3 Ideas for Communicating Across the Political Divide | Isaac Saul | TED
Summary
TLDRВ своем выступлении оратор обсуждает, как выбор языка в СМИ и политических дискуссиях может демонстрировать принадлежность к определенной политической группе и усугублять поляризацию. Он предлагает стратегии для более нейтрального общения, чтобы связать людей с разными политическими взглядами, используя компромиссные термины, уважающие предпочтения групп, и просит аудиторию быть терпимой к языковым выборам других, даже если они могут вызывать неприязнь.
Takeaways
- 🗣️ Язык и терминология, используемые в СМИ и политических дискуссиях, могут быть выбраны с учетом предпочтений определенных политических группировок.
- 🌐 Поляризация политики и СМИ приводит к тому, что люди, которые могут иметь иные взгляды, отдаляются друг от друга.
- 🔍 СМИ, стремящиеся к увеличению вовлеченности, могут использовать язык, который отталкивает определенные группы людей, чтобы привязать другую.
- 📢 Авторы текста обсуждают, как они пытаются избегать использования языка, который сигнализирует «вы не в моей команде».
- 🔄 Использование компромиссных терминов, таких как «неавторизованный мигрант», может помочь достичь нейтралитета и уважения к разным точкам зрения.
- 🤔 Иногда нет простого компромисса, и приходится выбирать термины, предпочитаемые группой, чтобы поддерживать нейтральный тон.
- 📊 Опросы и предпочтения аудитории могут влиять на выбор терминологии, например, предпочтение термина «Hispanic» перед «Latinx».
- 🧐 Иногда приходится следовать своим собственным убеждениям и честно обосновывать свои решения, как в случае с капитализацией «B» в слове «Black».
- 🔗 Важно общаться и слушать с людьми, которые думают по-другому, и стремиться к более нейтральному и толерантному использованию языка.
- 🤝 Толлерантное отношение к языковым выборам других политических групп и искреннее общение могут способствовать диалогу и пониманию.
Q & A
Какой основной вопрос поднимается в скрипте?
-Скрипт обсуждает влияние языковых выборов в СМИ и политических партизанах на поляризацию общества и проблемы коммуникации между людьми с разными политическими взглядами.
Чем отличается первый и второй способ представления информации о мигрантах?
-Первый способ использует термин 'незаконные алиены', который привлекает консервативный аудиторию, в то время как второй способ использует 'недокументированные иммигранты', который привлекает либеральный аудиторию.
Что автор говорит о том, что СМИ и политические активисты делают для привлечения определенной аудитории?
-Автор говорит, что СМИ и политические активисты делают языковые выборы, которые могут отталкивать людей с другими взглядами, чтобы привлечь свою целевую аудиторию.
Какие примеры языковых выборов дает автор для описания политических групп?
-Автор дает примеры, такие как 'эквити', 'животные опыты', 'угнетение' для левых и 'снежок', 'глубокое государство', 'альфа', 'незаконный алиен', 'пробужденный', 'воин за социальную справедливость' для правых.
Что такое Tangle и почему автор его основал?
-Tangle - это независимый, непартизанский новостной ресурс, основанный автором в 2019 году в ответ на распространение предубеждений и партизанства в основных новостных редакциях по всей Америке.
Какие проблемы возникали с использованием определенных терминов в Tangle?
-Автор столкнулся с проблемами, когда читатели отписывались из-за использования определенных терминов, которые могли отталкивать определенные группы, например, 'про-жизнь' или 'против абортов'.
Какие решения предлагает автор для избежания поляризационных языковых выборов?
-Автор предлагает найти компромиссные термины, использовать предпочитаемые термины группы для поддержания нейтральной тона и следовать своим собственным мыслям, если есть доводы против общепринятых правил.
Почему автор перестал использовать термин 'Latinx'?
-Автор перестал использовать термин 'Latinx', потому что люди, к которым он относится, предпочитают термины 'Hispanic' или 'Latino', и большинство считают 'Latinx' оскорбительным.
Как автор относится к использованию заглавной буквы в слове 'Black'?
-Автор после рассмотрения разных точек зрения решил не следовать рекомендации AP Stylebook и не использовать заглавную букву в слове 'Black', так как считает аргументы противников более убедительными.
Чем автор призывает аудиторию для улучшения межполитической коммуникации?
-Автор призывает аудиторию быть искренними, терпеливы и открытыми к идеям, которые могут вызвать неприязнь, и стремиться к более нейтральной и толерантной коммуникации.
