For the last several years, I’ve had the privilege of writing a monthly round-up of news related to the field of ‘deliberative democracy’ – participation as conversation, you might say. All of the recent news about a “food crisis” – which smacks of disingenuousness in the face of years of trade liberalization – got me thinking how public deliberation might play a role informing the policy debates. For that, we need active citizens.

The world’s growing food crisis highlights a modern challenge to democratic governments: participation in relief and development activities. Not only do citizens in many advanced industrialized nations have low levels of knowledge about foreign affairs, the aren’t particularly interested to do something about it. And so modern “disasters” – economically engineered rather than naturally occurring threats to humankind – result in sudden and dramatic changes in the quality of life for millions, if not billions, of people around the world (see commondreams.org’s The World Food Crisis).

Some theorists have argued in the past that deliberation isn’t good for activists, because it forces compromise when what their constituents need are clear victories that deliver the goods. The other side argues that a “win” isn’t sustainable unless it has buy-in from the broader public and a larger constellation of stake-holders. The latest global food crisis – which has precipitated rioting in the streets around the world and engendered political hand-wringing in the North and outrage in the South – surfaces many cross-cutting issues that illustrate the paradoxes of our age. Here are a few worth talking about:

• Agricultural subsidies and tariffs: when we “protect” local productive capacity by stimulating local investments while raising the costs of cheap agricultural imports, are we raising a defense against the shock of spiking food costs?
• Genetically modified foods: Do GMOs offer a way out of the food crisis? Proponents are vehement about the positives while opponents argue for greater local control of crop production.
• U.S. Leadership: The U.N.’s World Food Program faces a budget shortfall of $755million, in part due to declines in U.S. funding as well as its habit of not paying up.
• “Peak oil” and biofuels: One reason for the dramatic spike in food costs has been the growing market for alternative energy sources, namely “biofuels” – is this a devil’s bargain?

These are only a smattering of the issues brought into sharp focus by the latest food “shortage” crisis – and as ever, crystalizes the role an engaged public can play in setting public policy priorities, foreign and domestic.

There’s an interesting model of neighborhood-based social networking evolving in Vermont called the Front Porch Forum. I was recently struck by its connection to broad, national concern about the loss of local news coverage. But before I go further, I have to confess some skepticism about the recent sense of malaise around the media. Here’s why:

Just about everywhere you turn, you are bound to read omphaloskeptic writing about the sufferance of media – its consolidation, how it is biased, how there has been a turn from the local, and certainly the absence of an “alternative” voice. At its finest, some have even called Viacom-produced shows like the “Colbert Report” “independent” news sources. This all plays up the general state of disarray and incoherence out there – but not, at least to me, a state of crisis. And perhaps part of the equation lies in some of the unique qualities of a state like Vermont: small, northern, rural, inconsequential, largely and often overlooked. Perhaps this has allowed something other than the dominant narratives to play out among our bonny green hills.

One of those is the healthy ecology of small town newspapers. Right here in the northern piedmont we have more than a dozen local papers serving a disbursed population of roughly 70,000. Which are all complemented by the circulation of the larger area papers – the Times Argus, Burlington Free Press as well as out of state ones, including the Boston Globe and the New York Times.

So why the health of so many local papers?

(more…)

[Crossposted at thataway.org] Recently a couple of news items have caught my attention as exemplary of what NCDD’s Dialogue Bureau aspired to achieve. Readers might recall that during 2004 and 2005 NCDD sponsored research into the feasibility of a service that would: 1) assist news outlets make better use of dialogue and deliberation techniques to augment reporting; 2) help dialogue and deliberation practitioners make better use of partnerships with news outlets to expand reach, recruitment, and coverage; and 3) help track and promote dialogue and deliberation in the news.This week, two news items caught my attention for their salience to how dialogue and deliberation can enrich the coverage of local and national issues. The first is the City of Portland’s Restorative Listening Project sponsored by the city’s Office of Neighborhood Involvement headed by NCDDer Judith Mowry. The second is the recent establishment of a National Commission on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy.

(more…)

I’m excited to be part of an advisory group to new effort to look at the way the evolving landscape of media channels and content impacts the contemporary democratic experience in the U.S. Its something I’ve thought alot about since carrying out a research project for the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation about 5 years ago – we were looking at the ways democratic deliberation can better inform news coverage of urgent local, regional, national and international issues (think about it perhaps as if the media relied on how informed people talk about issues in representative groups at least as much as they do on opinion polls). In particular the way these stories are framed and the way public values are ascribed to trade-offs and policy alternatives.

Anyway, AP recently distributed an article on the public face of the effort:

Local News Loss Focus of New Commission

By JENNIFER C. KERRWASHINGTON (AP) — As people turn increasingly to the Internet for their news, there is concern whether they are learning enough about what goes on in their communities.

With “the thinning down of newspapers and local television in America, there is measurably less local, civic information available,” said Alberto Ibarguen, president and chief executive of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. “So what are the consequences of that?”

The foundation and the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, hope to find out.

They are setting up a commission, funded by the foundation, to analyze whether people are getting the local news they need to make decisions in their communities. The panel will make recommendations that might include actions by the Federal Communications Commission or tax policies aimed at helping communities better meet their information needs, said Ibarguen, former publisher of The Miami Herald.

The commission will be led by Theodore Olson, former solicitor general who represented George W. Bush before the Supreme Court in the contested 2000 presidential election, and Marissa Mayer, vice president of search products and user experience at Google. The foundation said Olson was selected for his expertise in First Amendment issues and Mayer for her experience with new media and technologies.

About a dozen other members, including those with a journalism background, will be chosen.

(more…)