Some people get all their news from regular media sources, maybe with opinion and speculation sprinkled in at the water cooler. Others get may receive information first hand, participating in the dialog as it occurs or from observing discussions. Some people seem inclined to just repeat what they hear, anything they've heard from another source without attempting to validate it (or even question possible motivations of the source of this information). Some get a little information and run a long way on that. Unfortunately, some people seem to enjoy just stirring the pot, combining what they think they know and adding any "details" they feel their "audience" will respond to.
The best way to get information may be from numerous sources, but facts need to be verified, assumptions challenged, information validated and perhaps researched further, building a body of knowledge and understanding on multiple issues which may be independent topics or interrelated subjects. Otherwise you may find your opinion being manipulated or based on incomplete information. This can contribute to a cycle of repeating and expanding the dissemination of misinformation. In the past, this may have been referred to as gossip and is generally categorized as hearsay. Or as one blog commenter quoted, "Better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it."
If in doubt, check it out -- for yourself. If you have a question, don't rely on others to provide answers. Investigate and go to the source. There's an old adage that says 80% of our problems are relative to poor communication.
In the public forum, this may mean attending meetings yourself. Not just talking to co-workers, reading blogs or a newspaper, watching the news, or chatting with neighbors. And then asking clarifying questions, if needed. Challenge the source, if needed, by pressing for details. In the public forum, most topics are not simple, cut and dried situations. So it's easy to stand back and draw assumptions when you don't have many details or aren't aware of the full picture.
In today's society, we receive an abundance of information that often is quickly processed. Most of the time, there is an opportunity to continue to add to the information received -- and this can change one's perspective. Changing your opinion doesn't mean you are wishy-washey or flip-flopping, it simply means you are open to gathering more facts, seeking more perspectives, and forming or reforming your own personal opinion.
This is one of the reason's this blog has encouraged people to attend public meetings and observe town council proceedings for themselves. Not simply relying on a summary provided by just these writers or those of the media or someone who may or may not have been present to hear these discussions.
And one meeting alone cannot provide a full picture. In technical terms, we're learning about dpi (dots per inch) and pixels, small pieces of data that when combined with many others makes up a complete picture. Individually, dpi or pixels don't provide a clear picture -- so attending various public forums and talking to knowledgable people, over time, enables the development of a broad perspective and deeper understanding of issues. One meeting or one source may just be a single pixel.
These types of issues are why public processes and government should be transparent -- open to citizens, following processes which encourage engagement, input, and understanding. Many issues are too complex and broad to be addressed by any single person, even those "officials" elected or responsible for addressing these tasks appropriately. This again is why it is advantageous for our government to engage many stakeholders throughout the process, seeking diverse viewpoints and perspectives.
This can take longer than simply charging ahead, moving quickly from one task to the next. Yet the final outcomes are generally better, while meeting with less resistance and criticism because people were brought into the planning process or dialog sooner, developing a shared understanding.
In Christiansburg, the perception of council excluding residents is the basis of the push for meeting (or exceeding) basic for Freedom of Information Act requirements. This also underscores why having a comprehensive town web site is long overdue, as it will create efficiencies in both operational functions while providing an opportunity for expanding community support and goodwill. Certainly there will still be disagreements, but each party will better understand how the other came to make certain decisions -- and move forward.
Without these two fundamental needs being met, town officials should not be surprised when citizens question agenda items (zoning issues, budget, etc.) or why certain decisions were made.
Council would be well advised to begin "marriage counseling" with its citizens by fully complying with FOIA, changing some processes, and providing basic services in an electronic format via its public web site. Let's embrace the town motto of "Progressive Small Town Living At Its Best" by leading the way in citizen engagement and involvement.