Publications Are Not Dead (Yet). They Have To Continuously Reinvent Themselves.

A reflection opinion piece on how I think publications can continue to find blue oceans amidst recent changes.

Vishnu*s Virtues’s recent story triggered my thoughts for this story. I attach it here for reference.

Thank you for the brilliant write-up!

Writing translates our thoughts into a medium of communication. Others can tell when we think because we are quiet, and we look away. They can see that a thought bubble is brewing above our heads but would never be able to view our thoughts with clarity. Our writing allows them to visualize what we think.

And I believe that is what writing is about. Of course, there are many ways to think about the utility of writing stories.

I believe that the act of writing allows us to prune the presentation of our thoughts in a water-tight manner as compared to its raw form. That is the organic way to think about writing. What we think about matters too.

This is my add-on — How we present ourselves matters. The ideas we want to put forth matter even more.

I wrote in my previous story that every argument has to be confronted with humility. Complex topics often manifest themselves into protracted discussions. There are a lot of intelligent things to be said on both sides.

We have to be familiar and conversant with diverse opinions if we want to understand how current socioeconomic issues are polarizing our societies today.

I want to take my thought processes and apply them to the purpose and utility of publications on this platform.

Broadening the Spectrum of Socioeconomic Issues.

There is every reason for an issue to be taken seriously by the global population. Nothing wrong with that. Pressing issues such as the widening gap between the wealthy and the have-nots gained momentum because many believe they got the short end of the stick.

This is a phenomenon wrapped in our circumstances.

I postulate that our resentment against the wealthy continues to mount because we struggle to keep up with an ever-rising medical cost for our aged parents. Oh, and also the skyrocketing education expenses for our young.

We look at the haves and condemn their ability to accumulate wealth without consideration of their sacrifice to get there in the first place.

I know this is a weak argument because there are many other factors I have not considered. They may include the lack of high-paying job opportunities in the labor market. I may miss out on our innate ability to compare with those doing better. It is not always about survival. Yes, I am guilty of that.

The point I am making is not about advancing weak arguments. It is to stretch the spectrum of our understanding.

Let us assume 9 people support the Universal Basic Income policy, and there is only 1 supporter on the con side.

The supporter for the con side cannot be dismissed because he opposes mainstream opinions.

When everyone supports Universal Basic Income, we become blind to the dangers lurking at the corner. That one supporter for the con side of the argument can shed a beam of light on those dangers that prevent us from falling prey to blind faith.

Universal Basic Income is just an example of my choice. We can replace it with other topics as well.

When we are trekking in a jungle, the entire group is safer overall when one person is trying to highlight the possibility of snakes in our vicinity. When everyone believes that we are immune from snake bites, we will get snake bites.

The guy could be presenting a weak case because snakes might not be found in that jungle based on accumulated conventional knowledge. However, yesterday is not today. It is way better to listen and discern.

Publications have to facilitate arguments from both ends without prejudice. In that way, their readers benefit from the depth of argument advanced by writers standing on different points of the same spectrum.

Confronting the Legitimacy and Intensity Of Issues.

I believe that publications should facilitate this process. Let me clarify what I mean.

We need to be acquainted with both sides of an argument. We also need to examine the strength of the points that are presented on each side.

In other words, I can agree with what you are saying, and at the same time, we can examine the adequate intensity of it. How much of a good thing is enough, and where is the line we should not cross?

Take, for instance, the recent $1,400 stimulus cheques that are distributed in the United States for pandemic relief. You might stand on that side of the fence disagreeing with this move. That is perfectly fine because you have your opinions. You can agree to it because you see your neighbors having trouble paying their utility bills.

You might be okay with $1,400 dispensed to our accounts. However, I am sure you will have something to say it goes up to $14,000 or when it drops to $140.

This is why. When too much is dispensed, you might believe that people would rather stay home and play video games. They will not work. When too little is given, it does not help their current financial situation.

You have something to say. Say it.

And they are perfectly legit. By having others challenge what you write, you indirectly challenge readers to think from a different angle.

Another issue would be regulating Big Technology companies. Regulation is critical to prevent oligopolies from coming into being. But how much is too much, and how much regulation stifles free speech?

We need a healthy debate to facilitate our thinking.

My Thoughts.

Publications are not dead. They have to continuously reinvent themselves to stay relevant.

I relate publications to stadiums utilized for soccer matches. The purpose of the stadium is to house fans from both teams that are in a contest. Imagine that the stadium has a business mandate to increase the seats for fans of the winning team at the expense of fans of the losing team.

That is not an issue of equality or inequality. It is a bad business, and plus, what excitement does it generate?

Publications should think that way too.

Publications work hard to have successful writers with a line of followers to write for them because they gain visibility. However, they have to note that writers are humans. We have inclinations.

A thoughtful writer advancing the unpopular side of the argument may never have their work presented to readers because their reach is impaired by a low number of followers.

Plus, a higher rejection rate awaits them if they cannot write in native American English.

I do not want to see that.

I genuinely hope that publications can help us become better global citizens. But first, they need to ensure that they advance stories from both ends of an argument.

And for that matter, I think ILLUMINATION and Dr Mehmet Yildiz’s editorial team are doing a fantastic job.

Aldric

About the Author:

As a content contributor, I write my observations from daily life and my business exposure.

Because our life experience is the bedrock of our unique perspectives.

Do reach out and say hi on Linkedin and Twitter!