Seeking Common Ground

A few weeks after the Oct. 17 referendum there was very little follow-up at the school-district level. In fact, one district administrator, asked what happens next, told us, “Nothing.”

It struck me that none of the major players on either side of the sales-tax issue was really carrying on a dialogue of any sort. I had a sense that there may be an opportunity to do some kind of civic journalism story, but my thinking was quite vague and unformed.

After some brainstorming with others, reporter Marlo Roache and I developed a common-interview framework that was designed specifically to identify what four of the key players in the debate agreed  on – where they shared common ground. Obviously, each interview varied somewhat, but each of the activists was asked the same questions, in the same order. On one side, they included a parent-critic of the school district and the leader of the group that catalyzed the sales-tax opposition; on the other, a parent who led the campaign to pass the tax and the school board chairman.

How do I think it worked? Frankly, I was thrilled with the outcome. Granted this was an unusual set of circumstances in that there was really no dialogue, and obviously no movement toward a solution to the problems the sales-tax debate laid bare. So the newspaper was truly able to serve an important role, by facilitating dialogue where there was none.

In developing the interview questions, it was clear to Marlo and me that this was, indeed, a different kind of journalism. Rather than seeking the points of disagreement and conflict, we were consciously doing exactly the opposite.

“As a reporter on this project, I was excited by the fact that this wasn’t business as usual,” Marlo said. “I had talked to many of these key players before and was very clear on where they disagreed on a number of issues. But as I reported on the common ground piece, I was encouraged by the fact that these people actually agreed on a number of very fundamental issues. Once I discovered that, I had to look at my role as a reporter in a slightly different way.

“I decided to tell the story in such a way as to highlight – for the public and for the key players themselves – where their views merged. I think most people who read the article appreciated the sense of commonality the story brought. Now whether they decide to act upon it, that’s another story altogether.”

What emerged was perhaps not revolutionary – the common ground the four people shared was a belief that we need to do a better job teaching the basics to school kids – but it showed that there were some important educational values they shared. That was significant because there had been so much vitriolic rhetoric during the campaign that many people – the interviewees included- may have been surprised that there was any common ground at all between the pro- and anti-tax camps.

What can we learn from this story? A few things, I think:

• While it’s not always a substitute for traditional interviewing and reporting techniques – it is, after all, important to tell readers about conflict and disagreement on public-policy issues – we might do well to consider this as a supplementary device.

  
  Why, for example, shouldn’t we also try to determine where major players (or just plain folks) agree on an issue of public concern? It’s second-nature – for the players as well as the journalists – to identify their areas of disagreement; it’s harder to find the common ground. If we can help facilitate that process without abandoning our traditional responsibilities, then it can only promote further and deeper examination of the issues. Nothing but good can come from that.

  
  

• This approach forced Marlo and me to re-examine our roles as journalists. Rather than just giving people information, we were creating opportunities through our story for a dialogue where there had been none. I’m firmly convinced that our story, coupled with “The Public Agenda’s” independent effort, were the only things that brought the two camps together to discuss the future of our schools.

  
  

• Finally, I think we were able to show that civic journalism isn’t pandering – that it is, in fact, good journalism. Marlo’s story was reported and written in four working days, including four interviews, each an hour and a half to two hours in length. The story included other reporting as well.

  
  From a personal perspective, it was invigorating and meaningful, in that I felt we were, if you’ll excuse the cliché, truly making a difference. As I told Marlo after the story ran, we led the horses to water; now it’s up to them to decide whether or not to drink.