
Complicating the Narratives - imartin2k
https://thewholestory.solutionsjournalism.org/complicating-the-narratives-b91ea06ddf63
======
arwhatever
"Journalism has yet to undergo this awakening. We like to think of ourselves
as objective seekers of truth. Which is why most of us have simply doubled
down in recent years, continuing to do more of the same kind of journalism,
despite mounting evidence that we are not having the impact we once had. We
continue to collect facts and capture quotes as if we are operating in a
linear world."

Take a look at the, say, top dozen headlines on Google News and tell me you
really think this passage above is the least bit accurate. Are the majority of
those "headlines" starting simple facts about things that have occurred, or
are they trying to convince you to reach their own conclusions about the facts
at best, or at worst just link-baiting you with outrage?

~~~
jmcqk6
For the record, here are the current dozen ten Google News headlines:

>Missing youth soccer team found alive in Thai cave

>Michael Cohen Hints at Cooperating With Federal Investigators. Or Does He?

>Suspect accused of stabbing 9 kids and adults at Boise birthday party is on
probation in Utah

>Harvey Weinstein could face life in prison following latest sex-crime charges

>López Obrador wins Mexico’s presidential election by a landslide

>State Dept aims to cut Iran oil exports to zero but leaves wiggle room for
some importers

>One of these women could be Trump's Supreme Court pick

>Rodan + Fields fires white woman charged with assaulting black teen at pool |
TheHill

>Maria Bartiromo’s embarrassing Trump interview

>Man Arrested in Cleveland Terror Plot afte FBI Sting

>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spanks the predator political class; next item:
redeem the nation

>Dog bitten by rattlesnake called 'hero' for saving owner

The majority of these headlines are starting facts about things that have
occurred.

When you developed your opinion about the current state of journalism, did you
base it on a dispassionate view of the facts, or did you base it on your
perceptions of the facts without closely examining whether your perception was
accurate or not?

By definition, you're going to see more articles that have link-baiting titles
than not, because they work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't be used. If
you mainly get your news from social media, you have a biased view of the news
itself.

~~~
mancerayder
Well, here's a rebuttal. First off you stated Google News, which
algorithmically selected these headlines/articles. Let's put aside the fact
that they may be even somewhat personalized (it doesn't need to be for the
purposes of the discussion). Quite simply most Americans don't get their news
online from Google News. You have Facebook in large part, as well as an array
of other ways in which information is fed. I get headlines popping up on the
sides of articles, for example.

Another commenter pointed out the generation of headlines [edit: emphasis on
generation, not just selection]. Well, that is one of the main tickets here,
particularly to our legitimate criticisms of media. This article does a
fantastic job of explaining the process of headline generation, citing
examples and backing up the claims: [https://medium.com/@tobiasrose/the-enemy-
in-our-feeds-e86511...](https://medium.com/@tobiasrose/the-enemy-in-our-
feeds-e86511488de)

~~~
jmcqk6
>First off you stated Google News, which algorithmically selected these
headlines/articles

No, I didn't. The OP did. I was just checking out what they asserted without
evidence.

------
stcredzero
_As politicians have become more polarized, we have increasingly allowed
ourselves to be used by demagogues on both sides of the aisle, amplifying
their insults instead of exposing their motivations. Again and again, we have
escalated the conflict and snuffed the complexity out of the conversation._

Why? Because it generates views. Because outrage is the easiest way to make
something go viral.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc)

Politicians of a certain bent encourage this behavior as well, because it's
the perfect way of cementing a highly loyal "base." This happens more at the
farther ends of the political spectrum, both on the left and on the right.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deg1wmYjwtk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deg1wmYjwtk)

------
mcprwklzpq
I took this notes.

Journalist Amanda Ripley says that "Complexity is contagious" and that
"Complicating the narrative means finding and including the details that don’t
fit the [binary] narrative — on purpose."

So in some study participants talk about polarizing issue. Before talking they
read one article about it.

If article is similar to news article with 2 sides to the story, participants
take sides, argue and leave with negative impression that conversation is
meaningless.

If article is similar to anthropologist’s field notes, with emphasis on
complexity of the issue and without binary division, then participants “don’t
solve the debate” but "do have a more nuanced understanding and more
willingness to continue the conversation" researcher and social psychologist
Peter T. Coleman says.

Then in a long case study of some american talk show some specialists propose
general questions to bring more nuance to conversations.

What divides us?

What is oversimplified about this issue?

How has this conflict affected your life?

What do you think the other side wants?

What’s the question nobody is asking?

What do you and your supporters need to learn about the other side in order to
understand them better?

What do you think the other community thinks of you?

What do you think of the other community?

What do you want the other community to know about you?

What do you want to know about the other community?

~~~
extralego
Nice notes. I think the ‘other community’ notion can be thrown out, though, in
favor of the anthropologist approach.

I have been practicing engaging with people who are culturally extremely
different from me and learned the anthropologist approach works great when
introduced with some humility. The other party gets curious and ideally asks
the important questions themselves. Instead of a debate, it becomes more like
fixing a car or computer together.

~~~
mcprwklzpq
Yes, 'other community' questions imply binary division on issue. I think this
questions were proposed to a mediator between the debating parties to try to
move conversation into more productive direction. This questions aren't that
useful when you start a conversation and can frame it not as a debate.

------
jeffdavis
The author unfortunately undermines his own article by starting out with:

"I have overvalued reasoning in myself and others and undervalued pride, fear
and the need to belong."

If you start out with the idea that you are the reasonable one and all you
need to do is soothe the fears of your opponents, you aren't going to teach
(or learn) anything.

But I like the general approach of interrupting narratives. It's the opposite
of what the media does, and it makes people stop and think, or at least
recognize there is greater complexity to an issue.

