#306: No "Going Back To 1950s" Unity. Oh Yeah?
.........................
In The Atlantic, Derek Thompson makes the case that since the 1950s, news, entertainment, and community spirit in general, have all splintered into countless micro-audiences, with each segment sharing little in common. And Covid-19 has simply underlined that fragmentation. Politically, this has lead to alternate realities for all media whose model features feeding on one's own propaganda. We've become a sorry example of disunity, despite our nation's identity arguing otherwise.
At the risk of reaching for the unlikely, here's me imagining a turnaround:
1. For a new president taking office amid a pandemic, the first instinct will be to communicate hope and encouragement.
2. With anti-establishment media counter-programming blast furnace negativity, the only way forward will be a positive message that directs attention to a brighter future.
3. So, rather than predictable and boring, or worse, angry and combative, make each presidential appearance/initiative a showcase for talent and participation.
4. Announce ahead of time a topic for discussion. Example: Affordable Housing. Start with a joke, promise music later on, introduce guests, including celebrities, and--for our example--the Housing (HUD) secretary.
5. Ahead of time, post a link on social media to a site that records statements, and gathers answers to questions. Example: "If the US government paid to have your home insulated, and over the next ten years, the savings on your utility bills paid back that investment, would you sign up (after ten years, all the savings would be yours)? At the end of each show, announce results.
6. Hire talk/comedy show writers and producers. Fashion once-a-week shows around specific topics. The tone would be up-beat, slightly amusing. Include skits, video shorts and cartoons to keep things fun. The main feature would of course be introducing a possible government program or legislative initiative, with the President, Vice President, or cabinet secretary leading a relatively fast-paced introduction and brief conversation. A link would lead to much deeper programming.
7. It's here that I add a new twist to my previous suggestion that building a must-see video presentation for viewers is how one could conceivably control the political conversation. In addition to a question / polling component used to drive an agenda, include a forum wherein people can deliberate.
8. A dot.gov forum would bring people of varying political beliefs together to discuss issues. Maybe:
* An 'official', moderated discussion group considering the current week's topic.
* One-on-one discussions with other Americans.
* Stratified layers of informal discussion that send 'good ideas' and consensus-builders to the next level.
9. So, random groups of perhaps 25 commenters ('lurkers' would constitute many times that number), with those receiving the most 'up' votes able to post and vote at the next highest level, though all levels would be transparent.
10. This funnels consensus upwards, creating a record of arguments that can be read by all, and favoring 'reality' to the extent that it follows common sense. Though not for everyone, the challenge to the strong willed would be "Make your case, or admit your reality can't take it." This is likely to prove alluring, and may in the end change minds. Or, even if derided as 'rigged', such a forum would attract and focus attention, which is of course paramount.
11. Additional concerns:
* Ubiquitous internet would need to be a right, so as to enfranchise all Americans. Perhaps this would eventually mean the makeover of most internet service providers, creating public, non-profit utilities with a minimum connection for everyone paid for by government.
* Verification of accounts could involve the usual logging in/confirmation with passwords.
* Winnowing all comments on a weekly topic would likely be beyond most moderator's abilities. So, moderating would involve our top 'levels', with especially salient arguments highlighted for all to read. Moderators could be hired by the government, or perhaps would be those who make it to the top on a given topic.
* Financial rewards could conceivably be added, especially for moderators at the top. And, if necessary to generate interest, small rewards (savings bonds) for making it to a certain level would be possible.
* What would the formula be for organizing a given topic? For the week's main topic, each 24-hour period would randomly generate as many 25-person groups at the base level as needed. Every few hours, those with the most 'up' votes per post (across all 'base level' groups) would receive a notice that they could post at the next level. Their most popular posts would automatically occur at that higher level as quotes and a link. Those admitted with posting ability at higher levels could then give and receive 'up' votes at that higher level. Every few hours, the highest are advanced, creating a virtual conveyor-belt of debate, with the advancing arguments likely being those appealing to the widest range of opinions: consensus.
For topics other than a given week's chosen topic, a more deliberate pace would be employed. Perhaps a bulletin board of proposed topics could begin one-on-one, attract more members all the way to 25, then be eligible for our 'conveyor belt' of levels as each additional 25 members sign up.
* As a rule, our forum, because it would be transparent (anyone could read any level and any topic), would gradually educate and unite (this, for a population that has recently been subjected to intense quantities of disinformation). And because anyone could follow the reasoning of those with alternative views, side-by-side with rebuttals, reality is bound to win out, on our forum, and at home.
