This site presents controversial issues in dialogue form. In this dialogue, the site’s author answers some basic questions about that form.
Dialogue
- The Editor
You write the dialogues, but other people appear in the avatars. So who’s texting?
- Ryan Born, Author
The dialogues restate other people’s ideas. Sometimes I riff on those ideas, extending or reinforcing them. When I do, I add the Editor avatar. Often, though, I write in harmony with direct quotes, which I reference in annotations.
- The Editor
The exchanges can be pretty brusque—more like tense debates than open conversations. Is that how you think people should talk about controversial issues?
- Ryan Born, Author
I focus on arguments and try to be concise, so conversational niceties will be lacking. Don’t take the dialogues to model how people should talk to each other, especially not if they’re trying to be genial.
- The Editor
But aren’t dialogues and arguments contrasting styles of communication? The first open and receptive, the second closed and combative?
- Ryan Born, Author
That’s one way of defining them. But I mean “dialogue” like a dialogue in a play and “argument” like an argument in a courtroom—not a verbal fight but an attempt to persuade using reason and evidence.
- The Editor
Sometimes the dialogues read like verbal fights.
- Ryan Born, Author
The speakers disagree, but I wouldn’t say they’re fighting. Each side tries to convince the other with facts, logic, and rhetoric. There’s conflict, but it’s foremost between ideas, not people.
- The Editor
How do you choose which side gets the last word?
- Ryan Born, Author
It’s whichever side doesn’t speak first. That means con
goes last since pro
goes first.
- The Editor
Do you usually favor one side over the other?
- Ryan Born, Author
I have opinions, but the dialogues are less personal punditry, more explainer journalism. Think of them as the “why” for the “what” of opposing views on current controversies. Whatever my views, I try to challenge them as much as defend them.
- The Editor
Sounds frustrating and unsatisfying. Why write something like that? Why read it?
- Ryan Born, Author
To think critically about your own and others’ ideas. To try to see things differently or more clearly. That’s why I write the dialogues. That’s also why I think people should read them.
Notes
This is an annotation. All annotations are listed in the Notes section after the dialogue.
See my brief intro to arguments and critical thinking.
One or both sides could get the facts wrong, and either side could use bad logic or misleading rhetoric. These defects and dangers won’t always be flagged in the dialogue or annotations, so be vigilant.
From the NYU Journalism Institute:
Quick definition: Explainer journalism gives users the background knowledge they need to understand the stream of updates to a story. Another way to say it: explainer journalism specializes in the “why” and “how,” so that the “who, what, when, where” make more sense.
Qifan Zhang. Explaining the news builds audience for it.