Election Day Approacheth.

Indeed it does.

I look forward to the national narrative changing and for this palpable expectation to culminate. I’ve been reading articles sent to community radio stations about preparing your station staff and volunteers for reporting and even talking about this contentious election. They contain narratives to talk about the voting process, the vote counting process, how to have conversations surrounding conflict, and one of my favorites, a 4-scenario projection of possible futures based on possible results.

But the most chilling part is that each of these articles began their pieces with information on “Protecting Staff From Harm”, “Journalistic Safety Tips”, and some personal stories of news personnel being threatened for their efforts. I am flummoxed that this is part of the dialog and that it even exists. How did we get here? The press is an important part of the election process and did you know this fun fact?: The United States doesn’t have a nationwide body that collects and releases election results. Instead, journalists gather data from local and state agencies that report election results publicly. The Associated Press gathers this data and makes it available to the public and to other newsrooms, to count the votes and then declare winners. They’ve been doing this in presidential elections since 1848.

So, I thought, threats of violence would never happen in Hawaii, right? https://www.kitv.com/news/fbi-honolulu-sets-up-command-post-to-monitor-election-day/article

We had a discussion on the air yesterday during Out of the Box between myself, Jimmy T, Larry Graff and Leilani Spencer, the latter two who are on the executive leadership team for PAL Hawaii, about Civil Discourse and how to have it on the radio. What is the host’s responsibility? What should their level of impartiality be? What is realistic for a host’s impartiality? How important is balance in on air discussion? What is truth versus opinion/belief/feeling? Why are there so many truths?

Quick wikipedia (bless) definition of Civil Discourse: Civil discourse is the practice of deliberating about matters of public concern in a way that seeks to expand knowledge and promote understanding. The word “civil” relates directly to civic in the sense of being oriented toward public life,^[1][2] and less directly to civility, in the sense of mere politeness. Discourse is defined as the use of written or spoken communications, similar to having a conversation. Civil discourse includes the practice of deliberating about things that are of concern to society in a way that seeks to help all participants understand each other.^[3] It is an essential part of democratic citizenship and is thus a fundamental aspect of freedom of speech, characterized by dialogue that supports the societal good.”^[4] For civil discourse to truly be effective as a democratic tool, all people need to be heard and share their viewpoints. Civil discourse involves more than just politeness; it involves disagreement without disrespect, seeking common ground, listening beyond preconceptions, and remaining present in dialogues despite deep disagreements.^[1] This can help develop better public policies that benefit all people of a society.

Our intention for KKCR is that we can indeed engage Civil Discourse on the radio as a tool to understanding each other. We want to be leaders in unifying discussion. We want to be leaders in finding our common ground. We want to be leaders in fostering the kinds of discussions that seek solutions to our problems. 

Keep calling. Keep talking.