Scoping Exercise for A National Dialogue Bureau:
Practitioner Views on Dialogue and Deliberation and the Media
A Preliminary Report for the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation
About the Participants
To better understand the feasibility of a national dialogue bureau AmericaSpeaks interviewed 27 dialogue and deliberation practitioners from NCDD’s membership database. Of these self-selecting participants, the majority were drawn from institutions that either promoted dialogue and deliberation (44%) or were independent practitioners and consultants (36%). A smaller group associated non-professionally with a dialogue process (12%). The remaining participants in the sample were from an academic institution and elected office in government. The majority of participants were women (58%). Participants came from all regions of the United States and including the states of California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. The interview sample also included two international participants: one from Canada and a second speaking for practitioners in Latin America.
In describing the work that they are involved in, participants identified 40 unique issues around which they or their organization have sponsored dialogues. The topics covered in dialogue range from social, economic, political and cultural issues to the environment, conflict and youth-related affairs. These dialogues are taking place in a wide variety of contexts and locations including schools, corporations, churches, homes, public venues like coffee shops, universities, government settings and public forums.
Present Level of Media Engagement
Most participants reported generally high levels of media engagement, with the majority indicating either frequent or occasional interaction with members of the press (63%). Nonetheless, a sizable minority (30%) indicated that they had no record of engaging the media in their work and only one participate indicated that they “rarely” engaged with the media to promote their work and the outcomes of dialogue.
Participants demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the benefits of media engagement, and provided helpful guidance in building solid rationales for media involvement. In addition to common rationales for engaging the press (marketing, publicity, and citizen education) participants also identified the following reasons to engage the media:
1. Create a public record of the public dialogue and its outcomes
2. Reframe issues within stories in ways that get beyond polarization and resonate with diverse groups within the public
3. Help to shape, even redefine the public agenda
4. More deeply engage reporters with issues and educate them on their context and depth and how they play out in people’s lives
5. Provide the community with a “mirror” for self-reflection
In addition to sharing a strong sense of the benefits of engaging with the media, participants identified more than a dozen specific strategies for working effectively with the media. Again, responses ranged from traditional (maintain an up-to-date contact list, maintain a website) to perhaps more novel strategies. The most frequently reported strategy was to build strong personal relationships with reporters through regular communication (phone calls, email, press releases, etc).
Novel strategies to engage the media identified by respondents include:
1. Create opportunities for reporters to participate as table observers during dialogue
2. Provide “sampling sessions” (or “run-throughs” of the process) designed to provide a preview of the dialogue process
3. Convene issue and process briefing meetings with the editorial boards of newspapers
4. Provide exclusive insider information and photo ops to media partners, for example a newspaper with an active website
5. Create working partnerships with newspapers and reporters that support communication aims pre-, during, and post- dialogue in ways that also advance reporting goals.
6. Work with media to encourage ways that they use their standing within communities to convene dialogues as way to uncover stories and perspectives
Engaging Citizens in News Making
There was generally a high level of support among practitioners for the idea of engaging citizens in news gathering processes. Most participants felt that the media is currently too divisive (54%), though a sizable number (24%) felt that the question itself was problematic: that society is polarized for various reasons and the media reflects that dynamic. It is perhaps instructive to note that only slightly more practitioners than journalists shared the sense that media is divisive, though only half as many practitioners saw the question as problematic.
Nearly 80% of practitioners saw a role for citizens in the reporting process, though there may have been some confusion in the question (whether this was a question about citizen engagement around issues in general, or about citizen engagement in the reporting process). Of these responses, the community was evenly split (40%-40%) about whether there were certain kinds of issues requiring citizen engagement in news-making over others. At the same time, a substantial proportion (20%) felt that all issues were of equal importance in their need for effective citizen involvement in the reporting process.
Of those who felt that there were, there was substantial variation. Generally, participants felt that it is important to engage the media around issues that impact peoples’ lives in material terms, for example health care, taxation, and housing. At the same time, social issues, for example gay marriage, were often cited as the kind of issues around which media engagement in dialogue processes was important. An interesting feature of these discussions was the idea of values clarification, “when there is confusion in the public and ethical repercussions are involved.” Economic issues and America’s role in the world were also cited as important areas for engaging citizens.
From the interview data, it appears that there are several important questions underlying practitioners views about engaging the media around issues:
1. What is the context within which the issue has played out and in which the dialogue is taking place (who are the stakeholders, what has happened in the past, etc)?
2. How divisive has the issue been within the community (generally, participants seemed to be saying that, the more controversial, the higher the need for media engagement and issue reframing)?
3. How local is the issue (or, what are the local dimensions of the issue)? One participant noted that, “People get motivated when it is something that is happening in their own back yard and that is when the media gets motivated.”
4. What are the long-term effects of the issues (for example, if the issue were resolved, how would it affect other aspects of life)?
5. How many citizens are affected by the issue (the larger the number, the more urgent the level of engagement)?
6. To what extent to which civil and constitutional rights are at stake in the issue?
One respondent indicated a somewhat different frame that was interesting and worth noting: that it is important to engage citizens in news gathering around issues that, “put in place a general directions and vision [for the polity], for example urban planning and the plans of cities, and that concentrate on what we value and how it should work.” The respondent indicated that it was less important to engage the public at the “mico-level,” for example siting of an individual park, and yet this is where citizens are most frequently asked to engage.
