Email 
Print 
Does media commentary change minds on Gaza or anywhere else?
Written by: Andrew Stroehlein
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
I wonder: am I wasting my time? No, that’s not the self-pitying observation of a middle-aged man fast approaching another birthday in a couple days time. I mean, professionally, am I putting too much effort into the wrong things?
In my job, I am supposed to be helping to move the public debate -- or at least elite opinion -- in the direction of policies that will assist in the peaceful resolution of conflicts. In trying to do this, I spend a lot of time writing, editing and placing op-eds and commentary articles in media outlets around the world. Now, I’ve just read an opinion piece that tells me it might not be worth it.
Writing in the Christian Science Monitor today, Jonathan Zimmerman asks, “Do opinion pieces ever change your opinion?” He cites his own incoming email over the years as well as some scientific evidence suggesting the answer may be negative for most readers.
Until I read that, I was having a pretty good week. We just did the numbers and found out we published about 160 op-eds in major outlets in 2008, and this year Crisis Group has already produced quite a number of comment articles on Gaza, appearing in the US and in a number of European countries. To top off my good mood, I learned the "Go-To Think Tanks 2008" survey placed Crisis Group first among 407 nominated think tanks in "Best Use of the Media (Print or Electronic) to Communicate Programs and Research". This judgement by our peers about our media reputation certainly must include a positive view of our op-ed work, on which we spend a good deal of time.
But are those of us in the business of public policy advice all overestimating the effectiveness of opinion pieces? Following the vitriol on all sides in the endless web commentary on Gaza, I cannot say I see much that is changing anyone’s mind. The extension of the frontline online seems only to be entrenching opinions if anything. Are our more balanced op-eds on Gaza going to break up that scrap and help show sense to anyone?
Ultimately, despite Zimmerman’s challenge, I have to hope so. I have to think that commentary can be persuasive. How can I let one op-ed change my long-held belief?
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
We welcome argument but AlertNet will not publish comments that are racist, abusive or libellous.
2 responses to “Does media commentary change minds on Gaza or anywhere else?”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content in this article, including by framing or by similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
Journalist Andrew Stroehlein is Director of Media and Information for the International Crisis Group, the conflict resolution organisation, where he promotes responsible coverage of current and potential conflicts and helps draw attention to forgotten wars around the world.
13 Jan 2009 09:30:01 GMT
Because the answer is negative for most readers as stated by Mr. Zimmerman, is, IMO, not a reason to stop. For every reader whose opinion has changed, possibly there are many more whose opinions also change, indirectly, from the influence of those readers.
A century is not a long time for humankind to learn how to think for themselves. Without balanced op-eds and informative articles to assist in learning and exercising this right, maybe our progress will flounder. It's tough enough as it is, with the enormous output of spins and biases, to wade through. Don't take away the stepping stones because you think they aren't utilized enough. Isn't one [reader's change of opinion] enough some days?! Keep on believing Andrew.15 Jan 2009 15:57:41 GMT
While one article or piece of commentary won't have a mind-altering effect, I believe that as people learn more about a subject, and hear both sides of the story, they will update their thinking. As long as we have the ability to keep learning, change can occur! Don't give up hope on the people who refuse to incorporate new thinking. They will come around, or at least enough of them that things will be better.