This is a serious book written about a serious subject, though it is written in the Deborah Tannen style, which is illuminating and interesting to read. The thrust of her latest book is that the way we communicate in public (her emphasis is primarily on the media), is shaping the way we think, and thereby shaping serious public policy.  

She "argues" that the media approaches most subjects in a warlike atmosphere that contributes to public thinking that there are only two sides to an issue. We, thereby, don't look at all the subtleties of many issues and miss many important considerations for a democratic citizenry to ponder.  

As you read Tannen's book, there is little you will argue with, because she holds up a mirror for us to see our media. For those who have become disgusted with the polarization the media presents, you will find yourself nodding your head with every page of this book. For example, she describes how the media finds the two most extreme statements on any issue, and then presents them as "balanced" reporting. She laments that only vicious debate seems to be able to hold the audience's attention -- at least this is what the media believes, and so that is what we get as so-called evenhanded reporting. She also suggests that the recent practice of having the opposing party speak after the President's State of the Union address positions the President's speech as a political statement or argument, rather than as communication with the public.  

The purpose of public debate, in Tannen's opinion, has become not better understanding, but winning and losing. There is excitement in that position, but it doesn't help for complete understanding. And more and more of the media is moving in that direction.  

Tannen doesn't discuss the Larry King Live show, but you have noticed if you are a longtime fan of that show, that Larry is moving away from asking questions and giving his guests a chance to speak, to a style where he confronts and attacks his guests. Somehow the media has come to the notion that unless they make the other person become emotional or reveal something personal on air, we haven't seen anything worthwhile.  

Because we are always fighting "wars," on every issue, we sometimes don't look at the nuances of an issue. The war on drugs becomes one of "use drugs," or "don't use drugs." Anyone who suggests something in-between is immediately placed in the camp of "use drugs." For example, those who suggest we provide clean needles for drug addicts to help prevent the spread of AIDS, is seen as "weak" on drugs, and thereby in the "use drugs" camp.  

Do we argue, or do we get things done? Tannen would suggest that in a democracy, we need to focus on efficacy, and not always on absolute extreme moral principles, entertaining as they might be. We highly recommend this important book.  

Janelle Barlow, President  

TMI USA 

Previous "Owl Book Review Grove" pages: 
#1  
      #2  
      #3  
      #4  
      #5  
      #6  
      #7  
      #8  
      #9  
 

tel: 702 939-1800 
fax: 702 939-1804 
email:  

Website designed by  
©2005, TMI US