Jun 1, 2022·edited Jun 1, 2022Liked by Andrew Van Wagner
Flattered to be featured in your article. I like the humility you have in your writing. You are not afraid to admit to mistakes and be vulnerable with your readers. That takes character and I admire that. Not many in DC and elsewhere are capable of doing that.
I thought about this article, and one of the astute observations you mention is this:
"it’s a huge burden on your shoulders to (1) know something about the solutions to these problems and (2) recognize that the mainstream media freezes out almost all serious discussion of the solutions to these problems. Regarding these problems, it’s a race against time to break through the propaganda bubble and reach the public and turn things around—it’s not enough to know the answers and the answers won’t be useful or meaningful or helpful when we’re all corpses."
I want to add on another observation to this comment you made.
The problem with the mainstream media is that they rarely provide constructive ways to go about voicing your opinions or solution. They also make no effort to make things clear or easy to understand for their consumers. This is by design. They are going for maximum outrage/shock value for ratings purposes. That is how they stay in business.
The only time I or my colleagues ever use the media to get our issues across to legislators are as a last ditch effort to raise hell for people in Congress to act on a bill or kill a bill, and even then it can ruin some of our relationships under the dome and backfire. It also invites the inmates to run the asylum, and that's how you get to the point where constituents are stalking lawmakers like Krysten Sinema into bathrooms or Orrin Hatch into elevators.
These lawmakers have human emotions at the end of the day, so if you upset them, you have solidified your fate on making progress on a certain issue. Well... Maybe not Mitch McConnell, he is pretty emotionless, but you get the point. Once a lawmaker turns on you personally, it makes it a very steep hill to climb. The best lobbyists understand this very well and use their relationships to leverage Congress in the ways they see fit. That amongst other tactics.
All the ways mainstream media fails are ways where you can step in and fill a niche. You are not beholden to deadlines, ratings, advertisers or any of that nonsense, and as far as I know you have carte blanche to write about whatever you want.
When you see a potential solution to something (carbon tax, Medicare for All etc.), look to see if there is legislation in the works already, talk to people who you think would be experts on that bill/subject matter, and blast it out to your people and urge them to (respectfully) contact their elected officials about it. If they do not know who to contact, show them this link https://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/
Because Congress is focused on hundreds of issues at a time, if you can direct them (or people who talk to them) to a specific piece of legislation to vote yes or no on in a respectful manner, it will make their lives a lot easier. People want the simplest way to get to a destination. You have a platform that can give them that.
If the issue you think is more executive oriented, focus on that branch. In the case of Ukraine, the State Department is the place that does the brunt of diplomacy as far as I know. There are a lot of Foreign Policy think tanks and scholars who can help shed light on aspects of foreign policy you do not understand.
Another thing to consider too if you feel disgruntled about members of Congress is if you see a primary challenger to a Congressperson you dislike, and you like the challenger in the race, try to get in contact with them or someone on their campaign to interview them. An easy call to action would be to ask people to volunteer, donate and/or vote for them by or on X date.
All in all, none of this stuff is easy. If it was, we would have accomplished all the things you have talked about. That said, you can play a very important role in breaking issues down for people in ways that help them understand A) Why they should care and B) What they can do to get society one small step closer to solving the problem. You already do A, but if you can focus in on B you will be able to accomplish a lot more than you ever thought you could.
Thanks so much! I have to take the time to digest and process this new Ted Talk, but see this comment someone made to me:
"One thing you may consider doing is suggesting concrete steps people can take to try to help remedy the situation (e.g. are there particular lawmakers we should be contacting? is there a specific piece of legislation that has been proposed that should be supported/opposed? are there particular groups to get involved with/support? etc.) Of course getting us the info and ideas is a big enough job already, so you may not want to take on this task, but I know that whereas there will be some who are knowledgeable and motivated enough to take these next steps, for many of us having concrete suggestions can be helpful in doing something."
Your account of the issues with the media is very different from the account that Edward Herman gave, so I wonder what you think about Herman's approach to why the media is constrained and problematic in the way that it is.
Also, your comment made me notice that even "Democracy Now!", which is kind of activist-oriented media, doesn't try to get people off the couch and spur people to action and show people how to contact the politicians who represent them and so on; is there such a thing as media that's actually activist?
Jun 1, 2022·edited Jun 1, 2022Liked by Andrew Van Wagner
Admittedly, I know very little of Edward Herman or his account of media. I looked it up and based upon my basic understanding of his model, we agree in principle but word it in different ways.
