In my first year in law school, I took a basic lawyering class with a simple assignment: make a persuasive legal case in favor of an issue you care about. I don’t remember the specific issue I chose, but I do remember what came next.
“Okay,” the instructor told us, once we were done with our draft arguments. “Now make as strong a case as you can for the other side.”
It was a simple-sounding assignment, but I found it harder than expected. Like many, I usually take a position out of passion, belief and morality. I need to care about what I’m saying, and I become emotionally invested.
But that first-year law school exercise forced me to remove the emotion. Even worse, I had to pretend to be someone I might honestly have resented in real life, who argued for a position I abhorred.
Yet as I began listing the arguments on the other side, I was surprised how easily I could make a persuasive case. With the emotions drained, a kind of analytical passion took over. I ranked the most powerful arguments against my preferred position, even putting what felt like a more persuasive spin on them.
I didn’t change my own mind, but I found that the exercise sharpened my thinking. And I suddenly realized that while I still disagreed with the other side, my default attitude of disrespect for that position and the people who might argue for it largely evaporated. In short, I could see the merit in their point of view, even if I didn’t share it.
That exercise taught me a lot about the importance of critical thinking - of letting go of the emotions that stopped me from understanding different perspectives. Not necessarily to change my mind, but to better understand my values and why I might find something persuasive – and maybe, perhaps, to open myself to a different perspective, or at least to the person who holds it.
I try to bring that approach to my hosting duties at KALW. Not because I want to “both sides” an issue to death. Nor because I feel obligated to give air time or legitimacy to values that fundamentally contradict what I and KALW might stand for, such as tolerance, justice, and compassion.
But I believe we are better off when we can understand an opposing point of view and absorb new information. It’s also better radio in my view. Interviews are usually more engaging when guests have to field tough questions. It gives them – and listeners - a chance to justify and perhaps clarify their beliefs.
In this era of much cruelty and division in our country, I believe this approach is needed more than ever. To be sure, the goal is not common ground or compromise when it comes to fundamental values. Instead, the goal should be to understand people with differing viewpoints in order to better comprehend the events happening around us.
Part of that approach also involves surfacing the stories and viewpoints that are too often overlooked by traditional media, to expose listeners to new information.
For example, on Your Call, we recently interviewed Lylla Younes, a journalist and editor at Beirut-based online magazine The Public Source, who described almost in real time her eyewitness account of the Israeli bombing of her city, which had been largely overshadowed in much mainstream media by the conflict in Iran. She calmly and clearly explained the roots of the conflict between the nations and the internal dynamics within Lebanon, giving listeners a more complex view into what could otherwise be an overly-simplified narrative.
Similarly, on State of the Bay, we hosted a debate earlier this year about whether or not downtown San Francisco should have “congestion pricing,” where drivers are charged a toll to drive in during peak commute hours. No matter what side you might favor, I believe listeners benefit from hearing both the pros (congestion reduction, money for transit) and the cons (concern over fewer customers for downtown businesses).
And we also want to expose listeners to some of the exciting innovation happening on hot-button topics like climate change. For our UC Berkeley Law climate solutions podcast Climate Break, which is co-produced and aired weekly on KALW, we interviewed UC Berkeley chemistry professor Omar Yaghi about a new substance he developed that could inexpensively capture carbon from the atmosphere. Professor Yaghi has since won the Nobel Prize for this discovery, and it could change how we think about addressing climate change going forward.
Bringing these unheard stories to a wider audience, asking hard questions, and airing different viewpoints are to me the ingredients we need to improve our understanding of the world around us. They also help us discover more about our own values and perspectives and ideally become more engaged members in our community.
That’s why I stand for challenging ourselves to think critically and honestly about the positions we take, and being open to - and seeking out - new information when we can.
I try to incorporate those goals into our KALW programming, as well as within the work I do on climate change at UC Berkeley Law. I still carry with me the lessons from that first-year law course, a reminder that sometimes we need a little push to get us outside of our comfort and knowledge zones and into a place of greater understanding and empathy.
—
This piece was brought to you by KALW Speaks, a monthly series of essays from KALW staff and contributors, exploring the ideas that drive our work. Each of these essays reflect our commitment to innovation and invites you into a deeper conversation about the future of public media.
Learn more: From A Whisper To A Roar.