~~~
gisely
Please take a moment to glance as the name of the author before assuming that
all voices on the internet are male. Or at least use "they/their" as your
default instead of "he/his".

To your point, why does this quote undermine her narrative? She isn't saying
she's saw herself as rational and others as emotional. Note that her use of
"myself and others" in the quote clearly indicates that she's putting herself
in the same boat as her audience rather that separating herself from them.

~~~
jeffdavis
The "myself and others" bit is a bit ambiguous to me. I read it as overvaluing
reasoning _itself_ , but it seems like you read it as over-estimating the
reasoning _ability_ of an individual.

The former interpretation still comes across as quite condescending to me,
especially after comparing to economists studying irrational behaviors.

The latter interpretation doesn't seem to match the text quite as well, but
perhaps that was her intended meaning.

~~~
Firadeoclus
I think the intended meaning becomes much clearer in the context of the
preceding sentence:

> I realized that I’ve overestimated my ability to quickly understand what
> drives people to do what they do. I have overvalued reasoning in myself and
> others and undervalued pride, fear and the need to belong.

The context is "what drives people to do what they do", and she used to work
on the assumption that what drives most people is mainly reasoning rather than
emotions. But she discovered that this isn't true, including for herself.

------
hosh
This is a great piece.

The research this is based up on with conflict resolution is something I am
learning at a personal level from the book, Crucial Conversations, and having
to work through interpersonal conflicts in my life.

When I apply those same principles to public discourse, I can see what the
author is talking about -- at least, the problem space.

~~~
hosh
For example:

"The alternate version contained all the same information — written in a
different way. That article emphasized the complexity of the gun debate,
rather than describing it as a binary issue. So the author explained many
different points of view, with more nuance and compassion. It read less like a
lawyer’s opening statement and more like an anthropologist’s field notes."

Matches this technique from "Crucial Accountability" called "Completing the
Story". Here, the authors talk about the Fundemental Attribution Error, and
then show the way to deliberately expand upon the possible influences for
failed expectations beyond simply, "This person is a jerk". It can be really
effective.

... And it is also the first part of the book. The rest of the book involves
the techniques of actually having these difficult conversations.

I had been able to use this when talking with my wife about political issues
that have great emotional significance with her. We used to get into arguments
because, I tend to see nuances in many of the issues, and somehow the
conversation quickly turns into something else. It doesn't _change_ her views
on it and what she feels as important, but it has reduce a lot of the
emotional charge while we explore many different angles of the issue.

~~~
hosh
The way that is expanded is very structured, by going through the a 3x2:

Personal Motivation Personal Ability Social Motivation (peer pressure) Social
Ability (support from peers) Structural Motivation (carrot-and-sticks;
incentive structures) Structural Ability (technology, architecture, gadgets)

Public policy and governance debates are often nominally around "structural
motivation", but policies and governance along do not form the full picture.

------
myWindoonn
This is not great advice against the current backdrop of fascism ascending. We
should be seeking _evidence_ to build _fact-based narratives_ and actively
downplaying _emotional_ attempts to derail searches for facts. Fascists _hate_
facts. Books are like their kryptonite.

~~~
watwut
Fascists were not beaten by facts. That is just not how it works, sadly. Where
fascism is winning, it is because emotions like fear and belonging and glory
beat facts by mile.

Books are not necessary factual. Fascists love pro-fascist books.

------
jancsika
> One version of the article laid out both sides of a given controversy,
> similar to a traditional news story — arguing the case in favor of gun
> rights, for example, followed by the case for gun control.

I'm not sure how this relates to investigative journalism. While investigative
pieces give the target of the investigation a chance to respond as part of the
article, they do not devote paragraphs to "both sides" of the
corruption/wrongdoing revealed.

------
fortythirteen
Why would anyone of above average ability become a journalist anymore? You
have better, long term salary prospects as a public school teacher.

Journalism in the west is close to dead. It's arguable if there ever was true
objectivity, but not arguable that we haven't seen this little of it since the
19th century.

If I had the resources I would start an online news service that actually
followed the AP guidelines to the letter, and had no opinions whatsoever - not
even an opinion section.

~~~
iamdave
_Why would anyone of above average ability become a journalist anymore? You
have better, long term salary prospects as a public school teacher._

If you're looking for a genuine and authentic answer: I took up a part-time
job writing local columns for high school athletics that turned into a few
contributions for Sports Illustrated.

Why?

Because I genuinely _love_ sports reporting and writing. I'm addicted to
stats, I love the competition, I will enthusiastically argue for hours about
90's era baseball. I was and remain fully aware it might not be immediately or
even eventually profitable, I have no long-term salary prospects, just a
middle-of-the-road IT support job (that comparatively for the industry,
doesn't pay _that_ great). Combining the two 'jobs' I make enough to live what
I consider, for my ends and motivations, a comfortable life doing something I
really enjoy doing along with something that supplements everything else.

 _Journalism in the west is close to dead_

I couldn't disagree more. It's not dead, it's evolving-and probably the most
directly felt evolution is the delivery mechanisms.

If one wants to talk about objectivity it helps to look at the concept
_itself_ a bit more objectively.

