Observing the current debate on gun ownership leads one to conclude that all debating can accomplish is polarize and paralyze situations.
A CNN promotional message got my attention this week when I noticed one of the reporters featured in it essentially said that encouraging debate was a primary objective of their coverage. On the surface, that can sound really positive. Who would not be inclined to agree that the more we debate issues the more informed we become?
But I am reminded of how even mainstream journalists delighted in reporting the extremes of the republican primary debates. They argued they were only reporting what was being said. But admittedly it made exciting copy for the daily news, and so the extreme viewpoints were endlessly repeated.
Looking at it now, does this not raise the question : Did such reporting play a strong role in creating the very polarization they were reporting? In other words, have we reached a point where we must be extreme in our rhetoric in order to gain the media recognition necessary to succeed? Do we find ourselves in the classic “chicken and egg” predicament?
In my younger days I produced both radio and television public affairs programs and found that the easiest way to design a compelling program was to invite two extreme thinking people to debate. I also found that when we examined issues more thoughtfully it simply was not “good television.” The medium of television likes simplicity and conflict, and with few exceptions makes intelligent discussion feel boring.
I must conclude from this current gun ownership issue that debates certainly do clarify positions! But once clarified, it’s also clear that a much different circumstance is required in order to find solutions. Research tells us that the media determines the topics we talk about. And we now know 24/7 cable is capable of fine-tuning extreme points of view. But we have yet to find a useful medium for taking those viewpoints and moving them to solutions.
The consequence of this polarized atmosphere is that compromise has become a dirty word, when it realistically is the only way to move forward. When are we going to learn that debate is only one important step in the democratic process? The next is to form a task force to find a compromised way forward, and then to adjust the details later from what is learned.
We have a big problem with gun violence in the US, so let’s do something… and then go from there.
Larry D. Lauer 
Excellent question Larry, whether the way of reporting contributed to the polarization. I guess you know what I think 🙂
And an excellent point, that debate is only the first step. Indeed another way of communicating is necessary to move forward to solutions. Hope the loud mouths pick this up. A new role for journalism, eh? So needed.