Of those who responded differently to the question, one felt that citizens should not be engaged at all in the news-making process, because the media plays an important “watch dog” role that should remain independent. Others felt that issues themselves were secondary to either the context or the process, and those were the substantial areas around which substantial engagement was necessary. For example, one respondent saw a “healing role” of the media in society, and therefore saw an opportunity for “learning coverage”: a process through which collective intelligence was uncovered and reported on.
Overwhelmingly, practitioners saw a role for the Dialogue and Deliberation community improving “the situation of the media and public discourse.” Nearly 85% of participants feel that the D&D community has something to contribute to the media’s coverage of issues, from uncovering new narratives to the processes themselves and the role they play in transforming society. There were however some dissenters, and they raise important points, namely whether it is in the media’s interest to work with the D&D community in this way, and secondly thinking about the breadth of the D&D community and whether all forms will be welcomed by the media: are there some forms of dialogue and deliberation that are better suited to working with the media?
Outside of a strong sense that the media can be improved through closer bonds with the D&D community, there is a concomitant need for tools and services to make this happen. When asked about the kinds of resources that would enable them to make these connections themselves, practitioners identified several general kinds of support
· Technical assistance
Services that train and equip practitioners to work effectively with members of the media
· Institutional capacity-building
Services that match institutional needs (for example, public relations) to available resources, whether financial or human
· Communication tools
Specific tools (for example training guides, databases, and listserves) that support promotion, knowledge building, and networking
Practitioner Views of a National Dialogue Bureau
The core of this study was to capture a sense of the value a National Dialogue Bureau could bring to the Dialogue and Deliberation community, and to identify a range of services and tools that would reflect the demand within the community. When asked whether they would make use of a National Dialogue Bureau if it existed today (based on a very “thin” description), 70% of respondents said “Yes,” two said “No,” and 20% were unsure based on the information presented. That said, there is a lot of work to define the nature of the services that would be available to practitioners and the kinds of tools that would support their interactions.
Based on practitioner responses to the National Dialogue Bureau concept, it is clear that there is a unique energy and creativity around the idea. Practitioners identified a slate of needs comprising an ambitious enterprise with the following services:
1. Provide funding support for dialogue programs that partner with the media
2. Promote coverage of the D&D practices and consistent propagation of key messages
3. Develop a “how to engage the media” guidebook specifically for dialogue practitioners
4. Cultivate an awareness of issues and outcomes, regional and national, through periodic teleconferences. These teleconferences are intended to identify potentially “hot” topics, leverage existing success, and build national momentum behind relevant issues.
5. Facilitate interaction between practitioners and reporters, both around issues and the field within society
6. Create opportunities for D&D practitioners to publicize their information to the media
7. Provide a contact database of dialogue processes and issues
8. Provide support for story writing and pitching for practitioners
9. Data collection from dialogue and deliberation groups
In addition to identifying numerous ways a National Dialogue Bureau could enhance their work, participants were generally willing to throw some support toward the bureau as well, including a willingness to serve as a bureau “spokesperson.”
While generally positive toward the idea of a National Dialogue Bureau, a few participants had specific reservations. Those participants responding from Canada suggested that their participation was contingent upon the inclusion of international journalists and, “a space for American colleagues to connect with international colleagues,” specifically a connection to Canadian media. Another participant suggested that the Dialogue Bureau needed to be “proactive and streamlined” to serve them well. A third participant offered that a collaborative process of creating the Dialogue Bureau itself was important to their level of participation. One participant stated that they would probably not use the Dialogue Bureau since their organization “does not need outside media coverage most of the time,” since the spaces they create are very private.
Participants also covered some important weaknesses of the existing proposal for a National Dialogue Bureau which include:
· This is not the kind of service journalists would typically use, and so it would need to be both streamlined and easy to use, and requiring some heavy promotion.
· Providing a “matchmaking” service between journalists and “dialogue spokespesons” is not enough: the Bureau will need to proactively convene meetings between the two groups.
· The Bureau should not be about “telling” journalists how to cover the field from a practitioner’s standpoint, rather fostering collaboration between the two groups to better understand what successful coverage looks like and how to do it.
· The current framing of the Bureau offers more toward political issues and outcomes and seems to exclude practitioners who are using dialogue and deliberation in corporate and religions settings.
Conclusions
Members of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation interviewed for this exercise collectively demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of media strategy and perhaps a lower level of awareness around existing media resources (as evidenced by their statements of need). Therefore, the primary finding of this report is to recommend that NCDD develop a resource guide to working with the media that directs its members to existing opportunities for media training and support.
At the same time, the study has revealed some unique and important gaps in the field that can be filled by something like a National Dialogue Bureau. These gaps include:
1. A consistent and authoritative “voice” to the media about the benefits of dialogue and deliberation in general, and highpoints along the trajectory of its development as a “field” in the US.
2. The collective capacity to understand what issues are important to people around the country, at the regional and national levels, how these issues are being framed in the media, and the dialogue processes in play to engage the public around the issues.
3. Opportunities for meetings and/or exchanges between communities of practitioners and journalists that foster greater awareness of one another’s basic assumptions, processes and methods, and perceptions of the public’s attitudes toward current issues and events. There are two levels at which this gap could be addressed: informal networking and partnership building and more formal in-depth learning and collaboration.
4. Financial, human, and technological resources to promote stories to the media in ways that deepen the level of journalist engagement and yield “uncovered” narratives