The debate article reflects the authorS opinions.
It’s an interesting exercise to observe the national political debate these days. Within dialog, there is a well-known saying: “The meaning of communication is shown through the response you get.”
One media report after another seems to be fighting to shout “more drama, more drama, down with Jonas Gahr Støre.”
key union representatives in LO and the Labor Party are jumping on the bandwagon. It truly seems to be about demonizing as much as possible, rather than providing substantive input and respectful debate.
The expression “playing each other good” is almost a foreign concept. Listening and thinking about the common good seems to be quite challenging too. No wonder there’s an alternatively pleasant atmosphere in the movement then?
And those of you who might hope for a process to remove Støre as leader and prime minister candidate of the Labour party, just forget it.A process like the one against Bollestad in KrF is not an example to follow.
read also: with Støre at the helm, the Labour Party has lost its grip
Not Jonas’s fault
Now to the central media. There are several examples of the media onslaught against Jonas Gahr Støre approaching an organized smear campaign where “everything that goes wrong is Jonas’s fault.”
Remember that any missteps previous governments may have made,or mistakes current MPs and government members have made,are actually,and I repeat,not Jonas Gahr Støre’s fault.
To you other parties. It wasn’t just luxury and paradise with the previous government either. Neither inside nor outside, so to speak. Maybe you could come up with concrete political measures that actually make everything much better before complaining about Jonas Gahr Støre?
Just remember, it must be feasible. Preferably without too many expensive cuts that cost more than they release.For every cut has an alternative cost.
There is no magic wand
To the ordinary citizen. Politics is the distribution of goods and burdens in society, within predetermined natural limits. It woudl be nice if we could have both in one package. I mean, both the cat, the bag, the package, and everything together.
that there was no war in Ukraine,that the dollar had cost five crowns. and that the interest rate on the mortgage returned to 1.50 percent. That would have been something.
We must distinguish between internal and external working conditions. A reality orientation is needed.Much can change for the better, much is more difficult, much takes longer time.
A new prime minister is not born with a magic wand. It will be the same premises with other priorities and perhaps other values guiding the priorities.
All objectivity is subordinated to propaganda. What is most important to measure is the state budget. Here, many clear priorities are made for all who want to read the proposal for the state budget. Comparing party programs and the state budget is a good place to start. This applies nonetheless of the colour of the glasses worn by the reader.
The commotion solves nothing
We humans are guided by values in the way we prioritize and choose. Both the media, other parties, representatives in the Labour Party, LO, and fellow human beings among ourselves have a obligation to play each other good.Smearing solves nothing.
I have never seen examples of commotion solving anything at all.
Prioritization and implementation capacity govern the results.Being good team players, thinking holistically, and coming up with good feasible solutions is what fixes and builds up.Perhaps a sensible strategy to think about?
Replacing Jonas Gahr Støre solves nothing.
What are the main challenges of political dialog in the age of social media?
Interview between Time.news Editor and Political Communication Expert
Time.news Editor (TNE): Good day, everyone. Welcome to another insightful session where we dive deep into the currents of contemporary political discourse. Today,we have with us Dr. Emily Carter,an expert in political communication. Thank you for joining us, dr. Carter.
Dr. Emily Carter (DEC): Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to be here.
TNE: Let’s jump right in. In your opinion, how does the current national political debate reflect the idea that “the meaning of communication is shown through the response you get”?
DEC: That’s a captivating question! the ongoing national political debate is a kaleidoscope of perspectives and reactions. The responses we observe—whether it’s from constituents, political analysts, or even unexpected voices in social media—give us critical insight into how messages are being interpreted. As an exmaple, a politician’s carefully crafted speech may have a very different resonance depending on the audience’s values and beliefs.
TNE: So, would you say that miscommunication can led to misunderstandings in the political landscape?
DEC: Absolutely. Miscommunication can lead to a chasm between what a politician intends to convey and what the public perceives.Take, for instance, nuanced topics like healthcare or climate change. If a message isn’t articulated clearly or is misunderstood, the backlash or support can be disproportionate, leading to polarization rather than healthy debate.
TNE: Speaking of polarization, do you think the rise of social media platforms has affected political communication?
DEC: Without a doubt. social media has transformed political communication in many ways. while it allows for rapid dissemination of messages and gives a voice to those who may not have had one before, it also amplifies extreme views. Polarization is often exacerbated as individuals create echo chambers where they’re only exposed to viewpoints that mirror their own.
TNE: Engaging! do you believe that there is a solution to bridge this communication gap that seems to be widening?
DEC: Bridging this gap requires intentional effort from political leaders and stakeholders. They need to cultivate an understanding of their audience and maintain open channels of communication. Additionally, fostering media literacy among the public can empower individuals to critically evaluate what they read and hear, thus enabling more meaningful conversations.
TNE: That aligns with the old saying, “the meaning of communication is shown through the response you get.” How can politicians ensure they are receiving constructive feedback?
DEC: Politicians must be proactive in engaging with their constituents—not just during campaigns but continuously. They can utilize town hall meetings, listening sessions, and digital platforms for real-time feedback. Moreover, they shoudl be prepared to adapt their messages according to the feedback received, which shows that they value the opinions of their constituents.
TNE: It seems we’re living in a complex era for political communication. Any final thoughts on how individuals can contribute to improving discourse in their communities?
DEC: Yes, individuals play a crucial role! By fostering respectful dialogue, actively listening to differing opinions, and calling out misinformation, citizens can help create a more constructive political environment. Engaging in discussions with those who have different viewpoints can promote understanding and reduce polarization.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for your insights on this pressing issue.It’s clear that the art of communication is as intricate and impactful now as ever.
DEC: Thank you for having me! It’s been an enlightening conversation.
TNE: And thank you to our audience for joining us today. Stay inquisitive, and remember, the way we communicate shapes our political landscape. Until next time!