Big Questions and Big Issues for the US and Britain: A Discussion with Voices from Oxford’s Denis Noble and Sung Hee Kim

When visiting Oxford in early February for a conference, I was invited to speak with my two colleagues who, with my help, founded Voices from Oxford (VOX) in 2009. The discussion was held in Rhodes House, one of the most beautiful and historic buildings in Oxford. As befitting the venue, my colleagues asked big, challenging questions about major issues in Britain and the US, particularly around Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, very soon after his election. As noted on the VOX web site:

“The three original founder members of Voices from Oxford discuss and debate Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. Dr Sung Hee Kim, Prof Denis Noble and Prof Bill Dutton founded Voices from Oxford in 2009, and are reunited at Rhodes House in Oxford to discuss the monumental political events of 2016. They examine the reasons and background of the populism which led to Brexit and Trump, as well as looking at some possible ways forward for the people of the UK and USA. The role of the media and social media in both events is analysed, and they talk about perceptions of each event from the viewpoint of the other country. They then move on to a more global outlook, including the role of China and its role in East Asian and world affairs.”

The interviewers are not just good colleagues, but very prominent members of the Oxford community. Professor Denis Noble is one of the most distinguished professors I became acquainted with in Oxford. I met Denis at Balliol College, where he described for me his record of research on modeling the heart, with his models evolving in pace with the rapid evolution of computing. He remains as an Emeritus Fellow, but he also held the Burdon Sanderson Chair of Cardiovascular Physiology at the University of Oxford from 1984 to 2004 and was appointed Professor Emeritus and co-Director of Computational Physiology. Over lunches at Balliol, he and I and Sung Hee Kim began talking about the need to use new media to help bring Oxford to the larger world. Sung Hee Kim’s first career was as in broadcasting in South Korea, from which she went on to Oxford to earn her doctorate at Exeter College in the Faculty of English Language and Literature. She straddles the UK and Korea as a Visiting Professor at Seoul National University.

My major qualifications for addressing the issues we discuss are being old, and having lived in Britain for years, and only back in the States for a few years. Nevertheless, I was delighted to share my views, and would also welcome your comments and criticisms on what I said.

Watching How the EU Treats the UK

Sovereignty is one of the issues that led some politicians in Britain to vote for leaving. Since the vote for Brexit, the UK has been struggling with how to leave in a way that respects the vote, but also creates as positive of an outcome as possible for the UK and the EU. They are looking for a win-win solution. I know that many believe this is impossible, but I truly believe that is a motivation of many, whether or not it is realistic.

However, as I watch this process unfolding, it appears perfectly clear that the EU is not minded to negotiate at all. It is telling the world that it will determine the terms of the divorce, and will not negotiate related matters, such as trade until the divorce arrangements are settled. The EU wants to make an example of the UK, punish it, and show other nations what is in store for them if they do not tow the line. This is exactly the strategy the EU followed in dealing with Greece on their financial crisis.

EU
Source: TunesOnline.Net

Surely I am not the only person who sees this pattern as support for the position that the EU is over-reaching its authority and that sovereignty is indeed a really genuine issue for all the nations of the EU. Maybe this bullying is part of the EU negotiating strategy, but I’m afraid it is indicative of the bureaucratic machine that has been created, and adds credibility to the choice to exit.

American Political Discourse: The Collapse of Civility and Commonsense Negotiating Strategies

Two aspects of contemporary political discourse in America seem to undermine the aims of all stakeholders. These aspects are apparent on social media, orchestrated campaigns, such as via email platforms, and on most major media with the one extraordinary exception of public broadcasting.

UnknownThe first is civility. Too often, all parties in political debate are increasingly lacking civility. Too often, individuals seem to believe that they need to be remarkably rude, shocking, or exaggerated in their insults and claims about one another in order to be heard. This person is a fascist, liar, bully, and so on. There is quite the opposite of the wisdom embedded in many traditions, such as of the British parliament, for example, to refer to others in Parliament as one’s Honorable Friend, or Right Honorable Friend. Vulgar name-calling and insults are the stock and trade of our politicians and increasingly our highest-paid media pundits. It may be the media equivalent of click-bait, but it is absolutely poisonous to a negotiation.

