Is it just me or does it seem that politics has become decidedly more polarized and vicious?
Politics in Canada, of course, has always been tainted. One doesn't have to look farther than the history of voting in Canada to shatter any illusions one might have about the integrity of our political stakeholders. Alcoholic bribes, gangs blocking polling stations, disenfranchised groups and even murders of citizens attempting to vote are part of our Canadian story (although this is NEVER mentioned in our history textbooks). Still, I can't help but think that something more disturbing is causing increased polarization and vitriol.
Yesterday, Bernie Frank , a long-serving member of the US government, was interviewed by Michael Enright on The Sunday Edition, CBC Radio 1. He shared his insights on why he feels we have become so polarized.
I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this.
In the old days we always had extreme members on both the right and the left, but we had common information - we read the same newspapers, we watched the same newscasts and although we might have different opinions, we were working with common tools. It was possible for us to come to agreements. Today the right and the left are living in parallel media universes. The left reads their news, the right reads theirs - we can't come to agreements because we're working with different tools.
What does this say for the future of democracy?
What does this mean for educators and our responsibility to develop citizens who know how to participate and contribute to the evolution of our democracy in this age of the internet?
What does it say about the necessity of expanding our approach to digital citizenship and our responsibility to teach children how not to get stuck in silos and how to avoid confirmation bias.
What does it say about curriculum and the often inane things we are asked to do with children rather than letting them tear apart the really important issues of our communities?
Frank's interview left me with much to ponder at the start of this new school year. In this global discussion on education, in what ways have we cornered ourselves by the people we've chosen to follow on twitter? by the links we choose to click on? Are we suffering from the illusion that we are engaged in bringing global voices together, but are really just fostering isolaton by allowing in only those voices that fit well in our streams?
I remember having a discussion with a masters student in Sociology many years ago about why she read Babara Amiel. This student would read Amiel's columns and then frequently rant over her interpretations of the world. But, this student went on to explain, there was often an uncomfortable grain of truth in what Amiel had to say and this could not nor should not be ignored.
It would be prudent to remember this as we rely ever more on the internet as our source for information.
Politics in Canada, of course, has always been tainted. One doesn't have to look farther than the history of voting in Canada to shatter any illusions one might have about the integrity of our political stakeholders. Alcoholic bribes, gangs blocking polling stations, disenfranchised groups and even murders of citizens attempting to vote are part of our Canadian story (although this is NEVER mentioned in our history textbooks). Still, I can't help but think that something more disturbing is causing increased polarization and vitriol.
Yesterday, Bernie Frank , a long-serving member of the US government, was interviewed by Michael Enright on The Sunday Edition, CBC Radio 1. He shared his insights on why he feels we have become so polarized.
I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this.
In the old days we always had extreme members on both the right and the left, but we had common information - we read the same newspapers, we watched the same newscasts and although we might have different opinions, we were working with common tools. It was possible for us to come to agreements. Today the right and the left are living in parallel media universes. The left reads their news, the right reads theirs - we can't come to agreements because we're working with different tools.
What does this say for the future of democracy?
What does this mean for educators and our responsibility to develop citizens who know how to participate and contribute to the evolution of our democracy in this age of the internet?
What does it say about the necessity of expanding our approach to digital citizenship and our responsibility to teach children how not to get stuck in silos and how to avoid confirmation bias.
What does it say about curriculum and the often inane things we are asked to do with children rather than letting them tear apart the really important issues of our communities?
Frank's interview left me with much to ponder at the start of this new school year. In this global discussion on education, in what ways have we cornered ourselves by the people we've chosen to follow on twitter? by the links we choose to click on? Are we suffering from the illusion that we are engaged in bringing global voices together, but are really just fostering isolaton by allowing in only those voices that fit well in our streams?
I remember having a discussion with a masters student in Sociology many years ago about why she read Babara Amiel. This student would read Amiel's columns and then frequently rant over her interpretations of the world. But, this student went on to explain, there was often an uncomfortable grain of truth in what Amiel had to say and this could not nor should not be ignored.
It would be prudent to remember this as we rely ever more on the internet as our source for information.
Have you ever seen the speculative future EPIC flash animation? http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/epic2015
ReplyDeleteThey theorize that web3.0 will kill professional media and end feed people whatever they want to see - which could end up being a deeply nuanced, personalized view of the world, or utter crap that enforces your prejudices and ignorance. The problem with personalized media is that if you're an idiot web3.0 will enforce your idiocy.
I've noticed that social media has an Arab-spring like effect on recent Ontario politicians attempts to do business as usual and spin their fictions. They no longer have solo-access to broadcast media - it's a 2 way street now. I like to think that this means a more representative democracy where the ruling class don't get to dictate opinion by manipulating broadcast media, though social media does require more effort on the part of citizens to be participatory rather than passive consumers.
Perhaps it's more viscous because it's becoming more participatory and democratic? Having said that, I'd love to see a web3.0 tool that auto-fact checks what I'm looking at online and throws in pop-ups showing accuracy ratings with supporting links. If this evolves, Frank's concerns about partisan media (which are right on) will become less worrisome. Credibility ratings based on transparency, accuracy and consistency would be a great step forward online.
If participation and crowd sourced media result in transparency and honesty, then it's a rough transition from where we're coming from, but a positive evolutionary step in democracy.
I've had similar thoughts on my mind...
Broadcast media:
http://temkblog.blogspot.ca/2012/09/beware-dinosaurs-lawyers.html
I want to believe in the crowd, I do!
https://twitter.com/tk1ng/status/242617175238647808
Figure out how to put links on blogger comments (it ain't easy)
ReplyDeleteEpic future animation
Tim Blog on broadcast media control
Tweet on politics in a two way information medium
How to post links in Blogger
...that'll make the links more accessible - and if you follow the last one you can look like a blogger commenting ninja!
Awesome comments Timothy and how did you know I always secretly wanted to be a blogger commenting Ninja?!!!!
ReplyDeleteWell said Heidi! I read similar views in David Weinberger's book Too Big To Know - he too laments that our internet "news" is funneled into narrower and single-sided views as search engines decide our material for us. What was intended to help us and ease our searches is really restricting our information. Highlights the importance of teaching our students to find viewpoints on many sides of the issues so that they practice seeking out more than common opinions.
ReplyDeleteThanks Brenda. This is such an important topic - students and educators need practice in this. When I was at ISTE I came across a tool that eliminates the first 1 000 000 hits. Useful for finding other points of view. I'll see if I can find the link for that.
ReplyDeleteI thought I'd start off the year by reading a classic Dystopian book, that I've never read: Fahrenheit 451. Listening (I'm engaging in the audiobook version, while I repaint my closet) to Ray Bradbury present a world that craves knowledge but fears the implications of choice, I think it'd be possible to go this way, if all we did was view media through 1 lens. I absolutely believe in the good of human nature. As a teacher I think it drives home the impetus more than ever to teach critical thinking, to emphasize self-publishing and to nurture our digital identities to represent our authentic and vulnerable selves. I, for one, have never felt more connected in my life. That global connectedness often makes me feel more isolated at work, and I think I may be truly addicted to the hopeful ideals presented at professional development conferences, but it's possible that I'm presenting my authentic, vulnerable self in more facets of my every day life too. Here's my pecha kucha from a recent conference: http://youtu.be/8lVjR9iNdhE Being that succinct was a great exercise in efficiency. Thank you for questioning, Heidi. It helps me feel connected to you.
ReplyDeleteI loved your Digital Identity p.k. Will use it! Thanks for sharing.
DeleteHi Alanna, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I too have never felt more connected than now because of social media. Teaching critical thinking and using one's voice is key. I struggle with idea of inherent good - how does one define good? So much of this is culturally based and even reducing the idea of good to, "do no harm" is troublesome for some. I live in a world where it is inherently good not to carry a gun; I know people who live in a world where the right to carry a gun is inherently good. And somehow we must come to an agreement of how to govern civil society. A daunting task. What about those who are unwilling to view beyond 1 lens? What then? One thing is certain, as Canadians we are privileged to be able to engage in discussions about democracy and point of view without fear. For that, I am grateful - and always aware that this reality could change and must be safeguarded.
ReplyDelete