Pretty sure you have a typo in the paragraph directly preceding the poll graph re the more somebody follows the new the more likely they are to support Trump.. I don’t think you think that.
I edited a book and it seemed as if every time I went over it, new errors appeared that were not there before. I think I am better at editing my own relatively short substack. As far as I know, the last one didn't have typoes. ;-)
As both an editor and a writer, I can testify that it's very hard to proofread (or copyedit) your own work. You know what's *supposed* to be there, and that's what you see. I'm pretty sure that most of the more popular Substack writers have proofreaders, copyeditors, and/or second readers "on staff." This option may not be available to others.
Fwiw, I do some proofreading professionally (i.e., for pay), but for each job I have to re-train myself to read letter for letter and word for word. If editors and writers did this routinely, we'd never finish anything!
I think what Dan said is not a typo. The news media outlets, as Dan says, are not accurately reporting what’s actually going on in this administration. So, therefore, the more people watch mainstream media’s inaccurate reporting, the more they will support trump. Because, why wouldn’t they???
I don’t find distortions or misstatements of fact very often in mainstream media. They’re pretty rare.
Let me point out that Dan said he was motivated to write that column after reading about it in the NYT.
News sources with actual reporters, editors and fact-checkers exist and guess where these stories originate? In those media sources. That is before they’re repeated in online sites (half the time with no attribution).
Mainstream media is a dying business. Mostly because print advertising is dead, but partly because people access their product and don’t pay for it.
And partly because Trump, for all his stupidity, has succeeded in his goal of destroying the credibility of news reporting. With a lot of help from people who otherwise despise him.
There may not be "distortions or misstatements of fact very often in mainstream media" because they are sugar coating what's actually going on. And I'm taking the NYT with a grain of salt these days. Before the election their editorial board took out a one page ad claiming Trump was not fit for the White House, yet refused to endorse Kamala Harris. They can't have it both ways. And I still think Dan meant what he typed. Most viewership of news reporting are the three major networks and Fox. Anyone who watches Fox is pro trump, while the other three are sugarcoating politics.
Mistakes always become more visible right after you hit Send. And 1000x more obvious if it’s printed in ink! But I hope it’s possible to edit Substack posts? If not, I’ll never dare create one!
Yes, I edit mine several times before sending. I don't send right after writing usually. I let it ferment a while, at least a day. But I don't write on politics.
I do see your point, Debbie. But the graph immediately following Dan’s comment illustrates the opposite trend.. so it seems very much like he was using it to support the idea that the more informed you are, the less likely you are to support Trump’s agenda.
To your point though, I agree that many news outlets absolutely suck—some due to incompetence, others due to bias.
Guys and gals go easy on the typo thing. You can proofread something 5, 10 times and still miss something. I have been writing for 30 years and it still happens to me in often cringeworthy ways. Forgive the typo!
Might be worth addressing the difference between hitting the share button and actually discussing the details of what’s going on with friends and family.
A popular meme lately goes something like, “well-informed or sane—those are your choices”
An associated truism is that friends and family are not super excited to hear about the latest assault on our most cherished institutions and way of life.
I guess my point is that I think that represents a huge obstacle to having current events spread by word of mouth—few of us are very anxious to immerse ourselves in constantly depressing news and our friends and families don’t really want to hear it all the time either.
None of us are under any obligation to "immerse ourselves in constantly depressing news," and if we're bombarding friends and family with it "all the time," we're doing it wrong. Info dumps aren't effective. If you sound like a born-again, you're not going to get through to much of anyone.
Presumably you know your friends, family members, co-workers, etc. You know what they're interested in and what's likely to affect their lives. Focus on those things. Lately there've been news stories about Trump voters who had no idea that all the anti-immigration rhetoric applied to immigrants they'd known for years. What if they'd been aware of that possibility last November? Most USians don't really know how the economy works or what affects the price of eggs. You don't have to be a professional economist to explain that -- in fact, it helps if you aren't.
P.S. "Well-informed or sane" is a monumentally stupid meme. "Aware or gullible" makes a lot more sense.
Well, you can't control how they hear what you're saying, so the best you can do is to figure out what they're most likely to hear before you start talking. What issues are most important to them? Have they expressed any reservations about Trump and/or Republican policies? Etc.