At the end of the day, most media outlets are businesses, and their goal is to make money. To do that, they need advertisers and/or subscribers. To get those, you need buy in from businesses or subscribers, which often times means making content that confirm their way of thinking. As a result, a lot of readership today is driven by outrageous clickbait headlines that never truly challenge power structures (for example, WaPo never writes anything negative about Amazon for obvious reasons), but instead play into animalistic desires that confirm pre-conceived notions on trivial gossip issues like "Ice Cube DESTROYS Trump with just one tweet" or "WATCH: Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Transgender activist with facts and logic." Most media is gossip more than anything. Especially among startups trying to make noise. Some are better than others, but all of them are in the business of making money at the end of the day, and they will do what they need to do to boost the bottom line. That means in many cases towing the line of the rich and powerful and distracting the public from their plunderings.
This is why most media outlets are not designed to empower people with knowledge and skills to successfully enact change. They need their consumers to consume, not to act. This in turn can create what seems to be an addiction. Taking action means less time consuming their news, which leads to less viewership, so on so forth.
That is where people like me come in. On very rare occasions when necessary, we tap into outrage generated by the media and direct it towards something we think is productive for our clients.
Kevin Munger describes the economics of today's news media well. On my other point, there's newly developing research that shows that excessively consuming news can be an addiction within itself. I think it is, but that has yet to be confirmed as far as I know, but it is interesting food for thought nonetheless.
A friend of mine gave me the following interesting view on the war in Ukraine:
IMHO the war is likely to end when the Russians decide to call a truce. Which they could do tomorrow, since they have accomplished most of their initial stated objectives (not their maximalist objectives, of course, like taking Kyiv). I don't think there will be any "agreement," much less any voting on such a thing in Ukraine or in Russia (or in the US). Such a plebiscite could not be won anywhere, which is one reason it will not happen. Nor would it have to. Some combat will continue, perhaps for a long time. The Ukrainians might drive the Russians further from Karkiv and gain more control in the south--maybe. The Russians might decide not to continue their blockade--maybe--that game might not be worth the candle. The Ukrainians have already indicated they won't join NATO, nor is NATO likely to extend an invite. So the war can be ended, just as it began, by Russian action, and I think it's useless to talk about "agreements." There can't be any agreement when the robber has stolen your goods and family and you do not have the overwhelming power needed to get them back. The Russians will become more Asiatic in orientation, the Ukrainians increasingly westernized, the Americans will talk up a storm, but I don't think there's any way to go back to the status quo ante. Gloomy view, perhaps, but realistic.
Thanks for commenting! I'm happy to take a look, but my first questions are what the scientific community thinks about this stuff and where I can see their comments about their stuff and what the explanation might be for why they don't agree with this stuff.
I just don't think that it's a promising start if the person can't just be clear about the situation regarding what mainstream scientists are saying; it's not that mainstream scientists' opinions have anything at all to do with whether you're right or wrong, but rather it's a good starting point to ask (1) what their comments are and (2) what your reaction is to their comments and (3) what explanation you might offer for why IPCC reports don't arrive at the same conclusion you do.
(1) and (2) and (3) don't point to whether you're correct or incorrect, but rather give an indication of what your attitude is toward engagement with critique and with science.
Do you see where I'm coming from on this? It's not a criticism or anything.
Thanks! And I'm not saying you're incorrect or anything; I'm just saying that I like to get clear and forthright and straightforward answers to simple questions or else I feel worried that the whole interaction isn't going to go well.
I remember some anti-vax person called into a progressive show; one of the first questions was "Are you a doctor?" and he did some dance and didn't give a straight answer. And someone in the comment section said: "That was not a good start to the conversation." So when simple questions can't be answered straightforwardly, you worry that it's going to be a real disaster of an interaction.
Again, none of this is a criticism and none of this is to say that you're incorrect in your views.
Flattered to be featured in your article. I like the humility you have in your writing. You are not afraid to admit to mistakes and be vulnerable with your readers. That takes character and I admire that. Not many in DC and elsewhere are capable of doing that.
I thought about this article, and one of the astute observations you mention is this:
"it’s a huge burden on your shoulders to (1) know something about the solutions to these problems and (2) recognize that the mainstream media freezes out almost all serious discussion of the solutions to these problems. Regarding these problems, it’s a race against time to break through the propaganda bubble and reach the public and turn things around—it’s not enough to know the answers and the answers won’t be useful or meaningful or helpful when we’re all corpses."