The second is an absence of minimal commonsense. In politics, a rational political actor wants to achieve some policy objective, such as a vote or other decision. This is not necessarily the art of making a deal, but it does require some art of negotiation. If people thought one minute about politics being a process of negotiation, they should try to avoid putting the party they are negotiating with on the defensive. Calling someone a traitor, liar, or another derogatory name is a good way to start a fight, not a negotiation.

Perhaps the aim is to get attention, rather than achieve any policy objective. But if policy change is a goal, I have long subscribed the sage advice of Roger Fisher, Will Ury, and Bruce Patton’s popular book, entitled Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981), such as the need to separate people from the problem. For instance, one might focus on how we get out of this box, rather than Bill says we should do x, and Nancy says we should do y. American politics is almost exclusively focused on the Republicans want to do x, and so the Democrats want to do y, or vice versa. Completely the wrong strategy. My work on the role of modeling public policy decisions found that this was the secret ingredient of successful modeling – contestants became focused on the assumptions underpinning the model, rather than the policy preferences of the contestants (Dutton, W., and Kraemer, K. (1985) Modeling as Negotiating. Norwood NJ: Ablex). But one cannot focus on the problem when the lack of civility leads everyone to become mired in the mud fights among the contestants. They need to put their gloves ‘on’ in the political arena.

I don’t know if it is possible to reform the processes underpinning policy gridlock in the United States. It is becoming obvious that a change of political party fortunes has not made a difference. However,  a good start would be to focus on the very basics – how contestants talk to and about one another. Without a more civilized discourse, the art of negotiation and politics will be lost in a growing obsession with getting attention.

 

Rethinking White House Press Briefings: Two Steps Forward, One Giant Leap Back

I was on the brink of applauding the White House for challenging some traditions of the daily press briefings in opening to more news organizations and adding the Skype seats, only to then learn of some mainstream news organizations not being welcomed in the room. So instead of diversifying access, this seems to be a blatant political reconfiguration of access to the briefings.

Two Steps Forward

The White House Press Briefings have been slow to change, and seem antiquated in the face of new media. For this reason, I was pleased to learn of two developments.

First, there were changes in the seating. Since 1981, 49 seats were assigned to reporters to be present at the briefings by the White House Correspondent’s Association. The Association is arms length from the White House, so less open to charges of any partisan or other political bias. However, the mainstream press dominates the Association, which are assigned the prime seats in the front and are, by tradition, normally called on first. The new press Secretary, Sean Spicer, has admitted more reporters to the briefings albeit without assigned seats. He and the President have also made clear moves to not call on the mainstream media first, and in fact, they have made an effort to by pass mainstream correspondents for new arrivals to the briefing. This is a good step toward diversifying access to the news, diminishing privileged access by the elite press, and empowering more media outlets. However, ignoring the mainstream press in answering questions is of course a worrisome bias if continued. th

Secondly, the White House enabled two so-called Skype channels for virtual and interactive participation by remote journalists. I have never been present in any White House briefing, but it appears that the set up permits about eight or more remote journalists to participate. This seems like a long overdue reform enabled by the Internet and the new media environment. Again, this diversifies and builds on the number of journalists with more direct access to the briefings. It also helps incrementally to escape from the locational bias of the press by enabling participation by correspondents anywhere in the world, not just physically in Washington D.C.

So far, some promising reforms. But then …

One Giant Leap Back

On Friday, February 24th, Sean Spicer ‘barred journalists from the New York Time and several other news organizations from attending his daily briefing’ (Davis and Grynbaum 2017: A1). In addition to the Times, other press stopped from attending included the BBC, Los Angeles Times, and the Huffington Post. According to reports, other correspondents, from the Time magazine, and the Associated Press – which traditional had the first question – decided not to attend as a protest against this action (Davis and Grynbaum 2017).

