“Reality-based editorials”

3 Responses to ““Reality-based editorials””

1. Mark Federman (27 comments.)
   January 20th, 2008 at 13:19

   Kinsella’s argument and example may be compelling, but tacitly raises the local experience vs. principles dichotomy.

   Kinsella’s censorship anecdote demonstrates the dichotomy and its problematic elements perfectly. Just because he and his professor were offended by certain pornographic writings (at the time - now they appear relatively mild) does not mean that it is appropriate to institute a form of censorship that carries along with it the mechanisms to restrict important, but unpopular speech.

   Similarly, editorializing, and taking hard, polarizing positions doesn’t add to the understanding, appreciation, or resolution of complex matters of public policy. Although I agree with Kinsella that, to a large extent, editorial writers (and many newspaper columnists as well) are paper tigers who lock themselves safely in their privileged cages, involving them in staged stunts isn’t the answer.

   In the UCaPP era, newspapers are no longer about news (ie. instantaneous reporting) or even perverse entertainment (let’s see if we can catch Dalton or Stevie in another gaffe); they should be (imnsho) about context. In this respect the principle of reversal kicks in: newspapers should become oldspapers.

   
   
2. Rob Hyndman (318 comments.)
   January 20th, 2008 at 15:46

   Interesting, Mark - but what do you think about what I take to be his core argument - that policy development needs to be driven off of a real world appreciation of the issue - boots on the ground, I suppose. I suspect he would counter by saying not he’s not advocating caged stunts - that there has to be a middle ground, and that the opinionistas are too often not even familiar with that turf …

   And I wonder how we ought to think about that argument in a media environment that allows anyone to have a very public opinion?

   
   
3. Mark Federman (27 comments.)
   January 21st, 2008 at 16:15

   I agree that, ideally, policy development should emerge from real experience. But, whose experience has the privilege to be represented at the policy development table? When the Harper government develops policy, only certain “boots on the ground” experiences are represented - consider a too-easy example of copyright reform. When the McGuinty or Stelmach or Williams governments develop policy, the same occurs. Even at City Hall, policy is often a fait accomplis by the time other boots have a chance to tromp over to the policy makers. (Look at the disaster that is occurring with respect to new bins for old garbage - City policy makers didn’t even walk around downtown communities when proposing the new garbage regime.)

   Among the ways to minimize the influences of ideology and privileged interests is to emphasize context over content, or put another way, ground over figure. Consider both the direct and indirect effects of decisions, rather than focusing on desired outcomes (in the City garbage case, the presentation created by “staff” for council is a perfect example of the opposite of what I am advocating).