The next Frequently Voiced Objection to civil discussion doesn’t stem from rejecting politics but from the belief that information is the only “food group” citizens need.
Photo by AutrementDit Toronto. 
Civil discussion sounds great, but I already blog a lot and spend a fair amount of time on social networking sites. I like being able to pick and choose from a variety of ideas and forums on the Web. I can’t see the benefit of spending a lot of time on meetings.
Here it’s critical to avoid mistaking quantity of information for insight or perspective and to remember that the whole point of civil discussion is to enable citizens to step outside of the informational bubbles they’ve created. Sure, going online can saturate you with information faster than ever before, but is that enough? Don’t you also need alternative views and perspectives, analysis, and insights?
Don’t get us wrong. We’re strong believers in online informational tools and are developing partnerships with some of the web’s best, including Ballotpedia and ProCon.
But discussion—whether online or in person—provides distinctive and important benefits beyond raw information. I’ve already mentioned most of these in previous entries:
- Guidelines that emphasize the importance of being civil, constructive, and creative
- Facilitators who ensure that the guidelines are followed and that the discussion stays coherent and on topic
- A process that intentionally creates dissonance by encouraging participants to explore alternative framings of the topic and multiple responses to it
These features can enrich citizens’ insights even as they insulate them from what is probably the single most common manifestation of online incivility: “flaming” (or engaging in online arguments by resorting to unfounded personal attacks).
*Adapted from Adolf G. Gundersen and Suzanne Goodney Lea, Let’s Talk Politics: Restoring Civility Through Exploratory Discussion, Chapter 3.
