leave all behind for a future that a cannot be known but that cannot be denied either.

What do people think of how the media covers immigration

via explorehomeland.org

We are giving the public the space and the place to offer up their view - here some talk about how the media covers immigration.

Interesting!

Posted via email from Rob's posterous

Hiring Illegal Immigrants? Consequences for Businesses? – Your Voice | Homeland

via explorehomeland.org

Putting the Public into Public TV

Posted via email from Rob's posterous