Opposing Views provides a forum for engagement

Next in our series of Public Media 2.0 Showcase we take a look at Opposing Views, an online discussion forum that brings together experts and publics to discuss current issues. The words of John F. Kennedy introduce the site: "Without debate, without criticism, no public can survive."

In our white paper Public Media 2.0 Dynamic Engaged Publics we suggest that public media 2.0 takes place when the audience actively uses media platforms to learn about and find solutions for shared issues. Opposing Views provides the context for just that. The site affords the opportunity to engage in critical debate on current issues. In addition to this open forum it also features a wide range of experts representing advocacy groups from the National Rifle Association to Amnesty International. The aim is for all voices to be heard on a wide swath of topics that are organized into the fields of politics, society, health, money and religion. Once the experts have chosen their side and created their argument, the issue is open to the public.

While the aim is for all voices to engage, it is important to highlight the underlying disparities at play. In order to participate one must a) speak English, b) have Internet access and c) be within a community that is aware of this platform. In the end, the perspectives more or less fall within the range of those held by members of middle-to-upper class Western society --a small percentage of the actual global and national population.

However, with that said, the conversations still do proffer a wide range of diverse opinions.

A key element that pushes Opposing Views to the top of online debate forums is its front page. The intuitive organization of the front page showcases the multiple layers of debate at play, and features the newest issues up for debate. On it you can find an "Up To The Minute" widget that features which contributors are doing what where at this very minute. The front page also provides summaries of the many experts associated with the site, relevant articles connected with each debate forum, and "Spike in Voting" and "Spike in Commenting" widgets showing where the heat is.

For a recent issue --Is Torture Ever Justified?--the experts' responses were divided into four categories: "Intent and Just War Theory," "Torture is Counter Productive," "Debate Ducks Hard Questions" and "Torture Is Always Wrong." In addition to the debate, there is a survey created to gauge the general consensus. For this particular issue 66% of the 228 voters agreed that torture is never justified.

With more than two hundred comments related to this one particular question, this forum reveals itself as a very engaging form of public media 2.0. Looking through the comments, it is clear that real back-and-forth conversations are taking place. This thread on "Is Torture Ever Justified?" was particularly interesting in that the moral aspect was addressed very thoughtfully by all parties involved.

Visit the site to find your own debate to join; participation requires registration, but is free. Check out the debate regarding "Fair Use," one of the Center's favorite topics. We jumped in on that discussion ourselves.