I want to add on another observation to this comment you made.
The problem with the mainstream media is that they rarely provide constructive ways to go about voicing your opinions or solution. They also make no effort to make things clear or easy to understand for their consumers. This is by design. They are going for maximum outrage/shock value for ratings purposes. That is how they stay in business.
The only time I or my colleagues ever use the media to get our issues across to legislators are as a last ditch effort to raise hell for people in Congress to act on a bill or kill a bill, and even then it can ruin some of our relationships under the dome and backfire. It also invites the inmates to run the asylum, and that's how you get to the point where constituents are stalking lawmakers like Krysten Sinema into bathrooms or Orrin Hatch into elevators.
These lawmakers have human emotions at the end of the day, so if you upset them, you have solidified your fate on making progress on a certain issue. Well... Maybe not Mitch McConnell, he is pretty emotionless, but you get the point. Once a lawmaker turns on you personally, it makes it a very steep hill to climb. The best lobbyists understand this very well and use their relationships to leverage Congress in the ways they see fit. That amongst other tactics.
All the ways mainstream media fails are ways where you can step in and fill a niche. You are not beholden to deadlines, ratings, advertisers or any of that nonsense, and as far as I know you have carte blanche to write about whatever you want.
When you see a potential solution to something (carbon tax, Medicare for All etc.), look to see if there is legislation in the works already, talk to people who you think would be experts on that bill/subject matter, and blast it out to your people and urge them to (respectfully) contact their elected officials about it. If they do not know who to contact, show them this link https://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/
Because Congress is focused on hundreds of issues at a time, if you can direct them (or people who talk to them) to a specific piece of legislation to vote yes or no on in a respectful manner, it will make their lives a lot easier. People want the simplest way to get to a destination. You have a platform that can give them that.
If the issue you think is more executive oriented, focus on that branch. In the case of Ukraine, the State Department is the place that does the brunt of diplomacy as far as I know. There are a lot of Foreign Policy think tanks and scholars who can help shed light on aspects of foreign policy you do not understand.
Another thing to consider too if you feel disgruntled about members of Congress is if you see a primary challenger to a Congressperson you dislike, and you like the challenger in the race, try to get in contact with them or someone on their campaign to interview them. An easy call to action would be to ask people to volunteer, donate and/or vote for them by or on X date.
All in all, none of this stuff is easy. If it was, we would have accomplished all the things you have talked about. That said, you can play a very important role in breaking issues down for people in ways that help them understand A) Why they should care and B) What they can do to get society one small step closer to solving the problem. You already do A, but if you can focus in on B you will be able to accomplish a lot more than you ever thought you could.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
Thanks so much! I have to take the time to digest and process this new Ted Talk, but see this comment someone made to me:
"One thing you may consider doing is suggesting concrete steps people can take to try to help remedy the situation (e.g. are there particular lawmakers we should be contacting? is there a specific piece of legislation that has been proposed that should be supported/opposed? are there particular groups to get involved with/support? etc.) Of course getting us the info and ideas is a big enough job already, so you may not want to take on this task, but I know that whereas there will be some who are knowledgeable and motivated enough to take these next steps, for many of us having concrete suggestions can be helpful in doing something."
That sums up my thoughts nicely.
Your account of the issues with the media is very different from the account that Edward Herman gave, so I wonder what you think about Herman's approach to why the media is constrained and problematic in the way that it is.
Also, your comment made me notice that even "Democracy Now!", which is kind of activist-oriented media, doesn't try to get people off the couch and spur people to action and show people how to contact the politicians who represent them and so on; is there such a thing as media that's actually activist?
Admittedly, I know very little of Edward Herman or his account of media. I looked it up and based upon my basic understanding of his model, we agree in principle but word it in different ways.
At the end of the day, most media outlets are businesses, and their goal is to make money. To do that, they need advertisers and/or subscribers. To get those, you need buy in from businesses or subscribers, which often times means making content that confirm their way of thinking. As a result, a lot of readership today is driven by outrageous clickbait headlines that never truly challenge power structures (for example, WaPo never writes anything negative about Amazon for obvious reasons), but instead play into animalistic desires that confirm pre-conceived notions on trivial gossip issues like "Ice Cube DESTROYS Trump with just one tweet" or "WATCH: Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Transgender activist with facts and logic." Most media is gossip more than anything. Especially among startups trying to make noise. Some are better than others, but all of them are in the business of making money at the end of the day, and they will do what they need to do to boost the bottom line. That means in many cases towing the line of the rich and powerful and distracting the public from their plunderings.