Outlines
🗣️ Язык как инструмент политической поляризации
В первом параграфе речь идет о важности выбора слов и фраз в политике и СМИ. Автор рассматривает два способа представления одной и той же информации, изменяя терминологию для разных аудиторий. Это демонстрирует, насколько поляризована политика и как языковые выборы могут отталкивать людей с разными взглядами. Автор, будучи журналистом, основателем независимого новостного издания Tangle, стремится создать источник, в котором все точки зрения представлены нейтрально и без привязки к какому-либо политическому лагерю.
🔍 Решение проблем поляризованного языка в СМИ
Второй параграф фокусируется на том, как автор и его новостное издание Tangle сталкиваются с проблемами, возникающими при попытке привлечь читателей с разных политических сторон. Автор описывает, как определенные термины, такие как "противоживотное" или "антиаборт", могут вызывать негативную реакцию у определенных групп. В качестве решения предлагает использовать предпочитаемый термин группы для поддержания нейтральной тона и уважения к позициям всех сторон. Также рассматривается проблема с термином "Latinx", который, хотя и является гендерно нейтральным, не принят в сообществе латиноамериканских людей.
🌐 Общение за пределами политических племен
В заключительном параграфе автор обсуждает, как можно общаться и соединять людей с разными политическими взглядами. Он предлагает стратегии, такие как использование предпочитаемых терминов групп, которые обсуждаются, и прислушиваться к их намерениям, даже если они используют язык, который может вызвать неприязнь. Автор также подчеркивает важность искренности и толерантности в общении и в СМИ, чтобы достичь более продуктивного диалога и понимания между различными политическими группами.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡политик
💡политаризация
💡нейтральный язык
💡медиа
💡языковые выборы
💡политические трибы
💡нейтральная точка зрения
💡компромисс
💡толерантность
💡предпочтения группы
Highlights
Speaker emphasizes the importance of precise language choices in communication.
Comparison of two different ways to convey the same information to different political audiences.
Discussion on how language choices in media can contribute to political polarization.
The impact of media language on audience engagement and retention.
Examples of 'political tribe' signaling language on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum.
Introduction of Tangle, an independent, nonpartisan news outlet aimed at reducing news polarization.
Challenges faced in creating a balanced platform that appeals to diverse political perspectives.
The strategy of finding a compromise in language to avoid alienating different political groups.
The decision to use 'unauthorized migrant' as a neutral term in place of 'illegal alien' or 'undocumented immigrant'.
Approach to using preferred terms of different groups to maintain neutrality in discussions.
The controversy and polling data regarding the use of the term 'Latinx'.
The importance of listening to the arguments and making informed decisions about language use.
The role of individuals in bridging the gap in political communication beyond the media.
Encouragement for open-mindedness and willingness to change one's perspective on language use.
The necessity of sincerity in communication to connect with people across the political spectrum.
The practicality and ease of using neutral language and showing tolerance in political discourse.
Call for suggestions and openness to ideas on improving cross-political communication.
Transcripts
So I asked for a podium today,
and I'm going to read from some notes when I give this talk,
because I care a great deal about language choices,
and I want to be absolutely precise
in some of the words that I'm going to use today.
I'm going to start by telling you the same piece of information twice,
but I'm going to say it in two different ways.
Here's the first way: "1,000 illegal aliens were arrested by US Border Patrol
after crossing the southern border on Monday."
Here's the second way.
"1,000 undocumented immigrants turned themselves in to US Border Patrol
after crossing the southern border on Monday."
You may be able to see the difference between these statements.
The first one is written to cater to a conservative audience
in the United States,
and the second is meant to cater to a liberal audience.
The difference in how straightforward news stories like this are conveyed
underscores just how polarized our politics have become.
Everyone knows that polarization is a big issue
in the United States and across the globe.
But what fewer people talk about is the language choices
that the media and political partisans make
that push people away
who might have a different perspective than them,
despite the fact there are often less alienating ways
to communicate the same ideas.
For media companies that thrive on engagement,
those choices might be intentional.
It doesn't matter if a news outlet loses half the country
calling migrants illegal aliens,
so long as it retains the other half.
As individuals, however, we sometimes make those choices
without even realizing it.
I'd like to share some examples of language choices
that I think signal what I call a political tribe.
I'm going to start with some on the left.
"Equity." "Lived experience."
"Oppression."
Someone may be sharing their pronouns or talking about gender affirming care
or using the term "Latinx."
