How Public Responds to its Recent Loss of Subscribers

Public, founded by Michael Shellenberger, has recently lost a significant number of subscribers. They responded with an editor's note, which IMO was beautifully written. Here's an excerpt:

Over the last week, we saw the single largest loss of subscribers we have seen in our nearly three years as a publication. Why?

These are some of the messages we received from unsubscribers:

“Don’t lecture us on human rights wrt fighting terrorism. The Geneva Convention wasn’t designed for this.”

“Unbalanced Pro-Israel garbage, amongst all the other garbage that's been accumulating recently.”

“Comparisons between depraved terrorist atrocity and actions designed to ensure that its population can live in safety and security show too much of an absence of moral clarity (or possibly even worse as bordering on antisemitism) to continue following.”

“This tone-deaf most recent post defending free speech of Pro-Hamas supporters turned me off completely.”

“Your support for Israel and their war crimes is reprehensible.”

At first glance, it may appear that the commenters disagree with each other. After all, some people thought we were too pro-Israel, and others thought we weren’t pro-Israel enough. In truth, the commenters agreed that everything they read from us must completely align with their opinions.

We don’t expect our readers to agree with us all the time. We don’t even always agree with each other. Not every article we publish reflects the views of all the editors. Obviously, if our disagreements were so great, we would not work together. But on issues ranging from Ukraine to UAPs to Israelis and Palestinians, you can expect that we have plenty of debates and hold a diversity of views here.

To reiterate: we hope you continue to be a subscriber, paid and free. We are deeply grateful to all of you who are subscribers, and intend to remain ones. We don’t want anyone to unsubscribe, even if — especially if — you disagree with us on some, and even most, things.

We think highly of our readers and welcome healthy disagreements in the comments. We strive to correct any errors we make, and to consider multiple perspectives. We want Public to be an outlet that sometimes confirms your views, sometimes challenges you to think differently, and always gives you new ideas or information to consider.

This is what we seek out from the publications we read, and we want that to be what you find here.

But we would sooner close up shop than compromise on the principles that we hold as journalists, and that we think all journalists should hold. We strongly believe that the principle of human rights must be universally applied, or they are not human rights. We have the same view about freedom of speech: we believe speech rights apply equally to everyone, even those we most firmly disagree with.

Continue ReadingHow Public Responds to its Recent Loss of Subscribers

One Approach for Dealing with Vague Verbal Attacks

Notice the simple technique used by this Canadian politician. He asks for examples. He asks the attacker to clarify what he is trying to say. Relentlessly asking for clarity does two things: It reveals the empty rhetoric and it shows that what is really going on is that the attacker is calling other people "bad." The politician was faced with an emotional feeling wrapped up in incomprehensible rhetoric. Not that emotional concerns are invalid. That said, things that look like an analytical argument should always be fair game for testing. We should always be invited to kick the tires and see what's under the hood.

This technique is non-partisan, however. Any person can use this technique to derail any conversation if used to an extreme. All language is inherently rickety, laden with conceptual metaphors. Using this technique incessantly will end almost every conversation. The only conversations that have any chance of surviving will be those involving only basic math and logic propositions (2 + 2 = 4) and "basic level categories," as described by Eleanor Rosch: Conversations like "I have a dog" or "It's raining outside." See also here, here and here.

There is balance to be had in the use of such inquisition and people of good faith do work together to make their conversations understandable and thus meaningful. If only there were more good faith and less suspicion in the world . . .

Continue ReadingOne Approach for Dealing with Vague Verbal Attacks

The Wisdom of the Kalven Report

Should Universities (and businesses, sports teams, professional associations) take public positions on hot issues of the day? Or should they leave expression on those issues at the discretion of their individual employees and members?

From the Chronicle of Higher Education: "Now Is the Time for Administrators to Embrace Neutrality: The Israel-Hamas war might finally show colleges the virtues of the Kalven Report.". An excerpt:

The extent to which college leaders should, in addition to their administrative roles, express institutional positions on contestable social and political issues is a matter of legitimate dispute. At one pole are the sentiments expressed in the 1967 Kalven Committee report of the University of Chicago, which argues for “a heavy presumption against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political or social issues of the day ... not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity … but out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints.” Exceptions should be made only for situations that “threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry”

Excerpt from the Kalven Report:

The instrument of dissent and criticism is the individual faculty member or the individual student. The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic. It is, to go back once again to the classic phrase, a community of scholars. To perform its mission in the society, a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political fashions, passions, and pressures. A university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to, and encourage the widest diversity of views within its own community. It is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, purposes of teaching and research. It is not a club, it is not a trade association, it is not a lobby.

Since the university is a community only for these limited and distinctive purposes, it is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives. It cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted. In brief, it is a community which cannot resort to majority vote to reach positions on public issues.

The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity. It arises out of respect for free inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest. It finds its complement, too, in the obligation of the university to provide a forum for the most searching and candid discussion of public issues.

  

Continue ReadingThe Wisdom of the Kalven Report