I think my opinion of my family and friends might be better than your opinion of yours.
When I see an article I think might interest someone, I share it with them. I try to be selective. I get some positive feedback, here and there. I share much more with a select political group (about 5,000 people) on a social media group I belong to, and I have many times had a particular Message Box reshared with me multiple times it was so popular.
That is the advantage of today’s social media complex—a single person can share an idea or a message with five, a hundred, or a thousand or even a thousand people at the touch of a key.
The only insanities are not sharing or sharing indiscriminately.
Possible that the post was shared more than 800 times, and more than you knew. For example, I forwarded it in the form of an email to two people in Washington state. Heck, maybe it was forwarded 1200 or more times. Dan, we really appreciate what you put out.
I shared the post on Facebook, and was pleased to see that two friends then did as well. I also marched in Boston’s Labor Day parade with a sign saying “No AI Death Panels.” Nobody asked about it- which wasn’t a surprise, there were a huge number of messages to absorb and some great visuals. But maybe some will wonder enough to pay attention if/when they hear something more.
I saw a small group of protesters in Nashville yesterday in front of the Parthenon. To be honest it looked a bit ridiculous. I wonder if protests are working at all, or just feed into the Trump narrative that liberals are crazy and out of touch.
Marches and protests are effective! They aren’t all huge numbers, but each one adds to the effect.
When I was just becoming active politically, marches, protests, and other activities stopped a war, helped bring about Civil Rights, and pushed women’s issues to mainstream discussion.
I get what you mean. And the narrative that all the protesters are just old White hippies is a Fox talking point that is everywhere. I can see the appeal of having dispersed, small protests- more visibility within smaller communities etc- but frankly I think the larger rallies in urban areas are more effective as they tend to have a greater diversity of participants.
Dan, lots of us don’t care about your typos. We realize you keep yourself very busy, and that you have that reporter’s knack of pounding out a column nearly as quickly as it appears in your head.
We read through the typos. Rather have the message you write than a thrice-edited profundity from almost any other writer on Substack.
BTW, long-time Dan listeners can easily gauge your level of stress, urgency or outrage. On the Friday pod, I have often had to look at my setting to see if I have mistakenly set my speed to 1.5 or more when you are particularly peeved about a topic. But we love it.
I shared the NYT article you linked to in your message the other day, but nobody has responded to it at all. I think it's just scary and depressing. I understand why people tune out. I do the same sometimes, but then I discovered that it makes me MORE anxious to not know what they're doing and planning to do to us. I have been having bad dreams. This is all bad for my mental health, but we have to get through it.
Paywalls and algorithms make it hard to get any traction with linked articles. I post without a link, then add the link and usually some pertinent quotes as comments on my post. It’s still hard to get interaction, but a link alone is lost to the ether.
Thank you for consistently providing valuable information that we can share. Without you and others on Substack, podcasts, and other independent sources, I would feel helpless and hopeless in the current political climate. As long as you keep writing, I will keep sharing!
I can proudly say that at least one friend subscribed to your substack after I shared this on socials. People did respond, and my friends in medicine are certainly highlighting this. I look forward to the quick posts and appreciate what you are doing.
I ran a large Information Systems group (over a thousand people) before I retired. We would frequently recruit and hire from an equally large insurance company tech group in the same city.
I interviewed many (dozens) of programmers and analysts who wanted to leave because they worked on a claim processing system designed to deny random claims at least three times before giving them any honest review. Their (proven) assumption was that 80% of claims denied three times would never be resubmitted.
They only did this for a random 20% of claims, but the successfully turned away most of that 20% without any examination of merit.
Those kind of posts will be super helpful, look forward to getting them going forward! It can feel sometimes like you are talking to people who are political pros -- which I'm sure you are, & which is all good -- so I am really glad to hear you want to add a layer for people who are not pros but are active in their communities (e.g., I can apply to my personal social networks, and also share out in the newsletter I help write for my local Indivisible group, so that other volunteers can use). Adding a link to source(s) is also great -- I like to be able to share that, too.
