The Black Mountain Institute is gearing up for the second annual Jim Rogers Contrarian Lecture Feb. 23 (RSVP here), this year tackling the question of who you can trust in a post-factual world. If modern media makes us feel closer than ever, has the side-effect been a world of fake news?
This year's guest lecturer will be Walter Kirn, author of Up in the Air and Blood Will Out. Here, Joshua Wolf Shenk, BMI's executive director and writer-in-residence; and philanthropist, scholar, and Jim Rogers' widow, Beverly Rogers, talk about the lecture series.
The title of the lecture — Jim Rogers Contrarian Lecture — is intriguing. What do you mean by “contrarian”?
Shenk: Someone who takes up a position with passion and clarity, regardless of how it will be received. I’d say the contrarian doesn’t mind being unpopular but remains in dialogue.
Rogers: Jim’s approach to any challenge, whether business, personal, or as chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education, was to think things through from as many perspectives as he could think of, play devil’s advocate with himself, then devise a plan to move quickly. For example, when we owned KSNV, he wanted to create an all-local news station, but that meant removing programs like soap operas, which were big money makers. NBC thought he was out of his mind but Jim didn’t care. He had a contrary view to the businessmen who were thinking about the bottom line, when he wanted a product that he could be proud of.
Would its namesake, the late Jim Rogers, be flattered or offended by the title?
Rogers: Jim didn’t think of himself as a “contrary thinker.” He just thought his ideas were common sense. But I think Jim would be flattered and probably amused—not just by the name of the lecture, but by the fact that he’s being remembered through the medium of writers, philosophers, and public intellectuals—none of which he considered himself to be.
Why was Walter Kirn selected as this year's contrarian?
Shenk: Walter was a Diana L. Bennett fellow at BMI last year, and he’s a genuine public intellectual, whether in Harper’s or on Twitter. Bev said, “Hey, what about Walter?” and it seemed obvious. He’s simultaneously deeply challenging and entirely accessible. And his topic, on fake news, technological change, and civic trust, is right of the moment.
How does a lecture like this help us break through the polarizing discourse playing out in national politics right now?
Rogers: A contrarian might say, “Look how the new administration has galvanized so many individuals and groups into action. How long have we bemoaned student apathy and citizens’ lack of participation in their own interests, whether school board, local or national government? Americans from all economic and social corridors are now beginning to understand that they have a voice, and it counts.” Certainly, a lecture like this has the potential to put us behind a new lens.
