英语家园

 找回密码
 注册

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

搜索

当意见不一致时,如何将谈话继续下去?

发布者: 五毒 | 发布时间: 2022-6-29 05:30| 查看数: 100| 评论数: 0|



So in the run-up to the 2016 election, I was, like most of us, watching the rise in discord and vitriol and nastiness in our public spaces. It was this crazy uptick in polarization. It was both disheartening and distressing. And so I started thinking, with a fellow journalist, Jeremy Hay, about how we might practice our craft differently.

在2016年大选的准备阶段,我和大多数人一样,看到公众空间中越来越多的不和,刻薄和肮脏。这是两极分化的疯狂升级。既令人沮丧又让人苦恼。于是,我开始和一位名叫杰里米·海伊的记者一起思考如何用不同的方式应用我们的技巧。

How we might go to the heart of divides, to places of conflict, like journalists always have, but then, once there, do something really different. We knew we wanted to take the core tools of our craft -- careful vetting of information, diligent research, curiosity, a commitment to serving the public good -- to serving our democracy -- and do something new.

如何才能像记者们经常做的那样,涉足分歧的中心,到达冲突的地方。而一旦到了那里,做一些真正不同的事情。我们知道我们想要用核心技巧——认真审查资料,勤奋研究,充满好奇,对公共利益的承诺——去服务我们的民主——去做新的事情。

And so we mapped out this process, what we call dialogue journalism, for going to the heart of social and political divides, and then, once there, building journalism-supported conversations between people on opposite sides of polarizing issues. But how actually to do this in a world that's so divided, so deeply divided -- when we live in a world in which cousins and aunts and uncles can't talk to one another,

于是我们想出了这个项目,我们称之为对话新闻,去触及社会和政治分歧的核心,一旦到了那一步,就可以在对立的两派之间建立起由新闻业支持的的对话。但如何在如此分裂,裂痕如此之深的世界中去做这样的事?当在我们所处的世界里,堂兄弟姐妹和他们的父母不再交谈,

when we often live in separate and distinct news ecosystems, and when we reflexively and habitually malign and dismiss those with whom we disagree? But we wanted to try. And so right after the 2016 election, in that time between the election and the inauguration, we partnered with the Alabama Media Group to do something really different. We brought 25 Trump supporters from Alabama together in conversation with 25 Clinton supporters from California.

当我们常常生活在独立的和不同的新闻生态系统中,并且当我们反射性地、习惯性地诋毁和排斥那些与我们意见相左的人但我们想试一试。于是在2016年大选后,在选举和就职典礼之间那段时间,我们和阿拉巴马媒体集团合作,做了一些非常不同的事情。我们从阿拉巴马带来了25位川普的支持者,与来自加州的25位希拉里·克林顿的支持者进行对话。

And we brought them together in a closed, moderated Facebook group that we kept open for a month. What we wanted to do was to give them a place to engage with genuine curiosity and openness. And we wanted to support them in building relationships, not just with each other but with us as journalists. And then we wanted to supply facts and information -- facts and information that they could actually receive and process and use to undergird their conversations.

我们把他们放到一个封闭的有管理员的Facebook群组上,观察了一个月。我们想要做的是给他们一个场所,保持真诚的好奇和开放态度。并且我们想要帮助他们建立关系,不仅在他们之间,并且和我们记者之间。然后我们想要提供事实和信息,让他们可以节接受和思考,并可以用来增强他们的谈资。

And so as a prelude to this conversation, the first step in what we call dialogue journalism, we asked what they thought the other side thought of them. So when we asked the Trump supporters from Alabama what they thought the Clinton supporters in California thought of them, this is some of what they said. "They think we are religious Bible thumpers." "That we're backwards and hickish, and stupid."

作为这次对话的引子,这个我们称之为对话新闻的第一步,我们询问他们认为对方会如何看待他们。当我们问阿拉巴马的川普支持者如何看待加州的希拉里支持者对他们的看法时,他们是这样说的:“他们认为我们是狂热的宗教信徒。”“我们是落后愚蠢的乡巴佬。”

"They think we all have Confederate flags in our yards, that we're racist and sexist and uneducated." "They think we're barefoot and pregnant, with dirt driveways." "And they think we're all prissy butts and that we walk around in hoop skirts with cotton fields in the background." And then we asked that same question of the Californians: "What do you think the Alabamians think about you?" And they said this: "That we're crazy, liberal Californians."

