I'm possibly writing this out of wishful thinking about my own pace, but I LIKE it when authors write one great piece every week or two instead of churning out short pieces on a daily basis. I subscribe to a bunch of newsletters of independent authors, but I tend to skim or delete anything that seems like a hot take, especially since I'm one of those "have been warning about Trump for over 10 years" folks. I'd rather get thoughtful and original work published infrequently then get a steady stream of takes. Write from the heart.
I feel tremendous media fatigue. History is a helpful sidekick to the news, but it's also fairly well-covered. Philosophy, though...not many people doing that. I occasionally hear that "liberal" and "conservative" don't mean much anymore, but I don't hear anyone explaining what they DID mean, what they STILL mean, and what that might look like in our context (or what is replacing them).
Dear David, what I crave (like a drug addict craves...) is evidence/demonstrations that writing and discussing critical topics leads to change, to more accountability, better policy, more real democracy, less inequality. Just venting with my friends achieves nothing. Provocative pieces I have written and send out as Opeds get ignored, completely. I feel powerless while watching things move in disastrous directions. Carney's speech in Davos was great but who will change what in response? Wolfgang Linden
Would like to see a column discussing the “progressive left” response to the revolution in Iran… why people are not in the streets protesting the crimes committed by the regime, and contrast this with the behaviour of the same people in response to the war started by Hamas, where they harrassed Canadian Jews and supported Hamas’ Oct 7 2023 attack as justified and vilified Israel for defending itself, and made no mention of the complicity of UN organizations, and went silent when Hamas started torturing and killing Palestinians in Gaza.
Certainly things political is occupying most conversations, but what's become rather unsettling is the number of folks who seem to have no clue about Canadian 'civics' and confuse US for CDN, confuse Federal/Provincial/Municipal jurisdiction/responsibility and have little if any information on Provincial protectionism across this country. This might be a big hill to tackle, but the power of clear information is undeniable. Know your country gives all a better understanding and ability to participate in democracy.
I'm finding that more people are getting interested in politics but now it feels like fewer people understand politics (and to a lesser extent) than when we first started debating politics on Twitter almost a decade ago.
Having someone knowledgeable who explains the ins and outs of politics, as well as historical background on issues, would give people a way to catch up on the topics they were taught in social studies, then forgot because many (myself included) thought social studies was kinda useless, or just didn't connect to the issue. Not knowing historical background on issues and wars has been the hardest part of my degree. Right now, I can understand why people are so confused about the deal with China. It's not new; there's history behind it, but they're either unaware or aren't connecting the dots.
I'm pretty sure the "do we need another hit on [extensively covered topic]" was meant rhetorically... but I genuinely think the answer is often "yes", especially if we reframe the question as "Do we need a David Moscrop hit on [extensively covered topic]".
Something I've seen from my, much more modest, audience that I suspect is true of most, is that even people interested in a topic are not reading widely on the topic. There's too much noise to read past the headlines consistently, and most readers rely on just a few (sometimes only one) writer on a topic to inform them about it.
That doesn't mean you need to write about everything. But you're providing real value to people when you write about topics - even topics others are writing about extensively - because you've broken through the noise for them and are writing the only piece they'll read.
That's not a criticism of readers. I think it's more a symptom of the news media's collapse and the resulting absence of infrastructure people used to find quality articles without knowing the author.
I also hope you take this as encouragement (at least, personally) rather than the opposite. It's meant to be encouraging.
As other have suggested, why limit yourself to a single type of segment?
Sometimes you'll have an interesting reader question to answer (eg. you've not responded to mine, hee hee), sometimes a news roundup/summary might be just the thing. Or perhaps, just for a change, something more personal.
As for length, sometimes short&pithy pieces are best, but sometimes a longer more detailed look is better. As Sarah K. suggests, hot takes are tedious at best.
If you want to try a more focused approach, perhaps write a focused column once a week, with a second weekly column with a more wide focus.
I'd like to hear more about how other places have resisted annexation/fascism/whatever-you-want-to-call-what-is-coming-our-way. Civil disobedience, guerrilla defense tactics... Stories from the French Resistance, Finland, Minnesota - places where people who were clearly outgunned fought back and made a difference.
For this "Yank" who has a well-above average (IMO, for someone not a professional Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ person) understanding of parliamentary governments, an explainer on what takes political parties in such systems so long to pick a new party leader gets the boot (Singh, NDP) or when starting a new party (Your Party, UK). I know much of the rest of the democratic world loves to laugh at and mock the US for how long presidential contests take, but when you take a full year to pick a new party leader, you might be in a glass house. I'm not mocking back; I seriously don't get the degree of delay, which I know has already affected NDF strategery, or lack thereof, in the Canadian Commons. And, don't get me started on the Your Party and were I in the UK, I'd be voting British Greens anyway.
Political parties in Canada set the time frame for their elections. It doesn't always take as long as the NDP are currently taking. Carney was voted in within a couple months. it depends on the party and the circumstances when a new leader is needed.
