As I shared in the last entry, the classical training model offered some guiding principles that we used to get to the bottom of THE STORY, which I now use as I approach other narratives in political, social, and other arenas.
Let’s start with…
History Matters: Author Intention and Context
I’ll never forget the first time the facilitator asked me about a particular author’s intention. Deeply moved by the parts of the text that I understood, I shared my thoughts.
While it was a gentle correction, it smarted enough to make me want to crawl under the table until the end of the four-hour session.
“Well, yes, that makes sense from our modern point of view, but what do you think the author was trying to say, given the setting—time, culture, values—he was in?”
With one question, he exposed my lack of knowledge of history, my biases, AND my self -centric approach to learning.
Turns out it’s impossible to grasp the true intention, purpose, or aim of any content (written or verbal, historical or breaking news, etc.) without knowing the backstory of the person(s) putting the content together.
Where did they come from, and what were their culture’s traumas, triumphs, and values?
Did they, at any point, diverge from their culture?
If so, what was their motivation?
Were they running from something or moving toward something they experienced as better?
The honors program kicked my intellectual ass, but at least there was structure to it.
One literary masterpiece at a time. One theme building on top of the previous one at a time. One four-hour discussion WITH a content expert and expert thinker in the room at a time.
This is NOT what we’re facing today.
We are just getting our asses kicked with constant, complicated, convoluted, and even contradicting content.
One story after another. Multiple narratives at one time. Many with obvious and not-so-obvious connections. And too many that just sound, I don’t know, like they couldn’t be true at the same time?
With content constantly flowing to our news channels, social media feeds, and other platforms, this is not a simple principle to apply because it’s not one single contributor.
Right now, we’re dealing with lots of contributors and layers and layers and layers of conscious and unconscious intentions and motivations:
First, there are the initial STORY-FINDERS. These folks might be journalists, concerned citizens, etc. Everything I’ve learned about attention and the brain indicates that story-finders’ personal experiences (traumatic, triumphant, cultural, etc.) prime their attention toward one type of content over the rest. It’s not unreasonable to imagine that all of their preconceived biases are at least driving their attention, if not also making the decision about where to apply it. A concerned citizen may be reporting something that matters to them but not their neighbors, while a paid journalist has added incentives such as notoriety and income.
Second, there are the STORY-EXPLORERS. These folks review the giant stream of possible stories, looking for the ones worthy of further exploration. Of course, their attention is also primed in a particular direction, looking for stories that can help them achieve their goals. These have to include personal motivators for getting into journalism in the first place, which could be everything from “curiosity about the world” to “making sure that the world addresses this particular issue that caused them or someone they loved a lot of pain.” But they likely also include some professional goals to get promoted, climb the ladder, so they can do more what they really got into journalism to do.
Third, there are the STORY-KILLERS. Now we’re talking about managers and executives responsible for keeping the ratings up and keeping the sponsors happy. Of course, they’ve also got their own personal and professional biases and motivations playing in the background as they make decisions about which stories get pushed and which ones get killed.
Fourth, there are the STORY-SCRIPTERS. The stories have been chosen, and now they need to be scripted to capture and keep attention. This is really all about pulling the levers of viewers’ nervous systems with the right amount of curiosity or terror to grab and maintain their attention. And if you have any background in persuasive communication, you know that there are LOTS of funny little motivations and biases that get involved when you begin to write. It’s SO MUCH WORK to be completely impartial and intellectually honest, and let’s be real… they have to write this stuff fast.
Finally, there are the STORY-SPEAKERS. The talent, they call them. And in some cases, they are also the story-scripters. You can kinda tell which ones get to write their own stuff, can’t you? There’s an alignment between their energy and the content that just isn’t there when someone is simply paid to read from a script. The funny thing is that even when they’re trying to remain impartial (though most don’t seem to be interested in that anymore), their personal biases and motivations tend to bleed through in their expression and tone.
How in this world could we possibly be able to decipher “author intention” or even “corporate intention” when there are sooooo many contributors with their own biases and motivations involved?
Well, I’m not sure I have the answer to that.
But knowing this does change the way that I listen to the news.
It puts my attention on the CONTEXT that is influencing the words I am hearing…
- STORY-FINDERS. Why are they focusing on these stories and not others? Which other stories might be important to me right now?
- STORY-EXPLORERS. What drew their attention to these stories and how might that have shaped their analysis and research processes? Can I be sure they’re researching and relaying all the actual facts and doing so impartially?
- STORY-KILLERS. Who’s actually calling the shots—executives and sponsors—and who pays them to call those shots?
- STORY-SCRIPTERS. They’re trying to make me feel a certain way to grab and keep my attention. How are they trying to make me feel?
- STORY-SPEAKERS. They’re making me feel a certain way, whether they’re trying or not. Why is that? What’s their bias here?
Obviously, the contributors above are those at big news stations and social media organizations.
But the same questions can be applied to individual voices and influencers. They’re just playing most (not usually all) of the parts in the process above.
So, for the next week, I hope you’ll
observe the news with these questions in mind.
If you want to dive deeper into Truth, I’d love for you to watch the news or what’s happening on social media AND THEN WRITE for 10 – 20 minutes answering these questions.
The truth is that your body and unconscious mind pick up A LOT MORE information than your conscious mind ever could report to you, and the best way to expose what you’re taking in is to get it out of you with your hand on paper.
And of course, I'm always happy to hear from you... | 
