#WTH Why write?

Increasingly, too few want to speak to anyone but the base

Why do we write? Is it for the same reason that we read? To spread information, update news, appreciate new ideas, and look for affirmation? It’s not a silly question, and as more and more “journalists” jump ship (or are pushed) from corporate media to direct-to-consumer platforms like Substack, the question is ever more pressing. Do we — or you, or they — flock to ex-reporters for ABC, CNN, or the Washington Post because we believe they’re bringing their great contacts our way, without the pesky intervention of editors and money men? Or are we really just looking for another way to populate our echo chambers?

I don’t have an answer for you, but I do have a suspicion. Two things brought me to ask these questions and share my thoughts, FWIW, with you. The first was yet another repulsive display of the ingrained antisemitism that is the BBC. Read about it here. And the second was a conversation with a writer, whom I won’t name, but who is well respected, lauded, and just desperately, unrelentingly, and boringly anti-Trump.

What have we learned about the Beeb that we didn’t already know? Its journos, its editors, and its management don’t like Israel or Jews, not necessarily in that order. That’s nothing new in the UK, the fons et origo of the blood libel (see: Norwich, 1144 CE). But it’s been on sharp display in the 21 months since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. Simon Schama wrote about it here. And in truth, it’s what most Jews and friends of Israel have come to expect from certain corners of the media: Hamas isn’t referred to as a terrorist organization, Israel is condemned by orders of magnitude more than terrorists or their sponsors, Hamas numbers are taken as gospel, reports validating accusations of “genocide” and “war crimes” are given ample playtime, and of course, the BBC’s “reporters” themselves, in English and Arabic, have celebrated Hamas repeatedly.

If we follow the logic of the numbers and the obvious predilection towards Jew-hatred, the conclusion is pretty simple: The BBC doesn’t like Israel or Jews. We know that because we see it with our eyes and hear it with our ears. Similarly, the reporters who have jumped ship from the MSM in the last year or so and made their way mostly here, to Substack, don’t like Donald Trump. Why? Because their editors also don’t like Donald Trump or Republicans, but prefer to pretend to non-partisanship. Indeed, what prompted the mass exodus of folks from The Washington Post last year? It was the paper’s failure to endorse Kamala Harris.

We get it. The Post, the Times, a lot of cable, and much of the corporate media don’t like Donald Trump, and they don’t like Republicans. The only question in my mind is whether they were lying to us or to themselves when they pretended to be unbiased “journalists”? But doesn’t this make you wonder why these people, once they leave the MSM, draw ever more followers to their online screeds?

I do have a point here, but indulge me as I continue the build-up. We have the same problem with columnists at major newspapers and magazines. Now, these writers are all out of the ideological closet. No one thinks Marc Thiessen is a reporter, or a Democrat. No one thinks Paul Krugman is a reporter, or a conservative. These writers are honest about who they are, and in placing their work on the editorial page, their bosses are being honest as well. But why are they writing? Is it to persuade, or to soothe? Is it to expose, or to shock? Or are they just providing mood music for their ideological sweethearts?

I know why Marc writes. I know why I write. Unfortunately, I know why the BBC writes. What I don’t know is why this fancy writer to whom I was chatting writes. He cannot agree that striking Iran was a good thing, because Trump did it. He cannot agree that policing the border is a good thing, because Trump did it. Fundamentally, he believes that hitting Iran was good and that open borders are bad, but he can’t accept these things because, you guessed it, Trump did it. But if the purpose of every single article one writes is to demonstrate Trump hatred in new and different ways, what is the damn point?

So, why do I write? Mostly because I love to, and that’s as good an excuse as any. But when I write, I try to illuminate. I try to develop better policy ideas. I want my readers to believe that when Joe Biden did something good, I can recognize it. And when Donald Trump does something bad, ditto. I like having principles, and trying, sometimes inconsistently, to stick by them.

Weirdly, the BBC does have principles. They just suck, and the UK taxpayer should stop subsidizing them and let them get their money from Qatar, like Tucker. But do these other guys who have leapt from CNN etc have principles? Does my writer pal have principles? Or are they simply the human apotheoses of Trump Derangement Syndrome? I suspect the latter.

There’s a lot to dislike about Donald Trump and his appointees. There was a lot of dislike about Joe Biden and his people. But shouldn’t the main aim of setting pen to paper (so to speak) be to think about how to fix, to improve, to educate, to persuade, to illuminate? And if the written words that fill our day are no longer aimed in that direction, is it any wonder we end up with the tribal nightmare we now find ourselves in?

PS Happy Fourth. Thanks for my week off from WTH and Hot Takes Happy Hour. We’re all back at the grindstone this week. 🇺🇸