This is why most media outlets are not designed to empower people with knowledge and skills to successfully enact change. They need their consumers to consume, not to act. This in turn can create what seems to be an addiction. Taking action means less time consuming their news, which leads to less viewership, so on so forth.
That is where people like me come in. On very rare occasions when necessary, we tap into outrage generated by the media and direct it towards something we think is productive for our clients.
Kevin Munger describes the economics of today's news media well. On my other point, there's newly developing research that shows that excessively consuming news can be an addiction within itself. I think it is, but that has yet to be confirmed as far as I know, but it is interesting food for thought nonetheless.
https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/all-the-news-thats-fit-to-click-the-economics-of-clickbait-media
https://theprint.in/health/headline-stress-disorder-is-real-and-if-youre-addicted-to-news-youre-losing-sight-of-it/868954/
TL;DR - I think Herman and I agree, just word it differently. I am unaware of any true activist news outlets and think you could fill a niche here
Thanks for this comment! What do you think about my piece here? https://join.substack.com/p/can-we-fix-journalism
The premise of the argument checks out. The details are murky on how to accomplish their goal.
Can you comment on my piece here, which quotes you again? https://join.substack.com/p/the-concrete-steps?s=w
Don’t ever feel ashamed and guilty of what was your best at a moment in time, especially if it was in loving intention. Wheels keep On turning.
At least I'm growing and improving; some of my Ukraine pieces have been decent but others have totally failed to explain what the whole idea is. :)
I think you’re producing high quality content that will keep getting better.
You’re great at finding good sources n using them well. The rest of it can come along as it will.
What got you interested in Substack and which main topics will you pursue? :)
A friend of mine gave me the following interesting view on the war in Ukraine:
IMHO the war is likely to end when the Russians decide to call a truce. Which they could do tomorrow, since they have accomplished most of their initial stated objectives (not their maximalist objectives, of course, like taking Kyiv). I don't think there will be any "agreement," much less any voting on such a thing in Ukraine or in Russia (or in the US). Such a plebiscite could not be won anywhere, which is one reason it will not happen. Nor would it have to. Some combat will continue, perhaps for a long time. The Ukrainians might drive the Russians further from Karkiv and gain more control in the south--maybe. The Russians might decide not to continue their blockade--maybe--that game might not be worth the candle. The Ukrainians have already indicated they won't join NATO, nor is NATO likely to extend an invite. So the war can be ended, just as it began, by Russian action, and I think it's useless to talk about "agreements." There can't be any agreement when the robber has stolen your goods and family and you do not have the overwhelming power needed to get them back. The Russians will become more Asiatic in orientation, the Ukrainians increasingly westernized, the Americans will talk up a storm, but I don't think there's any way to go back to the status quo ante. Gloomy view, perhaps, but realistic.
Thanks for commenting! I'm happy to take a look, but my first questions are what the scientific community thinks about this stuff and where I can see their comments about their stuff and what the explanation might be for why they don't agree with this stuff.
I just don't think that it's a promising start if the person can't just be clear about the situation regarding what mainstream scientists are saying; it's not that mainstream scientists' opinions have anything at all to do with whether you're right or wrong, but rather it's a good starting point to ask (1) what their comments are and (2) what your reaction is to their comments and (3) what explanation you might offer for why IPCC reports don't arrive at the same conclusion you do.
(1) and (2) and (3) don't point to whether you're correct or incorrect, but rather give an indication of what your attitude is toward engagement with critique and with science.
Do you see where I'm coming from on this? It's not a criticism or anything.
Thanks! And I'm not saying you're incorrect or anything; I'm just saying that I like to get clear and forthright and straightforward answers to simple questions or else I feel worried that the whole interaction isn't going to go well.
I remember some anti-vax person called into a progressive show; one of the first questions was "Are you a doctor?" and he did some dance and didn't give a straight answer. And someone in the comment section said: "That was not a good start to the conversation." So when simple questions can't be answered straightforwardly, you worry that it's going to be a real disaster of an interaction.
Again, none of this is a criticism and none of this is to say that you're incorrect in your views.