I was delayed today for a good reason.
I've been saying for a while (in newsletters too) that media needs to slow down.
I had a piece on respect for the dead that I was going to have up yesterday. But it's a tough one, involving the challenge of telling accurate stories of what transpired, and there are snowballing conspiracy theories to be taken into account with *whatever* I finally publish on that nuanced theme.
So it'll go up Nov 11, after I've had more time to sit with all factors, but--
The first question I always ask myself, when writing news analysis, is simple:
How will this help?
Followed by--
What harm does this risk?
Thirdly--
What steps have I taken to reduce harm to the best of my ability?
Followed by--
What will I do if harm happens anyway?
So much of major news coverage needs to ask if it's helping, if it's anticipated negative consequences, if it's done due diligence to minimize them, & if it's ready to address error & harm with integrity.
We deserve better.
(So, skipping over to a piece on the environmental cost of militaries and war today instead. That'll be "fun". I do not have high hopes for COP28 at November's end - but we need to keep reminding folks that climate change is coming for us all the same.)