I'm possibly writing this out of wishful thinking about my own pace, but I LIKE it when authors write one great piece every week or two instead of churning out short pieces on a daily basis. I subscribe to a bunch of newsletters of independent authors, but I tend to skim or delete anything that seems like a hot take, especially since I'm one of those "have been warning about Trump for over 10 years" folks. I'd rather get thoughtful and original work published infrequently then get a steady stream of takes. Write from the heart.
What she said.
Interested in your thoughts on evolving our electoral system beyond first past the post.
I am here for the vibes 😏. For real though, write what interests you. That will probably will be the most engaging as a result.
I feel tremendous media fatigue. History is a helpful sidekick to the news, but it's also fairly well-covered. Philosophy, though...not many people doing that. I occasionally hear that "liberal" and "conservative" don't mean much anymore, but I don't hear anyone explaining what they DID mean, what they STILL mean, and what that might look like in our context (or what is replacing them).
Dear David, what I crave (like a drug addict craves...) is evidence/demonstrations that writing and discussing critical topics leads to change, to more accountability, better policy, more real democracy, less inequality. Just venting with my friends achieves nothing. Provocative pieces I have written and send out as Opeds get ignored, completely. I feel powerless while watching things move in disastrous directions. Carney's speech in Davos was great but who will change what in response? Wolfgang Linden
Would like to see a column discussing the “progressive left” response to the revolution in Iran… why people are not in the streets protesting the crimes committed by the regime, and contrast this with the behaviour of the same people in response to the war started by Hamas, where they harrassed Canadian Jews and supported Hamas’ Oct 7 2023 attack as justified and vilified Israel for defending itself, and made no mention of the complicity of UN organizations, and went silent when Hamas started torturing and killing Palestinians in Gaza.
Certainly things political is occupying most conversations, but what's become rather unsettling is the number of folks who seem to have no clue about Canadian 'civics' and confuse US for CDN, confuse Federal/Provincial/Municipal jurisdiction/responsibility and have little if any information on Provincial protectionism across this country. This might be a big hill to tackle, but the power of clear information is undeniable. Know your country gives all a better understanding and ability to participate in democracy.
I'm finding that more people are getting interested in politics but now it feels like fewer people understand politics (and to a lesser extent) than when we first started debating politics on Twitter almost a decade ago.
Having someone knowledgeable who explains the ins and outs of politics, as well as historical background on issues, would give people a way to catch up on the topics they were taught in social studies, then forgot because many (myself included) thought social studies was kinda useless, or just didn't connect to the issue. Not knowing historical background on issues and wars has been the hardest part of my degree. Right now, I can understand why people are so confused about the deal with China. It's not new; there's history behind it, but they're either unaware or aren't connecting the dots.
I'm pretty sure the "do we need another hit on [extensively covered topic]" was meant rhetorically... but I genuinely think the answer is often "yes", especially if we reframe the question as "Do we need a David Moscrop hit on [extensively covered topic]".
Something I've seen from my, much more modest, audience that I suspect is true of most, is that even people interested in a topic are not reading widely on the topic. There's too much noise to read past the headlines consistently, and most readers rely on just a few (sometimes only one) writer on a topic to inform them about it.
That doesn't mean you need to write about everything. But you're providing real value to people when you write about topics - even topics others are writing about extensively - because you've broken through the noise for them and are writing the only piece they'll read.
That's not a criticism of readers. I think it's more a symptom of the news media's collapse and the resulting absence of infrastructure people used to find quality articles without knowing the author.
I also hope you take this as encouragement (at least, personally) rather than the opposite. It's meant to be encouraging.
I was introduced to you from the Bad & Bitchy podcast years ago, so I would absolutely add a Moscrop podcast to my listening rotation!
As other have suggested, why limit yourself to a single type of segment?
Sometimes you'll have an interesting reader question to answer (eg. you've not responded to mine, hee hee), sometimes a news roundup/summary might be just the thing. Or perhaps, just for a change, something more personal.
As for length, sometimes short&pithy pieces are best, but sometimes a longer more detailed look is better. As Sarah K. suggests, hot takes are tedious at best.
If you want to try a more focused approach, perhaps write a focused column once a week, with a second weekly column with a more wide focus.
I'd like to hear more about how other places have resisted annexation/fascism/whatever-you-want-to-call-what-is-coming-our-way. Civil disobedience, guerrilla defense tactics... Stories from the French Resistance, Finland, Minnesota - places where people who were clearly outgunned fought back and made a difference.
"back at the typewriter" - I bet you have a Rolodex too.
A man after my own heart.
For this "Yank" who has a well-above average (IMO, for someone not a professional Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ person) understanding of parliamentary governments, an explainer on what takes political parties in such systems so long to pick a new party leader gets the boot (Singh, NDP) or when starting a new party (Your Party, UK). I know much of the rest of the democratic world loves to laugh at and mock the US for how long presidential contests take, but when you take a full year to pick a new party leader, you might be in a glass house. I'm not mocking back; I seriously don't get the degree of delay, which I know has already affected NDF strategery, or lack thereof, in the Canadian Commons. And, don't get me started on the Your Party and were I in the UK, I'd be voting British Greens anyway.
Political parties in Canada set the time frame for their elections. It doesn't always take as long as the NDP are currently taking. Carney was voted in within a couple months. it depends on the party and the circumstances when a new leader is needed.