Journalists are frequently told that, in order to make it professionally, you need to learn to jettison your most beloved ideas or, as the saying goes, kill your darlings.

But, the world of words is interesting.

Having studied design earlier in my career, I found it notable how much emphasis tends to be placed in real-world applications on the avoidance of waste in looking at problems as puzzles in which every piece, eventually, fits.

I remember, when beginning to ponder graduate school in a moment of questioning the productivity of political coverage, bristling at the thought of continuing my study of political rhetoric. It had simply started to feel like wordsmiths were reaching an outsized – and unjustified – level of influence; and, as journalists in particular, it had begun to feel like we could convince just about anyone – including ourselves – of just about anything, regardless of the substance of any given idea conveyed. I recoiled at this thought and, briefly, imagined maybe it would be a good idea to spend time in an environment in which hypotheses were not just expressed but tested. An environment less immersed in words.

While my move to explore the design disciplines was fraught, there was something both humbling and profoundly educational about regular requirements that proposals not just be critiqued but, at least to a degree, tried.

“I thought that that would work, but it did not,” became a helpful step along the way to solving problems before faulty premises and assumptions became too ingrained; but almost no idea was off the table.

On Design

While I could be wrong, it at least feels to me that, in the world of journalism today, invaluable contributions have been discarded too quickly and with too little thought, seemingly for no other reason than that they do not fit what are arguably outmoded molds.

Worse, where it would have been possible to more critically re-think systems first, a small number of individuals have been pointed to as solely at fault in what can at least sometimes feel like an irresponsible response to system failure. And it seems to me more people than say so believe this is sub-optimal.

While there is no question that the means – including racism and sexism – and, in fact, all forms of vulnerable-ism – by which the current system has engineered competition are profoundly wrong, there is also the question of the ends these behaviors, in the corporate context, at least evidently seek to achieve, and why the question of overall system carrying capacity is almost never discussed.

It is actually arguable the fact that system design has not been more frequently and more thoroughly been considered is more than just peculiar. It is not rational.

On Taboos & AI

I’ve heard it said frequently that the things no one wants to talk about tend to be the things that most need attention.

When first getting acclimated to a television team I had agreed to join rather blindly, although I had already begun attempting to leave, I recall being chastised often for proposing coverage that I thought would be intellectually challenging, important for the world to consider, and helpful overall. But this was almost never done in an explicit way.

Although it was clear that what I was being asked to do was to maximize ratings, this tended to be articulated through praise for maximizing shareholder value. More explicitly, I was told to look at stories that got covered, figure out for myself what they had in common, and go find more like them. And I felt the primary message being communicated was that what these stories had in common should not be said out loud.

Frequently, it seems, high-profile thinkers have been talking about the potential dangers of AI moving forward. But, in any system in which people in possession of consciences do not use them, would we not already have what could practically be termed full automation?

I continue to believe that more attention could be paid to what could in fact be, at least in part, a design flaw anywhere news media and the stock market converge. Systems that oppose evolution and innovation will arguably always find scapegoats to buy time. While real problems are addressed in the process, I believe systems could be further considered as well, especially where they are not yet set in stone.

On Synchronization

Much has been said about the recent alignment of the political and corporate media worlds, and these comments have been, by and large, positive. And, while I do see the obvious value in the amplification of progressive concepts, in theory, I continue to feel that what has gone unsaid about proposed system design changes, matters. While I do not want to question them, I still do wonder why so many corporations so publicly took on the mantle of social justice matters at the same moment design proposals intended to improve media business models were being silenced.

Who, at this point, is in charge of covering stories that, while not necessarily supportive of the publicly-traded media company model, could still be of value to the world? What of designers and contributors who simply hope their ideas may be given a chance?

I wonder whether what appears to be an unhealthy alignment of political and media forces may be more similar to what is termed gimbal lock in navigation than we realize and could be interrupted by a more critical and engaged educational sector. I believe asking corporations to do this work may be problematic at best given the degree to which, so long as human nature is not perfect, profit-focused shareholders are likely to add an irrational torque to an otherwise stable configuration of nested forces.

So long as we endeavor to outsource the work of our democracy to publicly-traded companies, we will arguably always feel like we are trying to hula hoop an unruly giant’s charm bracelet.

On Inclusion

To the degree to which corporate purges of executives deemed unqualified for ethical reasons have made workplaces more safe and equitable, these decisions have arguably been needed, important, and helpful.

But, increasingly, I wonder whether some contributors have felt unwelcome in corporate media because of what would rationally considered to be desirable characteristics, like courage, endurance, faithfulness to conscience, and reasonableness. To the degree that these qualities permeate and support an organization’s vision, resolve, and momentum forward, they practically encircle it what could be visualized as a sphere of legitimacy.

What if such zones of legitimacy and influence could be rendered one and the same?