"With those folks (family, friends..), you will always be more persuasive than a member of the media or a politician." Sadly, for me, that it is not true for family. My family is almost all MAGA, so I no longer discuss politics with them at all. Over the summer I did try to talk with my 96-year-old Dad who watches FOX but has always been more sane (i.e. supports vaccination and had seen Trump, at least last time, as a 'terrible person'). Alas, now that he is older and more cognitively challenged he has now bought into the MAGA line too, except for -- I think -- vaccinations. (He's still too smart to fall for the anti-vax message.). But the upshot is, I now have to find other people to share with. Here is an example of how you are exactly correct about modern media: I went to my credit union to discuss account security after I heard that DOGE had uploaded our SS data to a secure server. The teller was completely unaware that this had happened.
Now, Before the Midterms: There should be a massive effort to place a billboard on every major highway on the outskirts of every major town in every Red District in the Country identifying by name the U.S. Representative who voted for the Big Ugly Bill listing the eventual damages it will do to its citizens. The same should be done in every State with a Republican Senator up for reelection. Much of the bad stuff will not be apparent to voters until after the midterms; consequently, Democratic Party messaging between now and then is critical! We need to be in Republican Faces Every Day like they are in ours.
For example, " Your Representative in Congress, (first name, last name) Just Voted to slash Your Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP Benefits to Pay for Tax Cuts for the Rich! VOTE HIM (HER) OUT."
Is that an bit of overstatement of facts? Certainly, but that's what Republicans do all the time and we need to counterattack using the same tactics and be UBIQUITOUS about it, e.g., Billboards.
"What makes this initiative even more dystopian is that the AI companies will get a cut of the savings they generate." This is the same way Medicare Advantage programs work. The more these plans refuse to pay for tests and procedures the more they make.
Appreciate ya, Dan!
Pretty sure you have a typo in the paragraph directly preceding the poll graph re the more somebody follows the new the more likely they are to support Trump.. I don’t think you think that.
I have noticed that a lot of substacks have a lot of typos. I wish people would proofread at least once before hitting send.
Take it from a retired writer: Proofreading is a specialty that writers don’t often possess. Many of us are downright good at it! Oops…
I edited a book and it seemed as if every time I went over it, new errors appeared that were not there before. I think I am better at editing my own relatively short substack. As far as I know, the last one didn't have typoes. ;-)
As both an editor and a writer, I can testify that it's very hard to proofread (or copyedit) your own work. You know what's *supposed* to be there, and that's what you see. I'm pretty sure that most of the more popular Substack writers have proofreaders, copyeditors, and/or second readers "on staff." This option may not be available to others.
Fwiw, I do some proofreading professionally (i.e., for pay), but for each job I have to re-train myself to read letter for letter and word for word. If editors and writers did this routinely, we'd never finish anything!
If anybody needs a proofreader, message me. I can do it!
I was terrible at proofing my own werk.
Yes. Please change to the more we follow the news, the less we support trump.
I think what Dan said is not a typo. The news media outlets, as Dan says, are not accurately reporting what’s actually going on in this administration. So, therefore, the more people watch mainstream media’s inaccurate reporting, the more they will support trump. Because, why wouldn’t they???
I don’t find distortions or misstatements of fact very often in mainstream media. They’re pretty rare.
Let me point out that Dan said he was motivated to write that column after reading about it in the NYT.
News sources with actual reporters, editors and fact-checkers exist and guess where these stories originate? In those media sources. That is before they’re repeated in online sites (half the time with no attribution).
Mainstream media is a dying business. Mostly because print advertising is dead, but partly because people access their product and don’t pay for it.
And partly because Trump, for all his stupidity, has succeeded in his goal of destroying the credibility of news reporting. With a lot of help from people who otherwise despise him.
There may not be "distortions or misstatements of fact very often in mainstream media" because they are sugar coating what's actually going on. And I'm taking the NYT with a grain of salt these days. Before the election their editorial board took out a one page ad claiming Trump was not fit for the White House, yet refused to endorse Kamala Harris. They can't have it both ways. And I still think Dan meant what he typed. Most viewership of news reporting are the three major networks and Fox. Anyone who watches Fox is pro trump, while the other three are sugarcoating politics.
As I said, on this issue Trump won.
The NYT DID endorse Harris. You are thinking of the Bezos-owned WaPo.
Mistakes always become more visible right after you hit Send. And 1000x more obvious if it’s printed in ink! But I hope it’s possible to edit Substack posts? If not, I’ll never dare create one!
