For the most part, I, as the current sole voice of Northeast Reader, assume that anyone interested in finding out about my approach toward media would first go to my About page or the micro Contributor blurb, but there’s little detailed information there. Occasionally, I’ll do an aside, make myself at least the partial topic, and expound on the process. One such writing dealt with the brand of conservatism that I endorse and a few exceptions on issues held by other conservatives. This article deals with how I see larger media, especially the blogosphere.
The media is a big place – understatement. It’s dominated by the pros because it’s also big business. The non-pros are also a big bloc; divide off the political/cultural columnists and that’s also big enterprise in and of itself, a cottage industry, the pajama-clad. Non-pro bloggers who discuss public issues have aspirations no doubt. Many have pretty large followings maybe because they have connections and networks in the public sphere. Maybe they work in a related area, perhaps the public sector, or with long-term connections to local or higher campaigns. Some eventually make their way to larger media projects or even syndication.
I’m at the bottom of the economy, the voice in the wilderness, but that isn’t a complaint, it’s simply a reality. Importantly, I’m not without an impetus to create commentary. There are three significant ‘Whys.’ Starting with the most personal: writing is an exercise against powerlessness. We live in a messed-up world for which most of us have little within our grasp that we can change. The dissonance between what is and what should be is real, at least for me and writing is my therapy to address it, my catharsis.
The second factor is that I peruse a lot conservative media and I am not much impressed. It’s not that their workmanship is wrong; it’s that the majority of conservative opinion or commentary writing does surprising little to take a public matter beyond the obvious. I read thousand-word articles that digest the same take, ask the same obvious questions as a dozen of their peers, and leave the reader no better informed or hopeful than the last article that I read. Having hundreds of bloggers all taken with the same hot story is to be expected, but how you treat it shouldn’t be so similar. In this, there’s the tendency to ‘play it safe.’ At this level, why not? I’ll give a shoutout to my long-form peers that go in depth, that do a huge amount of research, but in the non-pro arena, that rarely occurs.
The third reason is simply the imperative to speak up. In light of my second stated factor, there are surprising openings to say something unique or to say something days, weeks, or even months before the big boys and girls have enough research or enough stones to address a cutting moral angle of an important story. What preventeth me from saying it? Nothing. Evil happens when good men say nothing – a paraphrase on a well-worn sentiment. That too affords surprising opportunities. It’s amazing how often even our ‘heros’ simply wait – wait too long to speak up.
I take risks, particularly in making predictions. I’m not afraid to be wrong because no prophet on public events has a perfect record. I simply call it as I see it at the time. I’ve expounded numerous times on the necessity of ‘conspiracy theories.’ In science, they would be equivalent to a hypothesis, a fully necessary part of the scientific process. I’ll occasionally veer toward the audacious, particularly in making a judgement call based on ‘unproven’ facts. ‘Proof’ is a fallacy that can be eternally evaded even when it’s in plain sight. In fact, we live in an environment where people like Biden’s spokes-gal Psaki and most Democrat leadership can speak the diametric opposite of the plainly established truth, say it with a straight face, and fully expect to it not so much to be believed, but rather swallowed. There is a difference of course. Love is hate, war is peace, truth is lie, and that’s the accepted hard currency of ideas at this time. Until recently, nothing was ‘truth’ until it was printed in the New York Times, but even that notion is becoming outdated. The point is, I used multiple credible sources to then synthesize a conclusion, and I speak it rather than wait. No one should wait to be validated by the ilk of CNN’s Brian Stelter, a self-appointed guardian of media.
Unless you’re in a tiny core of officials, insiders, and investigative reporters, we all listen to the same sources. All the way up to professional media, the majority of them pick up their base news off of the ‘wire’ or all too often, their own peers, so who really knows what the truth of a story is? I have my own methods.
I label my content as commentary. While commentary is usually regarded as synonymous with ‘opinion,’ and it does contain that element, commentary also includes explanations of established understanding, descriptive methods, and criticism. Criticism is based in logical rhetoric, a longstanding Western discipline. I don’t claim to apply it perfectly, but you’d never find that even among the finest legal minds in America. Supreme Court anyone? I also like to apply doses of humor and sarcasm, perhaps even roundly mocking some of the asinine thought and speech of those that I discuss.
The net result of all of this is that I occasionally put out a solid dud, but most of the time, I contribute something needed into the conservative discussion. I’ve made some critical predictions that ended up being true, particularly with covid-19, when I predicted in early December 2020 that the pandemic would soon start a dramatic decline. I know of no authority that did the same thing. I don’t claim to know exactly why I was correct, but my prediction was explicit. There are dozens of other successes on less objective topics.
There’s room for more voices, I’m not the end all and be all. Conservatism is at an important crossroad. We could be buried and, quite possibly, viciously persecuted. We could also win the day and roll back the leftist godless revolution that’s presently in ascendancy. My job here is not to jump up a few spaces in the conservative blog game. Rather, it’s to influence two people who will turn around and influence two people, ad infinitum. If that process were replicated somewhere between 28 and 29 times, the whole United States would have heard what I hope would be a persuasive word about conservative values. Try the math. That is my mission.