Politics 2000

I’ve talked a lot about Voltaire’s concept that one sees reality through the prism of one’s perception. That belief is the basis of my 12th Rule of Media Relations. Consider Gov. Sarah Palin’s recent interview with Charlie Gibson. Palin’s supporters have generally praised her performance. Palin’s detractors have broadly panned her effort. It’s the same show. One set of answers didn’t go to blue homes with another set of answers going to red homes. Partisans are seeing what they want to see. Like a Rorschach test, I suppose.

Finding balanced outlets is important but difficult. One site I like is ProCon.org. You can find both sides of contentious issues thoughtfully considered by leading experts. You can also make your opinions known without being subjected to lots of flaming. I talked with ProCon.org managing editor Kambiz Akhavan today about the site. My questions are in italic. Mr. Akhavan’s replies are in bold. I thank Mr. Akhavan for his time and assistance.

Would you tell me about ProCon.org? I noticed it’s sponsored by the A-Mark Foundation. What is the purpose of the foundation?

ProCon.org is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit public charity that has no government affiliations of any kind.

You can read more about the organization here: http://www.procon.org/aboutus.asp

Could you tell me about your background? How did you get involved with ProCon.org?

I joined ProCon.org in December 2004. My background is diverse although I’ve mainly focused in online education and entertainment. You can read more about me here: http://www.procon.org/viewbackgroundresource.asp?resourceID=1476

I see references at the site to “theoretical credibility.” What does that mean?

The theoretical credibility system varies slightly by issue. You can read more about the Theoretical Credibility system here: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/credibilityranking.asp

It includes a description as well as the pros and cons of the system.

There’s a page devoted to methodology. Why?

The information is likely relevant to many of our readers, and it increases the transparency of our research efforts. You can read about our methodology here: http://www.procon.org/methodology.asp

Does ProCon.org maintain a reasoned debate or does the tenor degenerate into name calling?

I think we do a terrific job of presenting a reasoned debate for our readers. Doing so is part of our reason for existence.

How is each side of a touchy subject given balance?

We carefully consider numerous factors in creating a balanced presentation, and we have policies and practices in place to help ensure that our content remains balanced. I think we do an excellent job, and I think our hundreds of thousands of readers would agree. If you or your readers think we could do a better job, please let us know where and why so we can have an opportunity to make it better. Any bias on the sites is counterproductive to our efforts, and we work hard to keep it off no matter what our personal beliefs and no matter what kind of pressure we receive from partisans.

Each topic is given its own mini-site. ACLU.procon.org or votingmachines.procon.org, for example. Do site users tend to stay in a few categories or do they usually roam all over the subject areas?

The majority of readers show interest in one or two topics at a time. They may come back for more topics later. We created a user survey to see how people were using ProCon.org and what they thought of it. We’ve had 863 respondents so far (between April 17, 2008 and September 12, 2008), and the survey results are available online at http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=wmfzeQF9YQfE0gwA_2bwUh8QvUkQGDSzQtMqqxmma8LGk_3d. Check it out. I’ll think you’ll find the results interesting.

The death penalty was recently given its own mini-site at deathpenalty.procon.org. I would have thought the topic would have been very heated a long time ago. Why wait until now to build a subsection?

Each ProCon.org website takes a full-time researcher about 9 months to create. Since we have limited resources, we have to carefully select each topic before committing ourselves. Our readers have suggested over 350 issues for us to explore. As our readership and funding continue to expand, we will be able to explore additional topics and more of our readers’ suggestions will become new ProCon.org websites.

You’re right that the death penalty has always been a hot topic. I’m glad we were able to delve into this research area because no one that we have seen has done it better.

I read there will be 200 experts debating 25 death penalty-related questions. Who are the experts?

You can see a list of all those experts on this page: http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sources.asp

When you click on the person or organization’s name, you will see a brief biography that we have created. We have over 2,500 biographies across all our issue websites.

How can people connect with each other using ProCon.org?

Each one of our biographies contains contact information (phone, fax, email, website) so readers can contact the experts and the experts can contact each other.

Are there ways to influence lawmakers through the site? Sending them emails, for instance?

Sure. For every lawmaker’s biography on the site, we have their contact information listed (phone, fax, email, website) so our readers can easily contact them.

According to the site’s traffic page, the upcoming election is the second-most popular subject. Medical marijuana is the most popular topic. Five years running, no less. Why?

Probably because no one else covers the issue in as much depth as ProCon.org. I was a fan of ProCon.org before I became associated with it. The medical marijuana website remains one of the organization’s most impressive research projects.

What else should I know about ProCon.org?

We thrive on reader feedback. If you or your readers find areas that could use improvement or have referrals for us or want to share your thoughts on a topic, please contact us. We appreciate all the constructive input we receive – whether it is pro or con. Really.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS