29-07-2010, 06:51 PM
Political Discourse Score
When you read a post in a thread on a political discussion board, or an op-ed piece, or a commentary by an anchor/pundit/columnist in the mainstream media (print or TV), or a blog entry by someone, you might consider using, refining and sharing your thoughts on a political discourse score.
The idea derives from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score Apgar score as was explained in Atul Gawande’s book “Better”. [ http://www.amazon.com/Better-Surgeons-Pe...0805082115]
I have derived six categories. A “score” such as this is seen to be a cumulative total, but there is nothing wrong in this case with looking at one of the six specific sub-categories as a stand-alone.
The six specific sub-categories are:
Sourcing and support (score 0-5), a measure of the degree to which the article, theme, or message contains links to items, points, references, etc. mentioned in the piece;
Timing (score –5 to +1) (what is the timing relative to other issues? Suspicious? Friday night or holiday eve news dump? Diversionary? Supportive of other initiatives?) Is it hollow in the sense of standing alone with only an echo of repetition?)
Coherency (score 0-5) (is it intelligible, easy to understand?);
Continuity (score 0-5) (does it have resonance with and ring true in regard to prior issues, news, history, dogma, and, most importantly, action and events?);
Generality (score –3 to +3)) Is it non-partisan in the sense that it is not designed in support of party agenda or partisan --designed to bolster party (or personal or candidate) agenda? Does it require a specific technical knowledge? Does it illuminate in depth? Does it pander?
Sharpness (score –3 to +3) What is the pointedness of intent? Is its edge designed to hurt, or to cut through to core comprehension? To draw blood or to incise away misunderstanding?
The total scores range from –11 to +22.
Subject to further discussion, these can be adjusted and weighted, individually or collectively. For example, the scores in the first and last categories might be doubled in value before totaling, thus changing the range from –14 to +27.
Notice, too, that the political discourse score does not depend on the nature of its partisanship, nor does it require that you give up or move away from your support of a conservative, liberal, neoconservative, neoliberal, libertarian, Zionist, blue dog, yellow cat or other dogma, but it may require you to be aware of it.
When reading articles, my decision to share or “bump” an article can be built on how I consciously evaluate it. Also:
I might read an average Chris Floyd piece and score it as an:
Sourcing and Support 4
Timing 1
Coherency 4
Continuity 4
Generality 2
Sharpness 3
Someone else might read the same article and score it
Sourcing and Support 1
Timing - 3
Coherency 2
Continuity 1
Generality 0
Sharpness -3
If I post the article and then immediately or later give it an 18, and someone else comes by and reads the article and rates it as a –2, each of us will have some more information, and food for discussion as to how we see the article and its environment.
If I convinced the other, or are convinced by the other, next time we might score articles with a subtle and changing difference. On the other hand, we might harden our opinions and attitudes. Either way, we are more likely to understand how the other sees things specifically, in general, and over time.
Virginia Apgar developed the Apgar in response to her experience of seeing too many newborn babies put into a category of “stillborn” when indeed they had life and could be of value; she is described as the founder of neonatology. A similar simple scoring mechanism could allow us to be sure that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater when first seeing a news article or op-ed. As analogies go, that one was probably weak; on the other hand, the obstetrics profession is probably responsible for saving more lives (both mothers and babies) than any other.
The first and most important purpose of the score is for each of us to think about and evaluate how we read and interpret political information. These are introductory thoughts. Here at Deep Politics Forum, further discussion (particularly in the realm of discernment and critical thinking) is surely warranted and will benefit everyone's understanding and ability to present material that will easily meet minimum standards of credibility.
When you read a post in a thread on a political discussion board, or an op-ed piece, or a commentary by an anchor/pundit/columnist in the mainstream media (print or TV), or a blog entry by someone, you might consider using, refining and sharing your thoughts on a political discourse score.
The idea derives from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apgar_score Apgar score as was explained in Atul Gawande’s book “Better”. [ http://www.amazon.com/Better-Surgeons-Pe...0805082115]
I have derived six categories. A “score” such as this is seen to be a cumulative total, but there is nothing wrong in this case with looking at one of the six specific sub-categories as a stand-alone.
The six specific sub-categories are:
Sourcing and support (score 0-5), a measure of the degree to which the article, theme, or message contains links to items, points, references, etc. mentioned in the piece;
Timing (score –5 to +1) (what is the timing relative to other issues? Suspicious? Friday night or holiday eve news dump? Diversionary? Supportive of other initiatives?) Is it hollow in the sense of standing alone with only an echo of repetition?)
Coherency (score 0-5) (is it intelligible, easy to understand?);
Continuity (score 0-5) (does it have resonance with and ring true in regard to prior issues, news, history, dogma, and, most importantly, action and events?);
Generality (score –3 to +3)) Is it non-partisan in the sense that it is not designed in support of party agenda or partisan --designed to bolster party (or personal or candidate) agenda? Does it require a specific technical knowledge? Does it illuminate in depth? Does it pander?
Sharpness (score –3 to +3) What is the pointedness of intent? Is its edge designed to hurt, or to cut through to core comprehension? To draw blood or to incise away misunderstanding?
The total scores range from –11 to +22.
Subject to further discussion, these can be adjusted and weighted, individually or collectively. For example, the scores in the first and last categories might be doubled in value before totaling, thus changing the range from –14 to +27.
Notice, too, that the political discourse score does not depend on the nature of its partisanship, nor does it require that you give up or move away from your support of a conservative, liberal, neoconservative, neoliberal, libertarian, Zionist, blue dog, yellow cat or other dogma, but it may require you to be aware of it.
When reading articles, my decision to share or “bump” an article can be built on how I consciously evaluate it. Also:
I might read an average Chris Floyd piece and score it as an:
Sourcing and Support 4
Timing 1
Coherency 4
Continuity 4
Generality 2
Sharpness 3
Someone else might read the same article and score it
Sourcing and Support 1
Timing - 3
Coherency 2
Continuity 1
Generality 0
Sharpness -3
If I post the article and then immediately or later give it an 18, and someone else comes by and reads the article and rates it as a –2, each of us will have some more information, and food for discussion as to how we see the article and its environment.
If I convinced the other, or are convinced by the other, next time we might score articles with a subtle and changing difference. On the other hand, we might harden our opinions and attitudes. Either way, we are more likely to understand how the other sees things specifically, in general, and over time.
Virginia Apgar developed the Apgar in response to her experience of seeing too many newborn babies put into a category of “stillborn” when indeed they had life and could be of value; she is described as the founder of neonatology. A similar simple scoring mechanism could allow us to be sure that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater when first seeing a news article or op-ed. As analogies go, that one was probably weak; on the other hand, the obstetrics profession is probably responsible for saving more lives (both mothers and babies) than any other.
The first and most important purpose of the score is for each of us to think about and evaluate how we read and interpret political information. These are introductory thoughts. Here at Deep Politics Forum, further discussion (particularly in the realm of discernment and critical thinking) is surely warranted and will benefit everyone's understanding and ability to present material that will easily meet minimum standards of credibility.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"