I agree. I could not make it past the first part (EDIT: I read it all now, it gets better). The entire article is like all the other "introspection" articles I've read from journalists in the US and in Germany. They pretend to be critical of themselves - but their entire text shows incredible egos, all those articles actually say "we are too smart" (meaning the journalists). Now, I don't mind a smart person saying that, but those articles all sound... dumb. I'm sorry, that's just my impression. Like those people are incapable of just thinking "normally". Unfortunately I'm incapable of finding the right words to describe my impression, but even then it's just my impression.

One example, when they try to find counter-points and to challenge the person they interview the questions they ask often seem... again, the only word I have is "dumb". As if they take it from some catalog they were given back in journalist school with instructions for how to "challenge" someone, and they follow their script, but the result does not make any sense. I often feel they mistake simply annoying people for challenging them.

Nevertheless, I'm curious to see how this develops. At least they think about it. This article does present new angles and ideas. Unfortunately the need to maximize profits may stand against improvement, since outrage still sells better.

I liked this sentence from the article, because it is something I myself wished for for quite some time:

> The lesson for journalists (or anyone) working amidst intractable conflict: complicate the narrative..... When people encounter complexity, they become more curious and less closed off to new information. They listen, in other words.

And also this about adding complexity:

> ...But the main idea is to feature nuance, contradiction and ambiguity wherever you can find it. This does not mean calling advocates for both sides and quoting both; that is simplicity, and it usually backfires in the midst of conflict.

> ...There are many things that journalists cannot do. But we can destabilize the narrative. We can remind people that life is not as coherent as we’d like.

What I used the word "dumb" for above was often because of this, journalists trying to work according do some checklist that tells them to also give the other party a voice, but the result often is just dumb and annoying and not the least helpful for anyone incl. those people they interview.

I don't think "better discussions" actually help that much for a lot of topics - the actual solution - please bear with me! - may actually be not to discuss certain topics with everybody. What, not being open is good, am I crazy??? The problem is that many topics are discussed by people not or only very marginally involved, including actual outcomes. It's easy to have an opinion about abortion or "gender stuff" - but 1) what's the use of involving millions of people who are not affected regardless of what is decided, and 2) therefore have no incentive to actually inform themselves about the issues. It's perfectly fine for them to have a "strong opinion" regardless of its contents.

We don't discuss 99.99999% of everything and do fine! Imagine we would draw any random topic into the public arena, with accompanying emotional articles and comments in the thousands, because everybody who enters a discussion wants to be read, be it a forum commenter or a journalist. I bet that while before the topic ever came up the vast majority had no opinion and could not care less, if those discussions run for a while suddenly everybody has a string opinion! Without caring much about doing any research, because the topic itself does not really matter to most people, only the discussion. The "bike shedding" effect comes to mind.

Also, a lot of things are discussed in such general terms as to be useless. I think that for many topics, if a specific example were to be discussed that many of those who seem to be far apart in the discussion would find that they suddenly agree. That's because if the discussion is too general - and most of them are - then you will still have concrete examples in your head, and depending on which ones they are you come to different conclusions. For example, the refugees: When we talk about specific people and who they are, what they need, what they did, it's much easier to agree. If it's just "refugee" then some people will think of those people in the refugee center in Cottbus (Germany) where some of the inhabitants started violent arguments among themselves for stupid (usually religious) reasons and even attacked police called to settle the disputes. The others will think of that family that tries hard to work its way up in the new home. If they both thought of the same concrete case I bet the difference in opinion would be much less. This fits the "add complexity" argument made in the linked article. Don't let people settle on one solid opinion based on the tiny parts of the huge issue that they chose to hold in their head.