{"id":6164,"date":"2017-03-07T07:49:41","date_gmt":"2017-03-07T12:49:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.elca.org\/faithlens\/?p=6164"},"modified":"2017-02-24T11:59:18","modified_gmt":"2017-02-24T16:59:18","slug":"march-12-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.elca.org\/faithlens\/march-12-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"March 12, 2017–As I Was Saying"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kris Litman-Koon, Columbia, SC
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Warm-up Question<\/strong><\/p>\n

Have you ever been a part of or witnessed a conversation where people \u201ctalked past\u201d each other? Describe the experience and your emotions during the conversation.<\/p>\n

Skewing the Discourse<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a website called Facebook. Ever heard of it? Of course, and you are likely aware of how discourse takes place on the site: a news story is shared (perhaps with<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

one\u2019s personal commentary) and other users leave their comments. Whenever the story stirs up emotions and political viewpoints, there is often a trail of comments left under the story. This usually continues, not until all sides are in agreement, but until all sides are sick of arguing.<\/p>\n

These trails of comments are fertile ground for analysis. Recently, a study<\/a> was performed by Yale Climate Connections, which is a non-partisan resource offered through Yale University that seeks to provide daily commentary, analysis, and reporting on issues surrounding climate change. Writer and researcher Karin Kirk wanted to scientifically study whether comments made on Facebook are representative of the views held by the general public, using climate change as the topic of focus.<\/p>\n

Karin Kirk analyzed 600 Facebook comments that were left under the stories published from six sources on Facebook; four of these were news media (Fox News, New York Times, CNN, and Washington Post) and two were government agencies (NASA, NOAA). Users\u2019 comments were judged by their stance (agree with the science pointing toward climate change, disagree with that science, and neutral) as well as by the stated rationale for that stance (science, policy, humanity\/ethics, emotion). The stances of the Facebook comments were then compared to polling that has been conducted on the general public.<\/p>\n

Researcher Karin Kirk states, \u201cThe takeaway is that compared to the general population in the U.S., Facebook comments on climate change appear more polarized and more dismissive of climate science than the population as a whole. An observer relying on the Facebook comments would get an inaccurate representation of how the public generally feels about climate change.\u201d In other words, the conversation on Facebook can easily skew how we see the real conversation. Kirk also comments that people seem to talk past each other on Facebook.<\/p>\n

When determining the rationale for the stances taken in the Facebook comments, those who agree with the scientific community and those who disagree with it both overwhelmingly base their arguments on science. An example of a dismissive stance toward the science that points to climate change yet is based on a rationale of science is \u201cthe climate has changed before.\u201d So, if the opposing viewpoints overwhelmingly both use science as the rationale for their polar opposite stances, why is the conversation not going anywhere? Kirk says it is because people are talking past each other, and the amplification on Facebook of the extreme viewpoints is not helping the conversation move forward.<\/p>\n

If the goal is to actually have a fruitful conversation that addresses this critical issue, Karin Kirk says, \u201cStraightforward [scientific] explanations can help address misunderstandings about natural vs. human-caused climate forces. But it\u2019s much harder to convince some people that science is trustworthy.\u201d She continues, \u201c[Instead,] shift the conversation to what\u2019s actually relevant and far from settled: climate policy and mitigation and adaptation strategies. There is need for vigorous debate around energy policy, subsidies, taxation, and the social cost of carbon. An open exchange of policy ideas will be no less vehement, but much more pertinent.\u201d
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Discussion Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n