In my view, it is okay to expand access to the briefings, even if this might dilute the role of those who have assigned seats, particularly in the front rows. It is great to broaden access to those who are remote from Washington DC. But once the White House restricts access by strong press organizations, and correspondents, it taints the entire process. Even if you believe the press is increasingly biased by partisan coverage, the remedy is not to punish the opposition, but to ensure that there is a more diverse and pluralistic range of sources with access to the briefings. Create a more diverse range of news sources, rather than a more politically tailored set of news sources. These restrictions will undermine the coverage by the press excluded, but also the coverage by those who are included, but become less trusted as objective sources.

References

Davis, Juilie Hirschfeld, and Grynbaum, Michael M. (2017), ‘Trump Intensifies Criticism of F.B.I. and Journalists’, New York Times, 25 February: A1, A14.

Wright, Bruce. (2017), “White House Stops Press from Attending Media Briefing’, International Business Times, Yahoo! News, 24 February: https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-stops-press-attending-201309162.html

The Importance of Keeping a Journal: A Few Tips

Decades ago, while on the faculty of the Annenberg School for Communication at USC, the late Professor Richard Byrne convinced me to use a journal. In have never regretted that decision. It is an easy and powerful tool for managing information.

When I met Richard, he was the Associate Dean, who helped found the Annenberg School of Communication with his friend and colleague Frederick Williams, and later served as an Acting Dean. When he was not teaching, or directing the School, Richard taught time management and information management to executives through a firm he created, called Springboard! In university, Richard studied drama, and he used his skill set from acting in his teaching, and to present captivating keynote speeches for executives around the world. He was intense and engaging. He led an incredibly full life until he died from the complications of skin cancer at a young age, 53.

Richard did talks occasionally for students around various time management issues. I was sitting in on one of his tutorials when I learned his simple lessons on keeping a journal, which have stuck with me for decades. So easy.

First, get a journal you that is the size that is best for you to carry with you as often as possible. I like a small 5″ by 8 1/4″ Moleskin® journal. I always prefer plain, blank paper, but lined or graphic blank pages are fine, whatever you prefer. But use high quality paper so that you can write with different pens or markers without the ink bleeding through the pages.

Of course, it can have any color binding. I prefer black, but changing colors is helpful in keeping the journals identifiable. You’ll want to keep past journals accessible, so anything you can do to keep them in sequence is helpful, such as shifting colors. [Needless to say, you should have a pen or quality writing tools that you like. I always use a fountain pen with a medium nib.]  img_0867

You must wonder why you would want anything on paper. Is it not easier to do this on your computer or smart phone? I’ve tried to find digital media to substitute for my paper journal, but have never been satisfied that they are as flexible and user friendly. Just as the book remains difficult to beat electronically, I find the paper journal more creative, flexible, and private.

Secondly, start keeping notes immediately and start at the very first page of your journal. Date your entries, and take notes on anything. If you are listening to a lecture, keep the lecture notes in the journal. If you come up with an idea, sketch it in your journal. If you have thoughts on anything, reactions to a movie or play, an article, an observation, put it in the journal, dated, and in chronological sequence.

Chronological notes are key to being findable. Any other organization gets overtaken quickly with new topics or ideas that don’t fit a predetermined system, and you’ll find it very easy to quickly find the notes you are looking for if they are in a chronological order. No matter what the topic, enter everything chronologically, starting from the front and moving through, and you will be able to find everything by thumbing through the pages. Instead of having notes scattered everywhere, important as well as unimportant things are centralized in the journal. In fact, you don’t know what will be important or unimportant over time, so don’t worry about whether something makes the threshold for being in your journal, just add it. This is particularly critical in getting started. You’ll want to start with something significant, but it is more important to simply start.

There is an exception. I normally leave the first two pages of my journals for references, such as phone numbers, my address, or anything I don’t want to memorize that I often need. So your journal becomes an aide memoire in more ways that one.