“他们认为我们的院子里都是南方联盟的旗帜,我们是种族主义者,性别歧视者,没受过教育。”“他们觉得我们是在尘土飞扬的马路上赤脚或怀孕的行人。”“他们认为我们都是乡巴佬,穿着箍裙在棉花田中四处走动。”然后我们对加州的人问了同样的问题:“你们认为阿拉巴马的人会怎么看你们?”他们是这么说的:“我们是疯狂的,自由的加州人。”

"So we're not patriotic." "We're snobby and we're elitist." "We're godless and we're permissive with our children." "And that we're focused on our careers, not our family." "And we're elitist, pie-in-the-sky intellectuals, rich people, Whole Foods-eating, very out of touch." So by asking questions like this at the start of every conversation and by identifying and sharing stereotypes, we find that people -- people on all sides -- begin to see the simplistic and often mean-spirited caricatures they carry.

“我们不爱国。”“我们势利,我们是所谓的精英。”“我们不信神,我们对孩子放任自由。”“我们关注工作,而不是家庭。”“我们是精英主义者、空想家、有钱人、全食主义者,非常脱节。”所以通过在每次对话前问这样的问题,通过识别和分享刻板印象,我们发现人们——两边的人——开始看到他们所携带的印象往往是简单且刻薄的。

And in that -- after that, we can move into a process of genuine conversation. So in the two years since that launch -- California/Alabama Project -- we've gone on to host dialogues and partnerships with media organizations across the country. And they've been about some of our most contentious issues: guns, immigration, race, education. And what we found, remarkably, is that real dialogue is in fact possible.

在这之后,我们开始了真正的对话。在加州/阿拉巴马项目发起的两年后,我们继续与全国各地的媒体组织举办对话和开展合作。他们一直在讨论一些最有争议的话题:枪支,移民,种族,教育。我们发现,很明显,真正的对话实际上是可能的。

And that when given a chance and structure around doing so, many, not all, but many of our fellow citizens are eager to engage with the other. Too often journalists have sharpened divides in the name of drama or readership or in service to our own views. And too often we've gone to each side quoting a partisan voice on one side and a partisan voice on the other with a telling anecdotal lead and a pithy final quote, all of which readers are keen to mine for bias.

当有机会按这样的组织结构去做时,很多,虽然不是全部,但我们的很多公民非常渴望彼此互动。记者经常以戏剧、读者或为自己的观点服务的名义,加剧分歧。我们常常站在两派的立场上,一边引用一个党派的声音,另一边引用另一个党派的声音,并加上轶事式的开场和精辟的结束语,所有的读者都热衷于挖掘偏见。

But our dialogue-based process has a slower pace and a different center. And our work is guided by the principle that dialogue across difference is essential to a functioning democracy, and that journalism and journalists have a multifaceted role to play in supporting that. So how do we work? At every stage, we're as transparent as possible about our methods and our motives.

但是,我们基于对话的过程节奏较慢,而且主题繁杂。我们的工作是基于这个原则:直面差异的对话对民主很关键,新闻业和记者可以发挥多方面的作用进行支持。那么我们究竟是如何运作的?在每个环节,我们都尽可能地公开我们的方法和我们的动机。

At every stage, we take time to answer people's questions -- explain why we're doing what we're doing. We tell people that it's not a trap: no one's there to tell you you're stupid, no one's there to tell you your experience doesn't matter. And we always ask for a really different sort of behavior, a repatterning away from the reflexive name-calling, so entrenched in our discourse that most of us, on all sides, don't even notice it anymore.

在每个环节,我们都抽时间回答人们的问题——解释我们为什么做,在做什么。我们告诉人们,不要担心:这里没人会说你很蠢,这里没人会说你的经历不重要。我们总是要求一种完全不同的行为,避开习惯性的反身谩骂,这在我们的语境中是如此根深蒂固,以至于所有阵营中的大多数人甚至都没有注意到它。

So people often come into our conversations a bit angrily. They say things like, "How can you believe X?" and "How can you read Y?" and "Can you believe that this happened?" But generally, in this miracle that delights us every time, people begin to introduce themselves. And they begin to explain who they are and where they come from, and they begin to ask questions of one another.

人们参与我们的对话时往往都有些气愤。他们往往带着这样的口吻:“你怎么会相信张三?”和“你怎么会相信那种鬼话?”以及“太让人难以置信了!”但总的来说,在这个每次都让我们兴奋不已的奇迹中,人们开始介绍他们自己。他们开始解释自己是谁,来自哪里,并且开始相互问问题。

And slowly, over time, people circle back again and again to difficult topics, each time with a little more empathy, a little more nuance, a little more curiosity. And our journalists and moderators work really hard to support this because it's not a debate, it's not a battle, it's not a Sunday morning talk show. It's not the flinging of talking points. It's not the stacking of memes and gifs or articles with headlines that prove a point.