On the right, you might see words like "snowflake" or "deep state,"
"mainstream media," "alpha,"
"illegal alien," "woke," "social justice warrior."
For over a decade, I've been obsessing over language choices like this.
I'm a politics reporter from Bucks County, Pennsylvania,
a bellwether county in a bellwether state.
And in 2019, I started an independent, nonpartisan news outlet called Tangle
in response to the bias and partisanship
that I saw flourishing in major newsrooms all across America.
In fact, I started Tangle to solve the problem
of what I like to call "news polarization."
I wanted to create a place where all Americans
from the most hardcore MAGA Republican
to the most progressive, blue-blooded liberal
could trust as a source of wide-ranging perspectives
and balanced reporting.
And a place where an international audience
could read about US news without the typical partisan slant.
Our approach is simple.
It's just to share perspectives from across the political spectrum
in language that reaches as many people as possible.
But, as you might imagine, we ran into some problems.
We found that while attempting to bring conservatives and liberals under one roof,
we were often losing people
before they even read the different ideas we were presenting.
Early on, I would get emails from liberal readers
saying they were unsubscribing
over things like my use of the term "pro-life"
instead of "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice."
At the same time, I would get emails from conservative readers
saying they were unsubscribing
because I described abortion as women's health care,
which made them feel like I was in the tank for the pro-choice side.
We realized that if we wanted people
to actually hear arguments from the other side,
we had to make some changes to our language choices.
So I'd like to talk about how I navigate this problem of polarizing language
as a reporter seeking to communicate
with an audience from across the political spectrum,
but also how I do it in my personal life.
First, we really want to avoid making language choices
that signal to people, "you are not on my team."
That's incredibly difficult.
Immigration is one subject where news organizations
most commonly signal tribe,
like in our first example,
"undocumented immigrant" versus "illegal immigrant."
We know that a conservative might see "undocumented immigrant"
and unsubscribe, suspecting that we're soft on immigration,
while a liberal might see "illegal immigrant"
and write in to tell us that no person is illegal
before canceling their account.
That leads us to our first solution.
When possible, find a compromise.
We settled on the term "unauthorized migrant,"
a legal expression that seems not to offend
the sensibilities of either side,
instead allowing readers to take in the arguments we're presenting
while also accurately portraying what we're trying to communicate.
Unfortunately, not every problem has a simple compromise.
So let's go to a classic example.
Abortion is a big indicator of political tribe.
Is a person pro-life for wanting to make the killing of a fetus illegal,
or are they anti-choice?
Is another person pro-choice
for wanting a woman to be able to choose what happens to her body,
or are they anti-life?
Ardent supporters of one side of this debate or the other
will insist on using their preferred terms.
So what do you do?
Solution number two.
We tend to use a group's preferred term.
That allows us to maintain a neutral tone in the discussion
and treat everyone's position with tolerance.
Pro-life people say they're pro-life, so we call them that.
Pro-choice people say they're pro-choice, so we say that, too.
We may use a term like "anti-abortion" to describe a pro-life group,
but only if we've seen them use that language themselves,
which, by the way, many of them do.
We ran into a similar issue with the term "Latinx,"
a gender-neutral word invented to describe people of Hispanic descent.
In theory, it's a decent idea,
but it has a major problem.
The people whom that word refers to, people of Hispanic or Latin descent,
they don't like it.
I got emails and emails from Latino and Latina people
telling me that when referring to the group,
they preferred "Hispanic" or "Latino."
And that's not just anecdotal.
Polling shows this too.
68 percent of people of Hispanic descent favor the term "Hispanic,"
21 percent favor "Latina" or "Latino,"
and only 2 percent use the term "Latinx."
On top of that, a whopping 40 percent find the term "Latinx" offensive.
So we stopped using it.
I have another example of a way you can work
to communicate more neutrally.
This one's a little bit of a doozy.
This is one of the more controversial things that we do.
The AP Stylebook, which most media outlets use,
began calling for the capitalizing of the B in "Black" in 2020
when referring to a race, culture or ethnicity.
They also offered the guidance not to capitalize "white,"
saying that "Black" communicated a wider, shared cultural experience
that "white" did not.
For a long time we followed this guidance, but we don't anymore.
Believe it or not, there's not actually good polling on this that I could find,
but there are a lot of arguments for and against.
And I found the arguments of Black writers
who preferred the term to be lowercase to be more persuasive.
