Christopher Schroeder

Category: community and culture

  • No NPR No

    NPR reported this morning about Univision CEO Daniel Alegre’s recent public observations about presidential campaigns. Alegre has argued that successful campaigns will do more than offer ads in English and must engage Spanish-language media.

    Part of this interview involved a question about whether Univision should be more critical of Trump’s claims, including on air with him. This question emphasized that its one of its most prominent journalists has been critical of the way Univision has covered this politician.

    Alegre in the interview this morning was allowed to sidestep the question and offer some platitudes about the organization he leads. The interviewer asked no follow-ups, and didn’t even note that Alegre hadn’t answered the question, were presented.

    I was dismayed but not surprised. I’ve noticed that NPR often allows its interviewees to avoid answering questions, including and especially more challenging ones.

    I should first clarify that I generally agree with Alegre that multilingual campaigns will likely be more successful because they’re more inclusive, and that American attitudes about multilingualism are surprisingly uninformed and embarrassing provincial. At the same time, I’m increasingly aware of the need for a shared cultural context, which could include a shared language, for successful communication and full participation.

    My bigger concern this morning is this seeming strategy to placate anyone who agrees to go on the air with NPR reporters. Some seem more willing to challenge responses than others, but most seem reluctant to do so, which makes me wonder whether this non-confrontational approach is an organization-wide strategy.

    Such a strategy clearly contrasts I believe with many BBC interviews I hear, which on my local NPR station are broadcast after the NPR morning news program. Those BBC interviewers don’t always elicit answers to their questions but seem relatively willing to confront interviewees who refuse to do so.

    Perhaps the NPR reporter asked follow-up questions and even confronted Alegre in the actual interview, and some editor or producer decided to remove that part for the on-air account. That however would suggest a bigger problem I believe.

    A functioning press has long been a central component in successful democratic societies. This need is greater now in this misinformation and disinformation era more than ever.

    NPR must do a better job of confronting public figures, and reporting the results of such efforts. That, especially if direct yet dignified, could provide a model of all of us who aspire to such conversations in our everyday lives.

  • House and Home

    Home of House Exhibit @ Navy Pier

  • No Doubt

    I am increasingly, and sometimes uncomfortably, aware of how little I know.

    I actually expected the opposite. I assumed that I’d know more after reading and living more, and working longer as a professor.

    I’m not suggesting that I’ve lost knowledge. I cannot remember details and facts that I could once easily recall, but I don’t believe that the amount of my knowledge has decreased.

    In fact, I’m reasonably confident that my knowledge has increased. I certainly cannot quantify the addition over the years but believe that this amount is greater than anything I might have trouble recalling or even lost.

    At the same time, I’m increasingly aware that this knowledge is merely a fraction of what I could know, and that this portion seems even smaller as this awareness increases. I so often add areas about which I know nothing that I’ve started assuming the existence of epistemological universes I’ll never see or even imagine.

    The effect is that I’m more and more uncertain about answers to questions. As a result, I’ve begun to express this uncertainty in my responses, which seems to infuriate at least some.

    I now wonder if such efforts appear ambivalent. Ambivalence according to researcher Naomi Rothman can create negative impressions in others, and also seems less productive in some (i.e., competitive) situations than others (i.e., collaborative).

    I wonder how such appearance play in private at home for example or in public, such as classrooms. In those, I teach the conflicts to use Gerald Graff’s approach, and describe the debates rather than offer decontextualized positions within these.

    I repeatedly explain that I’m attempting to defend reasonable perspectives within these debates, and asking them to assess the merits and assume one or another. Regardless, I’m relatively confident that this approach frustrates at least some if not more.

    This uncertainty seems the most honest, or at least to have the most intellectual integrity. In fact, I’ve learned to distrust those who are certain, and could agree with Cardinal Lawrence in the recent movie Conclave that certainty might be the greatest sin.

    Perhaps he is right to praise, and call for, those who doubt. These needn’t seem cynical about truth, and don’t have no belief, and aren’t necessarily nihilistic. Rather, they exhibit an intellectual humility, which is something I’m learning to cultivate.

    I just wonder what I’ll do with this newfound humility, and this increased knowledge and ignorance, after retiring next year. Until now, I have some justification however vague for these efforts, and can’t help but wonder if, and if so how, it and these will shift as I move into the next part.