Watching the TodayShow this morning there was a fascinating segment by Richard Engel on a proposed new road through the Serengeti, an incredible  5,700 square mile park of amazing bio-diversity that is probably the only place on earth that looks like it did millions of years ago.   It is home to lions, zebra, giraffes wildebeests and elephants.   The 33-mile road threatens the migration patterns of these animals and this pristine and undisturbed eco-system.   The reason for the road: economic.  It’s the fastest way to bring rare earth metals from Lake Victoria so critical to making cell phones and car batteries.

Environmentalists and tourists oppose the road and for good reason.  It does sound like a terrible idea. But these people don’t live in Tanzania.   In fact, the only voices in the TODAY piece were from outsiders.  Tanzanian government officials in favor of the road declined to comment.  Still I would have liked to hear from ordinary folks who might support the road and what they feel it means to them.  I would have liked to hear the other side’s reasons more clearly articulated.  What are the economic conditions that made government leaders make the promise to build this road?

That’s the trouble with so much of our communications.  We only hear one side and it is usually the side we are most comfortable with.   In an increasingly polarized society, we have to find more balance and I believe that as PR practitioners we have a responsibility to guide our clients, our companies, our organizations to do so.  How?

1) Be open to hearing and listening to what the other side has to say.

2) Suspend judgment for a minute to try to understand where those who differ are coming from.

3) Examine our own point of view in context of differing opinions.  Does the other side have a point?

4) As we articulate our point of view, understand why others might disagree.

5) Is there any place in the middle where we can find common ground?  Is there a place to compromise?  Is there another way to get something done?

Newspapers and journalists used to provide both sides.  Now as we read blogs and obtain information from websites focused solely on one point of view or listen to the friends in our network, we don’t often see both sides.  As communicators, we have to “bring the outside in” and that means understanding other perspectives that may be counter to what we are promoting or advocating.

What do you think? Should that be part of our role as “public” relations professionals?