Christian
Science Monitor….
Sticks
and
stones: the case for civility in American political discourse
Instead of
dogmatism and hysterical clamor, we need more of the ‘Shields and
Brooks’ kind
of civility in our public discourse in America.
By John
Hughes
March 6,
2012
A Friday
night ritual for me is catching “Shields and Brooks” on the PBS
NewsHour. They
offer intelligent analysis and opinion, and though they may disagree
with each
other on issues, they do so with good-natured civility.
I was
delighted when Mark Shields and David Brooks were recognized recently
by
Allegheny College in Pennsylvania, which bestowed on them its “Prize
for
Civility in Public Life.”
I was
impressed by the words of the college’s president, James Mullen, who
hopes that
the award and the college’s focus on civility “might empower young
people
across the nation; that we might help them – help all of us – find the
faith
and courage to engage in the public arena with civility and respect.”
On air, Mr.
Shields said he was grateful for this attempt to “lower the toxicity
level in
American public life and dialogue.” With another dash of decorum,
Shields
reminded viewers that he and Mr. Brooks were the beneficiaries of
standards
laid down by Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, the early architects of the
PBS
news hour.
Both
newscasters were inquiring journalistic interrogators on and off the
air, but
as Shields declared, they “demanded and insisted upon a standard of
civility in
dialogue which permeates this whole show and has been the gold
standard.”
Would that
such a standard had been evident in the slashing debates and attack TV
ads that
have characterized our presidential election campaign so far.
Republican
presidential candidates have called each other names like “fake” and
“narcissistic” and “unprincipled flip-flopper,” and the president a
“snob” and
“job killer” – and those are the mildest. President Obama, instead of
remembering that he is president of all the people, has dismissed
Republicans
as responsible for almost every tribulation of his presidency.
American
democracy is a beacon to millions around the world, but the character
of the
political system that gets us there must leave many onlookers agape.
The
presidential election goes on too long and is awash in too much money.
The
Republican debates have been too numerous, and not a clarification of
policy,
but of TV sound-bites, posturing, and party fratricide. Let us hope for
more
civility when the president and would-be president engage in debate
after this
endless run-up.
Despite the
“gold standard” of the PBS NewsHour and fine reporting by some quality
news
organizations, my own profession of journalism does not emerge with
totally
clean hands.
Cable-TV
has an enormous appetite for sensation and conflict. Some cable
networks have
reveled in endless repetition of the gaffes and insults and angry
exchanges
between the Republican candidates on the debating stage. Some reporters
have
triggered verbal explosions in response to “gotcha” questions. Heated
exchanges
may make the headlines but not clarify platforms and policies.
CBS newsman
Mike Wallace, in his book “Heat and Light,” deplores the focus on
“opinion,
gossip and scandal” in the 24-hour news cycle. With the advent of
cable, he
says, news has become “yammer, yammer, yammer. It’s infotainment. It
used to be
a race to the top. To a certain degree, news today is a race to the
bottom.”
Civil
though he traditionally was, Jim Lehrer has sometimes deplored
journalistic
arrogance. In one tongue-in-cheek commencement address he declared:
“Only the
journalists of America are smart enough to know what to do in the
economy,
health care, and Supreme Court appointments. Don’t believe politicians
and
government officials…They never tell the truth. We, the journalists…are
experts
in motives because ours are so pure.”
Whether it
be presidents, chieftains of commerce and industry, politicians,
journalists,
pundits, late-night comedians, or just folks around the dinner table,
the
discourse would be better with civility.
Read this
and other articles at the Christian Science Monitor
|