Open Wide

I don't recall initially being force fed regurgitated facts. But here we are.

So many writers choose politics for their genre.

That’s because, combined with current events, there’s an endless and voluminous flow of material to draw from.

And when I say ‘writers’ I’m referring to the group that interprets and elaborates on pre-existing reportage. We used to call them columnists and opinion piece writers. The collectors, selectors and redistributors of the essential stories, putting a little more flesh to bone and perhaps (or most likely) employing a slant. Often employing a thematic vein that is a constant in their work. There was always talk about point of view and a contrasting outlook. Fairness, balance

News Feed

.

We seem to like it. Everybody who reads or listens to news on a regular basis embraces (eventually) a pattern or agenda of writing that favours certain writers, publications and ways of thinking. It’s natural. We keep telling ourselves that we’re critical thinkers and open-minded but the confirmation bias is a very appealing, warm niche to curl up in.

There’s so much material to choose from in this world of political writing, most writers who choose politics must limit their spheres of interest to specific categories of politics. It’s impossible to comment on the local school board while also creating stories about national assemblies or international reports about trade deals. Maybe it is possible, but not probable.

It’s that constant flow that forces writers to be skilled news sieves. The very act of filtering the news for further elaboration and fresh presentation allows for a bias or subjective interpretation. After all, decisions must be made about material and how words are chosen. Inevitably, a kind of expeditious process takes hold.