The Co-Intelligence Institute // CII home // Y2K home

---

A Dialogue about a Y2K Media conference?

RESPONSES

Tom Atlee replies:

Actually we want more than witnessing capacity, I think. I urge you to read Larry Shook's piece on my site. In an earlier conversation I referred Senator Vasconcellos to:

1) Frances Moore Lappe's American News Service (Brattleboro, VT), a wire service which reports on grassroots democratic efforts and has just established a Y2K bureau. Contact the Managing Editor Peter Seares at 800-654-NEWS or 802-254-6167 (if they ask for an extension, it's 125), FAX 802-254-1227, email pseares@americannews.com, website: www.americannews.com.

2) Larry Shook (Spokane, WA), investigative reporter and Y2K community activist who has thought a lot about the media's role in Y2K. He was a co-editor of AWAKENING: THE UPSIDE OF Y2K. Phone (509) 747-8776, email LWShook@aol.com. See "Media, The Millennium Bug & The Stories We Tell" at http://www.co-intelligence.org/y2k_shookmedia1.html

In my own research with groups, I note two conflicting energies, one descriptive and one evocative. The power of the descriptive is that it aligns people's efforts with actual conditions: "Here's what's going on." The power of the evocative is that it elicits potentials that otherwise might not materialize: "We can DO this! You are amazing!" The danger of the evocative energy taking over is that it will forbid any descriptive observations of negative conditions "Don't hang out our dirty laundry. Don't bring negative energy into the group. Etc." The danger of the descriptive energy is that the wrong sort of negative descriptions CAN evoke negative phenomena: "We're not getting anything done at our meetings. The obstacles we face are unbelievably large. Etc."

Media pride themselves in objectivity and digging out the dirt. These often combine into a deadend cynicism. What they evoke in readers/viewers is a pessimistic spectatorism, a nihilistic passivity that is the death of citizenship.

We need a reconceptualization of the role of media as an agent of societal/community health. The mission of "digging out the dirt" was originally conceived as an antidote to the abuses of power and the social parasitism of powerholders and extremists; it was a socially protective mission. We still need that mission, but we need it to re-ground in its service to the general welfare. Once the media is grounded in the general welfare, a dialogue can be held about other missions that would serve that end, such as:

a) observer - providing a birds-eye-view of what's happening in a socially significant area
b) mirror - letting us view our collective minds and hearts
c) inspirer - calling forth the best in us (you don't have to ignore the worst, to do this) and publicizing positive models that could be replicated elsewhere
d) facilitator - providing forums specifically designed to evoke the community wisdom that emerges from high-quality dialogue among diverse stakeholders
e) educator - provider of perspective, information and knowhow needed to lead people out of bad conditions into better conditions (e-ducare = to lead out)
f) etc.

Some of these the media could do directly and on their own. Some they could also do in alliance with citizen groups, government agencies, etc. If these pro-social purposes are being served, they can work with anyone. (I won't ask why it is so easy for the media to serve governments in times of war, and business in times of peace. Let's just say it is possible for media to serve the general welfare in times of crisis, and that it's a good habit to get into, regardless of how they do it.)