In chapter 12 we are re-introduced to the underlying theme of the course text, communication ethics literacy and the difference of learning within dialogue. Two essential praxis of the chapter are pragmatism and crisis communication. The concept of being pragmatic is mentioned as "the need for practical engagement of ideas responsive to a particular historical moment" (p.210). While crisis communication is defined as "an increasingly relevant metaphor for today's postmodern moment of virtue contention; the unexpected emerges and requires discernment and action as we encounter differing particular 'goods' in the public domain" (p.210). Both pragmatism and crisis communication are involved in the navigation of difference among those of different backgrounds, cultures, and religions. We must be responsive to historical events, while accounting for the differences among the variety of people that can be involved. These two concepts are instrumental in global interaction and have become increasingly relevant to events of the last few years.
Many violent crises have occurred recently, including terrorist attacks and mass shootings/killings. These events can cause mass uproar, where opinions and ideas are expressed from a plethora of outlets, such as the mass media, or even social media. Awful tragedies like these start dialogue where suggestions are made to prevent future happenings such as these. Although some people may use these tragedies to fuel their political agendas. For example, the killings in Paris were used to express ideas on gun control/gun ownership. I also saw people use this horrible event to express their hate for the religion of Islam, even though an extremist group committed the violence. In these situations, we must be pragmatic, and ensure that dialogue is conducted with respect and sensibility in order to move toward the changes necessary. Communications within a crisis can be difficult with the mass amount of difference among groups of people, but it is imperative that it is handled with ultimate practicality.
Your example created a clear understanding of the aspects surrounding communication ethics and literacy. Communication ethics is centered through the process of accounting for the differences that we encounter through differing views in conversations. Our conversations about health are grounded in our need to remain open minded and unbiased. What other aspect of communication ethics literacy and difference would promote the “good” of communication? The definition in the textbook and also the one you provided in paragraph one, helps bring a more- clear understanding of what exactly communication ethics and literacy is. Do you agree or disagree with the authors’ definition? If not, what would you add or omit?
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your example of many violent crises and terrorist attacks that have occurred recently. You mention that the Paris attacks align with the course concept of crisis communication and how tragedies help to fuel political agendas. The textbook explains that to understand crisis communication ethics “is the need for practical engagement of ideas responsive to a particular historical moment” (pg. 210). Additionally, when mass shooting and killings disrupt the public sphere, these events cause mass uproar. Often opinions and ideas are expressed on different media channels. Media platforms such as, the Internet can create dialogue to help prevent tragedies from happening again. What are ways you would consider different opinions and try to reach a solution? Besides the Internet, what are other ways to discuss tragedies and help prevent mass shootings and terrorist attacks?