Ars Longa Vita Brevis

In February I shared with interviewer Thanos Dimadis of FairObserver.com some reflections on #diplomacy and changes in the #media over the past half century:  

On diplomacy:

-- US engagement abroad is vital to our national defense, prosperity and security  We do not do so as a favor to others, but to safeguard and advance our national interests,

-- The lessons of World War I and of World War II are that we need allies and partners, they need us.  NATO has kept the peace in Europe for over 70 years. 

-- But you don't take friends for granted.  Like a garden, important relationships need tending, and nothing good happens if they are neglected.  That constant gardening is diplomacy.

-- We need to attract the best candidates possible to national security work, whether it’s the Foreign Service, or the military, or the CIA, or the Agency for International Development, or the Foreign Agricultural Service, or the Foreign Commercial Service, or the Treasury Department, or the Justice Department or the various law enforcement agencies that maintain important liaison relationships abroad.

-- Most of us want lives of meaning. There are lots of ways to do that, but public service is one of the very best.

On the media:

-- Twenty-three years ago, I wrote in my book, Wary Partners: Diplomats and the Media: “The fast-evolving communications and technology revolutionizing nearly every aspect of international relations are also reshaping the way governments do business with one another.  In this whirlwind of change, it is plain that more information than ever will be available to publics in the twenty-first century and that this will profoundly affect the conduct of international affairs.  Not only will information media and technology play a central role in the shaping of public policy, but the efficacy of diplomacy as a tool of policy will depend to a large extent on how well diplomats adapt to this reality.”

-- In the years since I wrote that, these trends have accelerated and the media landscape has been dramatically reshaped.  What I regret most is the decline of editing, and especially the blurring of the formally sacred distinction between news coverage and editorial opinion.  The atomization of information via social media effectively means that there are now comparatively fewer real gatekeepers to safeguard the quality and accuracy of what the general public sees and hears. 

--Today’s readers and listeners can pick and choose information from a broad, ever-proliferating, à la carte menu of outlets vying for their attention.  And in many respects, this luxury of choice is a tremendous advance. But in the marketplace of ideas, it also allows people, if they are so inclined, to hear and see only what they like. 

-- The practical effect of this is to flatten and atomize distribution of information in a hurtling blend of fact, error and opinion. This speeds up pressure on decision-makers and reduces the time for deliberation.  It also delegitimizes authority figures and polarizes audiences.   And this information environment hampers the kind of careful deliberation, compromise and accommodation that is essential for the effective functioning of democratic institutions.

You can find the full text here:  https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/us-state-department-foreign-policy-american-diplomacy-media-news-analysis-43101/