Yes, I edit mine several times before sending. I don't send right after writing usually. I let it ferment a while, at least a day. But I don't write on politics.
I do see your point, Debbie. But the graph immediately following Dan’s comment illustrates the opposite trend.. so it seems very much like he was using it to support the idea that the more informed you are, the less likely you are to support Trump’s agenda.
To your point though, I agree that many news outlets absolutely suck—some due to incompetence, others due to bias.
Guys and gals go easy on the typo thing. You can proofread something 5, 10 times and still miss something. I have been writing for 30 years and it still happens to me in often cringeworthy ways. Forgive the typo!
I had to read it several times before I decided it must be a proofreading error.
Might be worth addressing the difference between hitting the share button and actually discussing the details of what’s going on with friends and family.
A popular meme lately goes something like, “well-informed or sane—those are your choices”
An associated truism is that friends and family are not super excited to hear about the latest assault on our most cherished institutions and way of life.
I guess my point is that I think that represents a huge obstacle to having current events spread by word of mouth—few of us are very anxious to immerse ourselves in constantly depressing news and our friends and families don’t really want to hear it all the time either.
None of us are under any obligation to "immerse ourselves in constantly depressing news," and if we're bombarding friends and family with it "all the time," we're doing it wrong. Info dumps aren't effective. If you sound like a born-again, you're not going to get through to much of anyone.
Presumably you know your friends, family members, co-workers, etc. You know what they're interested in and what's likely to affect their lives. Focus on those things. Lately there've been news stories about Trump voters who had no idea that all the anti-immigration rhetoric applied to immigrants they'd known for years. What if they'd been aware of that possibility last November? Most USians don't really know how the economy works or what affects the price of eggs. You don't have to be a professional economist to explain that -- in fact, it helps if you aren't.
P.S. "Well-informed or sane" is a monumentally stupid meme. "Aware or gullible" makes a lot more sense.
What if you sound like a born-again Democrat to those other born-agains?
Well, you can't control how they hear what you're saying, so the best you can do is to figure out what they're most likely to hear before you start talking. What issues are most important to them? Have they expressed any reservations about Trump and/or Republican policies? Etc.
I think my opinion of my family and friends might be better than your opinion of yours.
When I see an article I think might interest someone, I share it with them. I try to be selective. I get some positive feedback, here and there. I share much more with a select political group (about 5,000 people) on a social media group I belong to, and I have many times had a particular Message Box reshared with me multiple times it was so popular.
That is the advantage of today’s social media complex—a single person can share an idea or a message with five, a hundred, or a thousand or even a thousand people at the touch of a key.
The only insanities are not sharing or sharing indiscriminately.
Possible that the post was shared more than 800 times, and more than you knew. For example, I forwarded it in the form of an email to two people in Washington state. Heck, maybe it was forwarded 1200 or more times. Dan, we really appreciate what you put out.
Thank you for your plan to help us serve as a megaphone. I’m going to use your weekend post to contact my congresspeople.
I shared the post on Facebook, and was pleased to see that two friends then did as well. I also marched in Boston’s Labor Day parade with a sign saying “No AI Death Panels.” Nobody asked about it- which wasn’t a surprise, there were a huge number of messages to absorb and some great visuals. But maybe some will wonder enough to pay attention if/when they hear something more.
I saw a small group of protesters in Nashville yesterday in front of the Parthenon. To be honest it looked a bit ridiculous. I wonder if protests are working at all, or just feed into the Trump narrative that liberals are crazy and out of touch.
Marches and protests are effective! They aren’t all huge numbers, but each one adds to the effect.
When I was just becoming active politically, marches, protests, and other activities stopped a war, helped bring about Civil Rights, and pushed women’s issues to mainstream discussion.
I get what you mean. And the narrative that all the protesters are just old White hippies is a Fox talking point that is everywhere. I can see the appeal of having dispersed, small protests- more visibility within smaller communities etc- but frankly I think the larger rallies in urban areas are more effective as they tend to have a greater diversity of participants.
Dan, lots of us don’t care about your typos. We realize you keep yourself very busy, and that you have that reporter’s knack of pounding out a column nearly as quickly as it appears in your head.
We read through the typos. Rather have the message you write than a thrice-edited profundity from almost any other writer on Substack.