Third, be as comprehensive as possible. For every meeting, phone call or conversation, take notes in your journal. Any thoughts that you believe to be worth taking notes on, or any information you want to remember, enter in your journal. That means you should carry it with you as often as possible. You want it to be a habit – both having and using the journal.

Fourth, I find it helpful to use a variety of note taking methods. I enjoy mind mapping, and I use mind maps often such as for taking notes on a lecture, or sketching notes for something I plan to write. But I don’t use only one form. I sometimes do simple lists, write out text, draw images or create typologies. By varying the form of your notes, they become easier to find, and the exercise avoids becoming too mechanical.

So get your first journal, starting filling the pages, and see for yourself how valuable it can be.

 

 

Protest Anything, but Reform the US Primaries

The protests following the 2016 Presidential Election express the frustration of many with the outcome, and various decisions in the early weeks of the new administration. But I worry that the electorate might forget the central role that the broken primary systems played in the election. The primaries of both parties (all parties) failed to attract the best candidates. And they have failed to gain legitimacy for the candidates selected. The problems are best illustrated by the such symptoms as not allowing Independent voters to participate in many primaries, and party officials putting their finger on the scales to favor insider candidates, the famous case of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Bernie Sanders Rally MSU
Bernie Sanders Rally MSU

Over the last several decades, the vitality and legitimacy of the political parties have declined, while the significance of the parties has remained great. They are the major king and queen makers of the primary process. Ironically, as people desert the parties, the central committees of the parties become even more powerful as they are more removed from accountability to their dwindling rank and file.

If the Democrats had nominated a stronger candidate, with more favorable ratings among the voters, the outcome might have been different. If the Republicans had been able to vet candidates in ways that avoided a 16-candidate debate, with more left off the debate stage, then the party might have appointed a candidate with broader support within and beyond the party. For that matter, if the Green Party had some contests for its party leadership, it could well play a more meaningful role in the election and its aftermath.

So it is frustrating to believe that it is the primaries that need to be fixed, and soon, but that everyone is focused on expressing their dissatisfaction with the candidates. Focus on the process that got us here, not the personalities. Four years is a short time. Do something that will matter in the next two and four years. Fix the broken primaries.

Orwell’s 1984: Must Reading for the Digital Age

I have not taught an undergraduate course on the Internet and society for quite some time, but when I did, at USC, I had George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four on the required reading list. I remember one of the last classes I taught. It was in 1998. It is memorable because my students – after questioning why they should read a book written in 1948, and published in 1949 (how could it be relevant?) – came into class after seeing Will Smith’s movie, entitled Enemy of the State. The movie was based on Will Smith’s character being chased by the bad guys and all the time aided by satellite surveillance technologies, following a sensor planted on Will. It was: “Professor Dutton. This is exactly like 1984!”  img_0867

Even in 1998, I had learned the sad news that 1984 had been removed from most required reading lists across high schools in the US. That was one of the reasons I put it on my reading list. I was worried that my students may never have read this book, and I was right.

So it is very heartening to me that 1984 along with other dystopian futures novels are making a strong comeback.* They are indeed still relevant. Some attribute the rise of dystopian novels like 1984 to the election of President Donald Trump, but I believe it goes well beyond any single individual, and is tied to the information revealed by Edward Snowden, particularly around mass surveillance. The technologies envisioned by Orwell, like the telescreen, have been surpassed, but the idea of trying to sense what people are thinking, and not just what they are doing, by their location, movements, and associates, remains very central in understanding contemporary debates over surveillance in the digital age. Even Enemy of the State was trapped in mere surveillance – tracking and capturing Will Smith. But Orwell saw the ultimate objective to discern what a person was thinking, and whether they were about to commit a thought crime.

I first read 1984 in high school, and recall wondering if I would even be alive in 1984 to see if Orwell was a futurist. Long past 1984, I still wonder if Orwell will be proven right in my lifetime, if he has not already captured today’s threat better than any other novelist. It should be must reading for anyone living in today’s digital age.

*http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/george-orwells-1984-best-seller-heres-resonates-now/