Public Deliberation

Conversation Through Collaboration One Issue at a Time

• Opinion By D.E. Bentley –

Gaining adequate understanding of important issues—to develop independently-informed opinions, and act on them—is overwhelming for many citizens in this era of social media overload. Deliberation, that is, arguing (used nicely here)—once viewed as a constructive initial step in human problem-solving—is being viewed increasingly through a distorted lens of mistrust. Rational sharing, and systematic analysis and sorting of ideas has been superseded by increased polarization in many aspects of our lives—most noticeably in political spheres. This is evidenced, in part, by the growth in popularity of far left, and far right, factions. On opposing sides of a virtual tug-of-war, these polar entities use political monies to perpetuate a social media-based battle of wills—amid a tsunami of confusing, if not blatantly misleading, information. The potential outcome of these battles for influence, wealth, and status are reminiscent of the childhood game by the same name; one side ultimately gets pulled into the mud puddle. Unlike the game of childhood fun and mayhem, in the case of politics there is much at stake; less gets done when politicians are unwilling to work together for the common good. 

The result is often more polarization, apolitical blues, and apathy on the part of constituents. New York—where our home and business (Canadice Press) are located—is a “Blue” state (there we go again, classifying), although the rural regions most served by Owl Light News, our core publication, have large pockets of “Red.” We are a state of diversity; this includes people with diverse political affiliations. Our rural regions are also less populated. This results in greater reliance on online sources for information and communication, at least in areas where the technology has caught up with the reality of modern communication. (Our office just got high speed in 2019.) Increased access to information can be liberating. It can also narrow perspectives. This media tunnel vision can generate fear and misunderstandings that dead-end conversation, and lessen local, community-based action, around issues.

A March 2019 poll by Hart Research Associates*—for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal— found that 57% of Americans polled believed that social media does more to divide the country than unite it. An even greater percentage, 82%, believed that social media wasted time. Still, most of those polled believed that the companies driving the social media machine should remain as private entities—while offering safeguards to better protect our personal information. Nonetheless, during these unprecedented times people are turning to social media for information and entertainment more than ever before. We are also moving ever further away from the in-person dialogue that can help people find common ground. 

Print newspapers of note have long served as sounding boards for divergent points of view. As print moves increasingly toward digital, all media sources have an opportunity, and a responsibility, to provide information that fosters innovative change—that contributes to rather than detracts from the Commons (that is, our shared human legacy).  As editor of a small, regional independent press in “upstate” New York (another somewhat misleading label), I have endeavored to increase levels of public commentary and engagement by offering multiple perspective on a wide range of regional and national issues. With argument and debate getting bad raps, as divisive rather than solution-oriented, people are increasingly hesitant about expressing their views publicly. Initially in our pages, when views were shared and published—even when placed as opinion pieces under a “From our Readers” heading or with “Opinion” included as part of the by line, people often read these as the view rather than one view among many. This perspective increases the likelihood that readers might reject outright ideas contrary to their group’s trending views (groups which individuals have, out of the need for simplification, designated as their own). They then respond with anger or, worse yet, in my opinion, do not respond at all. Varying perspectives offer opportunities for greater understanding, and this is something that we want to foster. 

I recently had a lengthy conversation with a subscriber who wanted to see more “positive news” ongoing on our pages. I struggled with this inquiry, as we strive to be positive in every issue. The difference between her perspective and mine was, I believe, related to our interpretations of positive. She (like so many people right now, understandably) was looking for positive stories; an enjoyable read that simplifies life and reduces stress in an increasingly complex world. In contrast, I perceived positive as providing information that increases dialogue and provides avenues for constructive community change—an editorial activism that I believe to be not only important, but part of my responsibility as a purveyor of information…as a media source. These two thoughts share many overlapping commonalities. We need to simplify (and relax) to get back to really talking about the things we need to talk about. We need to hear success stories, positive news stories, that help us believe that change is possible. We also need to have exposure to and listen to a multitude of perspectives.  

