Asking why is critical to good communication, but why does good communication actually matter?

“Being a good writer and a good communicator – it doesn’t matter what you do in your life – those two things by themselves are so important in any position you do.” – Neil Fletcher | Biologist

Right, there’s that. But more importantly, there’s also this: Media is changing and as it changes, so too does our role – and responsibilities – as communicators. Let’s start here:

“We’re used to turning on the TV – people my age, anyway – and watching somebody tell us what the news is from somewhere else.” – Donna Kennedy-Glans | Author & Former Cabinet Minister

“We’ve scrubbed all of that. Now we’re in this kind of wild west.” – Jane Thompson | Youth Advocate & Historian

 “The current expression of it, whether it’s cable news talking heads or the tyranny of Facebook algorithms that result in confirmation bias, is a huge challenge.” – Salimah Ebrahim | Journalist & Entrepreneur

“So, what’s the role of media? It’s shifting, it’s changing.” – Stu McNish | Journalist

“How it’s presented and what form it should take, I think that’s what a lot of the debates are around today.” – Salimah Ebrahim | Journalist & Entrepreneur

But what’s not up for debate is this: We are the media.

We dictate what’s upworthy and what’s downworthy. We dictate what’s on the Newshour and what’s not.

Say what?

Well, this comment from futurist Jim Bottomley is mostly true:

“We’re seeing this bombardment of negative news. You’ll never see a headline in the paper that says: ‘Everyone in Iraq had a happy day today’. They’re going to showcase the negative side.”

But that’s not the whole story. Again, the question is why? Again, we turn to Jim for insight.

“Change is going to accelerate and change causes stress. So, we’re all more stressed and we’ve fed this kind of negative (news) and polarization, the way the world’s operating now.”

Exactly, Jim. We’re the ones who demand the negative news, as Clive Jackson explains.

“Selling news is like selling a chocolate bars or selling groceries”, Clive explains, the former managing editor of one of the largest TV newsrooms in North America.

“We’re working for an organization that has to make money to survive. And, so, you’ve got to be successful. To drive that success, to drive people to watch the advertising, you’ve got to have the numbers watching the news shows and, therefore, you’ve got to have stories that will bring people in to support the organization by providing money to the advertisers.”

Clive adds that even though ratings – viewership – matters, “you’ve also got to have some responsible news and you do have responsibility to get them to know, in an impactful way, how important other issues are.

“You can give them a diet of goodies most of the time, but every so often, you throw in a vegetable.”

Indeed, we do love our goodies and we really don’t like our vegetables. But just as in real life, we need a diversity of vegetables to, in this case, stay informed and make better decisions.

Yet because we choose what we eat, we’ve chosen not to consume environmental stories, Clive tells us.

“We used to do surveys all the time, both for television and of newspaper readers, to find out what sort of topics interested people the most. And it’s absolutely clear that the environment wasn’t on most people’s list.”

And, so, the environment wasn’t – isn’t – covered as often as the seriousness of the issue might suggest it should be. It’s why we don’t understand our natural systems well, nor how to resolve the complexities at the intersection of people and nature.

After all, nature isn’t, as Clive says, “serious crime, scams, education to some extent, consumer matters, that kind of thing.”

But the environment isn’t the only vegetable that often misses the cut, as Clive’s former colleague at Global News, Stu McNish, explains.

“I was having lunch with a fellow and he was a few minutes late arriving. He said: ‘Sorry, I’m late. I was just watching the Supreme Court decision around the Tsilhqot’in Decision’. And I had to admit, I didn’t know what the Tsilhqot’in decision was about. I didn’t know how to pronounce it. I didn’t understand what the ramifications were. I didn’t recognize its connection to Delgamuukw, going all the way back to Sparrow. It’s a progression of lawsuits. And I thought: ‘Okay, I have become too wrapped up in my own world and I’m missing out on things.’ And something like understanding Tsilhqot’in doesn’t fit in too much to the narrative of daily news. And that’s not to say that it wasn’t covered. It was. But it wasn’t the top story.

Stu, host of Conversations That Matter, adds:

“Our relationship with Indigenous people across Canada? It’s still abysmal from my perspective. But that topic comes up, viewership plummets. It’s really disappointing.”

It is disappointing because we’re the reason viewership plummets when important stories on the economy or nature or social cohesion come on the air.

But here’s the even bigger problem:

All of that was an issue when mainstream media was how we largely sourced our news. Today? We consume most of our news – including from mainstream media’s products – via social media.

That means we have even more power over what stories we see, as freelance science journalist Niki Wilson explains.

“Algorithms that determine who sees what are often based on what we select.”

We know that, obviously, but really stop and think about it for a second.

We’ve gone from prioritizing certain stories on the evening news, through polls and focus groups, to outright censoring the information we see.

And we’re not just cherry picking what stories – what versions of the truth – we’re seeing, we’re also helping determine what our friends and family in our social network get to see as well.

As Niki says, “at least the way it was meant to be, there are a lot of rules to journalism that should be followed. Those rules are there to protect democracy, ultimately, and to ensure that you’re telling the truth. And it’s not that they don’t make mistakes, but an organization like New York Times or The Washington Post have fact checkers, so it means there’s a check on their editors, there’s a check on their writers; you can’t get too self-indulgent, you can’t lie.”