Writers like Glenn Loury, John McWhorter and Minna Salami.
Loury put it like this:
"But if all the disparate groups that constitute 'whites'
don't comprise a single people,
why should all the disparate groups that constitute 'blacks' do so?
To be honest, I don't think they do.
I would probably have a hard time seeing the sociological similarities,
say, between a wealthy member of Lagos's business class
and a man on Chicago's South Side
working three part-time jobs just to pay his rent.
Learning that both are black would tell me precisely nothing."
End quote.
I agree, and I find this reasoning much more compelling
than the argument behind the AP stylebook's decision.
And that is solution number three.
Sometimes you have to follow your own thoughts,
state them honestly, listen to the arguments,
make a call as best you can, and communicate your choice when asked.
Language choices designed to connect people
on all sides of the political spectrum
will never be perfect,
but we can try our very best.
I believe it is our responsibility to connect with people
outside of our political tribes.
But that responsibility doesn't only belong to the people
communicating the news;
it also lies with you and with me,
the consumers.
And it requires that we all listen more neutrally, too.
If you disagree with my decision on that, capitalizing the B in "Black,"
as I'm sure many people in this room do, that's fine.
I would hope that we can have an honest disagreement about it
and be able to see each other as people who disagree
instead of political enemies.
But that takes work.
And a lot of the time, a person you're speaking with
will use a phrase intended to signal their membership to a political tribe,
but that doesn't always mean the other person intended to pick a fight.
You can make the decision not to take offense
by someone's tribal language choices,
and rather hear their intended meaning.
Progressives or more liberal media outlets, for example,
may center lived experiences or share the pronouns of authors,
while conservatives and conservative pundits
might riff about the deep state or the mainstream media.
What's fascinating to me about these signals
is that they often give extra meaning to mostly apolitical ideas.
Deep state is really just code
for a kind of sinister federal bureaucracy run amok,
something plenty of progressives would be open to acknowledging
if the wording were just a little bit different.
Meanwhile, discussing lived experiences isn't about being extra sensitive
to every transgression you've ever experienced.
It's just another way of saying,
these are the things that have happened to me,
something that conservatives center in their politics all the time.
And lastly, I think it's worth noting
that sometimes a single word can mean totally different things
to different groups.
In recent months, one of the most controversial issues in the world
has been Israel's incursion in Gaza.
That has set off a debate about Zionism,
a word that I've heard used as both a political term and a slur,
depending on the speaker.
I'd like to share three different definitions
for the word Zionism that I could find.
The first is a definition from Britannica,
which broadly defines it as a Jewish nationalist movement.
The second is from the ADL,
which calls it a movement for self-determination and statehood.
And the third is a definition from Al Jazeera's website,
which describes it as a colonial movement by any means necessary.
Same word, three different definitions.
Zionism is one of many terms
that people have completely different definitions for.
And if you're talking with someone
who's using a term in a way that you wouldn't,
a really simple and effective tactic
is to ask them how they would define that term.
That can be a good pathway to gaining mutual understanding,
whereas not doing so is often a serious impediment.
And if you're in the media,
defining these terms in your writing is almost always helpful.
Disagreement between two people over an idea can never be productive
if both people are imagining
the other is saying something that they aren't.
So how can you connect with people who think differently than you?
For both media organizations and individuals in their everyday life,
you have to be sincere.
People know when they're being pandered to.
You don't have to make everybody happy,
and you don't even have to like the people that you disagree with.
But you ought to try communicating in ways
that more than one political tribe can hear you.
And when the other political tribe is communicating,
you should try your best to be tolerant of their language choices.
That sometimes means calling a group something they prefer to be called,
even if you disagree.
And it often means really hearing the intentions of another person,
even if they are using language that puts you off.
The good news is that using more neutral language
isn't always difficult,
and tolerance is a pretty easy bar to clear if you try.
So please, if you have some better suggestions
for how to communicate and connect across the political spectrum,
I'm all ears.
I'm always open to ideas and changing my mind,
and I hope you are too.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
Как нужно читать книги? | Дугин в гостях у Убермаргинала
How to Become a Millionaire (It's Simpler Than You Think!)
Что ждет программы U4U и ТПС в США для украинцев
Настройка Яндекс Директ на Ozon. Внешний трафик на маркетплейсах. Реклама яндекс директ
君は本当に隙あらば調子こくね【LOST JUDGMENT】#98
Какие анализы крови указывают на рак при боли и вздутии живота.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)