Creating and engaging in dialogue around complex topics—to focus in on complex issues—is more challenging than simply choosing a side. Despite the inherent challenges, there are ways of creating constructive conversations that foster change. In December 2018, we partnered with Doug Garnar from the SUNY Broome Community College Center for Civic Engagement. Garnar also serves as an ambassador for the non-partisan National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI.org), which has, with the support of the Kettering Foundation (Kettering.org), worked since the late 1970s to promote a more constructive type of civic conversation called “Public Deliberation.” 

The underlying principal is to name and frame a public policy issue not as a debate, but rather as a conversation. In these deliberations, at least three-five ways of looking at a problem are examined in small groups of fifteen to twenty citizens with a moderator.  All have equal voice, and a note taker captures the main points each participant makes. At the closure of the deliberation, the moderator has the participants explore where there is “common ground.”

Doug Garnar’s role with Owl Light News has included the writing of a monthly column titled “Pathways to Democracy,” in which he highlights a range of perspectives (or resources) on topics, often using NIFI-created frameworks. The collaboration includes our publication of content relevant to our region paired with related National Issues Forum frameworks, giving our readership a more comprehensive understanding of the issues being discussed. Gun laws are one major issue that we have been able to collectively shed light on. Gun control is a hot button issue in our region, with “Repeal the Safe Act” signs a common roadside sight. Many of the surrounding communities have hunted these lands for generations. Owl Light’s April and May 2019 editions included “Gun Laws in NYS” by Len Geller, an in-depth overview of this regional issue. Garnar offered readers in the April issue a NIF framework, “How to Prevent Mass Shootings in Our Communities.” This provides one example of how Garnar’s contributions and collaboration with Canadice Press has increased community involvement around local issues. Following this print overview and framework, a subsequent article was submitted by a local woman hunter. We shared her article, in print and online, in October 2019, just as deer hunting was getting underway in New York State. She offered a personal perspective that touched on bow hunting as an experience that enriched her life and increased her respect for forest creatures and the natural environment, while helping to feed her family—themes common to many people who reside in this area of the state. In June of 2019, we paired an article about locally based recycling innovators, “Here, There, Everywhere: The Future of Recycling,” by Derrick Gentry with a NIFI deliberation framework on “Climate Choices.” In response to this, readers offered related opinion pieces, including “Saving Our Farmland…and Forest” by Owl Light readers David and Cecelia Deuel.

This increased community engagement has continued, as fears around sharing are replaced with trust, and a more open dialogue on our pages. In our April issue Doug Garnar offered an overview of the “Land of Plenty” NIF framework. Our lead article was “Water Warriors,” about a local environmental group—Seneca Lake Guardians—who have been instrumental in helping to safeguard Finger Lakes’ communities through sustainable land use, including a successful community initiative to stop the lakeside storage of gas and fracking wastes from Pennsylvania, and the placement of a trash incinerator within miles of a public school. In our May 2020 Owl Light News issue, the framework explores healthcare, at a time when this is foremost in our thoughts and trending heavily on social media networking sites. 

What makes deliberation effective as a community problem-solving model is the use of multiple perspectives to frame issues and the inclusion of many individuals with diverse views. This lessens the us vs. them mentality inherent in two-sided discussions. It also puts the power of change under the control of people, at the community level. Yes, we have our differences; this is a good thing. There are commonalities as well, that can offer us avenues for positive change. Most Americans wish to live in safe and secure neighborhoods. We want jobs to meet our basic needs, quality education for our children, that offers them a hopeful future. On a global level, we all need clean air, water, and soil (the basis of all life). Public deliberation offers us a way to move forward, a “pathway to democracy” that can create the kind of communities we wish to be a part of, and a future for our children, a voice at a time.  

*www.documentcloud.org/documents/5794861-19093-NBCWSJ-March-Poll-4-5-19-Release.html\