Common ground

I was sitting in a seminar today on how newspapers need to keep themselves relevant. One of the things that came up is the idea of a paper providing “conversational currency” to people — things to talk about at the water cooler.

Online news sources certainly do a lot of things that newspapers can’t. Immediacy comes to mind. But newspapers have one advantage: There are lots of online news sites, from professional journalists (CNN, USA Today) to blogs, to other stuff. But most towns and cities have one, maybe two, newspapers. Ask people where they get their news, and the folks who get it online will likely name a variety of sites, while the folks who read the paper (and, yes there will be overlap) almost all name the same newspaper.

To me, it’s not about “conversational currency.” It’s about the importance of a common ground to keep us together. The more we have in common, the better we relate and understand one another.

Think of a first date. If you don’t know the other person, you start off in that awkward stage, looking for that common ground. When you hit it, you pounce — “You like anchovies, too?!”

You start to build a foundation of things you have in common, bringing your personal experiences to bear. If you have nothing in common, you can’t converse.

The more people (read: individuals or societies) have in common, the better they communicate. But it doesn’t have to be experiences in common. It can simply be information: “Did you read that article in the Times?”

You don’t even have to agree; you just need some things in common. When two people first meet, whether socially, in business, or in politics, the first order of business is to find that common ground. Without it, there’s no way you can understand each other.