Suspension of Distrust

The traditional role of the media has generally been that of a stage crew for a theater production.

Taking stock of the set pieces and props provided by the company, the crew carefully rushes to place the necessary items on-stage in time for the next scene. Once the stage is set, however, the crew scurry away from the stage lights and hope the actors know what they are doing with what has been placed.

In a similar way, the press has prepared the ground for social changes without directly involving itself. Stories and books written by the likes of Nellie Bly and Upton Sinclair were the prelude to reforms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting led to the resignation of a sitting U.S. President; and reporters who broke the story on Harvey Weinstein’s methods of silencing his victims of sexual harassment and assault are partially credited with ushering in the #MeToo era (along with the activist who established that hashtag years beforehand).

While some of these reporters, especially in the earlier eras, were determined advocates, many others had followed the story in the course of their regular work as journalist. Most did not attend protests or lobby lawmakers to work towards a particular solution. The traditional mindset was: let the public know what the issue is, and let them talk amongst themselves on what is to be done.

The question now is — can the media go further?

Alyxaundria Sanford and Kristine Villanueva, two CUNY Newmark alumni, spoke to my Community Engagement class recently about their past work at Spaceship Media. Both of them worked on a project that brought women of different political backgrounds from across the country into a Facebook discussion group.

The goal of the project was to foster civil conversation on news topics during the 2018 election season, and giving different women an opportunity to meet with others outside their political sphere. The group also worked around a common set of facts, provided through a partnership with local librarians in Alabama and Pennsylvania.

It sounds like the kind of project our instructors would adore: Jeff Javis seemed to nod approvingly at the idea of conducting communities in respectful discourse — ie, one of his bywords.

Among my fellow classmates, there was a bit of caution. One classmate asked if engaging in conflict resolution and moderation was the proper role of journalism; another noted that this kind of project would need to take into account the power dynamics at work between members (ie, a politically dominant group trying to speak honestly with a subjugated or dependent group).

The concept of building a relationship with people engaged in following the news, however, was still a big draw in the room. Discussion turned towards the idea of building trust and being able to piece together arguments with real people rather than straw figures.

In an atmosphere of falling trust in big institutions, it may require a shift in methods to show that you are offering information in good faith. Even you don’t believe the role of the journalist is to play the go-between in a conversation, what matters in the end is that your information gets out to people who you trust to act on it.

If a journalist wants to set the stage, it will behoove them to show that they understand the actors by occasionally playing the part.