BTW, long-time Dan listeners can easily gauge your level of stress, urgency or outrage. On the Friday pod, I have often had to look at my setting to see if I have mistakenly set my speed to 1.5 or more when you are particularly peeved about a topic. But we love it.
I shared the NYT article you linked to in your message the other day, but nobody has responded to it at all. I think it's just scary and depressing. I understand why people tune out. I do the same sometimes, but then I discovered that it makes me MORE anxious to not know what they're doing and planning to do to us. I have been having bad dreams. This is all bad for my mental health, but we have to get through it.
Paywalls and algorithms make it hard to get any traction with linked articles. I post without a link, then add the link and usually some pertinent quotes as comments on my post. It’s still hard to get interaction, but a link alone is lost to the ether.
The NYT allows you to post "gift articles" that anybody can read.
Yes, but that doesn’t always work, it seems. And Facebook routinely makes such posts visible to fewer people.
Thank you for consistently providing valuable information that we can share. Without you and others on Substack, podcasts, and other independent sources, I would feel helpless and hopeless in the current political climate. As long as you keep writing, I will keep sharing!
Thanks, Dan! I was encouraged by the protests against the #DirtyOldMan yesterday. Keep the faith everyone.
I can proudly say that at least one friend subscribed to your substack after I shared this on socials. People did respond, and my friends in medicine are certainly highlighting this. I look forward to the quick posts and appreciate what you are doing.
That’s awesome. It’s very satisfying when you get someone’s attention.
I ran a large Information Systems group (over a thousand people) before I retired. We would frequently recruit and hire from an equally large insurance company tech group in the same city.
I interviewed many (dozens) of programmers and analysts who wanted to leave because they worked on a claim processing system designed to deny random claims at least three times before giving them any honest review. Their (proven) assumption was that 80% of claims denied three times would never be resubmitted.
They only did this for a random 20% of claims, but the successfully turned away most of that 20% without any examination of merit.
Those kind of posts will be super helpful, look forward to getting them going forward! It can feel sometimes like you are talking to people who are political pros -- which I'm sure you are, & which is all good -- so I am really glad to hear you want to add a layer for people who are not pros but are active in their communities (e.g., I can apply to my personal social networks, and also share out in the newsletter I help write for my local Indivisible group, so that other volunteers can use). Adding a link to source(s) is also great -- I like to be able to share that, too.
"With those folks (family, friends..), you will always be more persuasive than a member of the media or a politician." Sadly, for me, that it is not true for family. My family is almost all MAGA, so I no longer discuss politics with them at all. Over the summer I did try to talk with my 96-year-old Dad who watches FOX but has always been more sane (i.e. supports vaccination and had seen Trump, at least last time, as a 'terrible person'). Alas, now that he is older and more cognitively challenged he has now bought into the MAGA line too, except for -- I think -- vaccinations. (He's still too smart to fall for the anti-vax message.). But the upshot is, I now have to find other people to share with. Here is an example of how you are exactly correct about modern media: I went to my credit union to discuss account security after I heard that DOGE had uploaded our SS data to a secure server. The teller was completely unaware that this had happened.
UNsecured server! (Need more coffee before I post....)
BTW, I shared the last post with AARP the Magazine. Don’t know if they’ll pay any attention to it. But i hope they ssk you to write a piece about it.
Now, Before the Midterms: There should be a massive effort to place a billboard on every major highway on the outskirts of every major town in every Red District in the Country identifying by name the U.S. Representative who voted for the Big Ugly Bill listing the eventual damages it will do to its citizens. The same should be done in every State with a Republican Senator up for reelection. Much of the bad stuff will not be apparent to voters until after the midterms; consequently, Democratic Party messaging between now and then is critical! We need to be in Republican Faces Every Day like they are in ours.
For example, " Your Representative in Congress, (first name, last name) Just Voted to slash Your Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP Benefits to Pay for Tax Cuts for the Rich! VOTE HIM (HER) OUT."
Is that an bit of overstatement of facts? Certainly, but that's what Republicans do all the time and we need to counterattack using the same tactics and be UBIQUITOUS about it, e.g., Billboards.
"What makes this initiative even more dystopian is that the AI companies will get a cut of the savings they generate." This is the same way Medicare Advantage programs work. The more these plans refuse to pay for tests and procedures the more they make.