慢慢地,随着时间推移,人们循环参与不同的话题,每次都会更富有同理心,抓住更多的细微差异,变得更加好奇。我们的记者和主持人在努力提供支持,因为这不是辩论,不是战争,这不是周日早间脱口秀。不是卖弄词藻。更不应该用堆满表情包和动图或者带标题的文章来证明自己的观点。

And it's not about scoring political victories with question traps. So what we've learned is that our state of discord is bad for everyone. It is a deeply unhappy state of being. And people tell us this again and again. They say they appreciate the chance to engage respectfully, with curiosity and with openness, and that they're glad and relieved for a chance to put down their arms.

这不是用问题陷阱赢得政治胜利的套路。所以我们了解到,不和谐状态对所有人都是坏事。这种状态让所有人都感到沮丧。人们一再告诉我们这点。他们说,他们很感激有机会以尊重、好奇和开放的态度参与进来,他们为有机会放下戒备而感到高兴和宽慰。

And so we do our work in direct challenge to the political climate in our country right now, and we do it knowing that it is difficult, challenging work to hold and support people in opposing backgrounds in conversation. And we do it knowing democracy depends on our ability to address our shared problems together. And we do this work by putting community at the heart of our journalistic process,

因此,我们的工作是直接挑战国内目前的政治环境,我们知道去举办和支持不同背景的人对话是一项困难而有挑战性的工作。我们知道民主取决于我们一起解决共同问题的能力。我们做这个工作是通过把社群放在我们新闻过程的中心,

by putting our egos to the side to listen first, to listen deeply, to listen around and through our own biases, our own habits of thought, and to support others in doing the same. And we do this work knowing that journalism as an institution is struggling, and that it has always had a role to play and will continue to have a role to play in supporting the exchange of ideas and views.

通过把自我先放在一边,先倾听,认真倾听,倾听周围的声音,通过我们的偏见,我们自己的思维习惯,并且支持别人也这样做。我们在行动的时候就知道新闻业面对这个问题一直很挣扎,它一直需要扮演,并且要继续扮演支持交换意见和观点的角色。

So, for many of the participants in our groups, there are lasting reverberations. Many people have become Facebook friends and in-real-life friends too, across political lines. After we closed that first Trump/Clinton project, about two-thirds of the women went on to form their own Facebook group and they chose a moderator from each state and they continue to talk about difficult and challenging issues.

对我们队伍中的许多参与者而言,这产生了持续的影响。很多人成为了Facebook的好友和现实中的好友,跨越了政治的边界。在我们关掉第一个川普/希拉里项目后,大约2/3的女性,开设了她们自己的Facebook群组,并且她们从每个州选了个主持人去继续讨论分歧和具有挑战的问题。

People tell us again and again that they're grateful for the opportunity to be a part of this work, grateful to know that people on the other side aren't crazy, grateful that they've had a chance to connect with people they wouldn't have otherwise talked to. And a lot of what we've seen and learned, despite the fact that we call ourselves Spaceship Media, is not at all rocket science.

人们一次又一次地告诉我们,他们很感激有这个机会成为这个项目中的一部分,很庆幸知道另一边的人并非不可理喻,很高兴他们有机会能够跟可能永远都不会去交流的人建立联系。尽管我们称自己为宇宙飞船媒体,但我们看到和学到的很多东西,并不是什么高深的学问。

If you call people names, if you label them, if you insult them, they are not inclined to listen to you. Snark doesn't help, shame doesn't help, condescension doesn't help. Genuine communication takes practice and effort and restraint and self-awareness. There isn't an algorithm to solve where we are. Because real human connection is in fact real human connection.

如果你对人出言不逊,如果你给他们贴上标签,如果你侮辱他们,他们就会倾向于对你置之不理。恶声恶语帮不上忙,羞耻感没有用,态度傲慢更是雪上加霜。真正的沟通需要练习、努力、克制和自我觉悟。没有一个算法可以解决我们现在的处境。因为真正的人际关系就是人际关系。

So lead with curiosity, emphasize discussion not debate, get out of your silo, because real connection across difference ... this is a salve that our democracy sorely needs.

所以以好奇为指引,强调讨论而非争执,避免坐井观天,因为跨越分歧的真正连接——正是我们民主迫切需要的一剂强心针。

Thank you.

谢谢。


最新评论

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表