But the rules of journalism and the resources of a skilled newsroom just aren’t what most of us live by or have access to. Yet we’ve decided we can do Clive Jackson’s job as news editor better than he ever could, Niki adds.

“The organizations have a look at those analytics and they’re like, ‘ah, you know, it’s just more cats. Okay, God help us.’ They are under this constant pressure to put the clickbait out to drive some ratings so they can get some advertising.”

So, we’re censoring what we see on the news, based on our clicks, and what our social network sees, based on our shares. But journalist Stu McNish adds, “the medium is also being challenged by diminishing eyeballs. And, so, rather than saying, I’m gonna go out and cover something that I believe to be compelling and an important story to tell, I’m now chasing the trend and telling the story from that perspective (because the entire industry is collapsing). And if the story doesn’t fit into the accepted narrative, well, it doesn’t always make it to the forefront (for that reason).”

So, we’re censoring what we see and what’s being produced and how it’s being produced. That’s chilling. And, again, it’s on us, as young entrepreneur Zeel Patel explains.

“What really gets all the likes on Facebook and the shares and the comments are issues that are on those extremes. When Donald Trump says something that’s irrational or when something radical happens, those are the issues that get the most attention. That’s what we like to feed ourselves on and what we like to see on TV.

Zeel adds, “it’s paradoxical when we say that these issues are not representative of our true beliefs, yet at the same time, those are the same issues and ideas that we continue to watch.”

As pollster Shachi Kurl reminds us, when it comes to news and information, we’ve “democratized it. Notwithstanding the problems with Wikipedia, you can literally find out anything about anything with an internet connection and even a moderate quality computer or phone.”

But as lawyer Kerrie Blaise says, “with a right comes a responsibility.”

Exactly and that’s why journalist Niki Wilson argues, “as a society, we need to be really critical about what kind of media we’re ingesting. For example, if we expect all our media to be free, and we don’t pay for it, then we don’t really have much right to criticize it.”

But if we want better stories – more thoughtful stories and a less polarized society – we need to champion good communication that seeks to move us beyond polarity. How?

Niki says “don’t share the crap. Before you hit send on Facebook, you need to ask, is this an ethical media outlet? And, even if it is, ask yourself, did they really answer my questions? Are these people writing about things you care about it in a way that matters and educates you? Or is it the

 same old political slandering a different day? How long do we spend on one topic that’s kind of sensationalized versus real issues?”

All of which is to say, if we have a truth problem – a polarization problem, a democracy problem? Well, art innovator Jerry McGrath tells us:

“I feel like it’s an interesting thing that we believe this polarization is happening to us. We’re choosing this. Like, we’re making choices to only hear people who sound like us and to use products that make that easier.”

Jerry’s right: It’s on us.

And, look, it is hard to understand how one person really shifts society’s narrative. It’s hard to see how one act of selecting better words when we talk, one act of sharing a thoughtful story when sharing the news, or one act of being a better communicator and news editor for our social networks, can actually melt polarization and heal our democracy.

And yet individual words and acts, added together, is how we’ve always altered society’s story.

Think about kit this way, Jerry explains:

“The story of Little Red Riding Hood. We all know the story of Little Red Riding Hood.

“When it was first written. It had a very different ending. Little Red Riding Hood was sent to her grandmother’s house. On the way, she met a wolf; the wolf ate her; she died. The end. And the lesson at the time was very clear. The natural world is a scary place. So, you should be careful.”

Jerry continues, “years pass, industries start moving into the countryside. Nature’s less scary, but there’s now something scarier. There’s men who are coming from the city that have no connections to the communities that they’re working in. And, so, the story changes and the wolf is no longer an animal, but it’s more like a man and he does harm to Little Red Riding Hood in different ways. And, again, she dies. But the lesson is not that the natural world is scary, but that the natural world is a place where bad people hide.

“In the 50’s they added the woodsman. So, the story again changes. Yes, nature is scary; yes, men are scary. But there are also men that will save you – and Little Red Riding Hood should not be looking out for herself because someone else will take care of her. Again, very, very different story about the natural environment. Men with axes are there to help restrain nature and to protect the woman.

“Move ahead, Little Red Riding Hood? She’s in the woods, she’s unafraid, she saves herself. This is great. Wonderful story! Except, in this version, nature’s powerless.”

The point? Jerry says, “art and, in this case, storytelling, does a really powerful job of shaping how people are able to experience nature. So, art can also change how people understand and experience nature.”

Indeed, sometimes we’ve changed society’s narrative for the better, and sometimes for the worse. Sometimes we’ve used story to move beyond stereotypes and myth, and sometimes we’ve reinforced them. But ultimately, if we want to change society’s narrative to include nature and help more people see themselves in our collective story, we can.

After all, our story is, well, our story. It’s ours to craft and tell. And if we care about our life and our neighbours and our community and our country and our world and our future? Then it’s obvious, isn’t it? Good communication matters.