As I’ve been working on this newsletter, part of that work has been to nail down exactly what I want this thing to be. I’ve done a bit of soul-searching lately and I’d like to explain what’s led me to rethink the way I do things here, but if you’re in a rush just skip to the bottom to see what’s coming next.

The state of news commentary, according to Mark

If you’re here for the full story, I started MJR News (pronounced major news)as an outlet for me to write more creatively and pursue commentary-style pieces that I don’t typically do in my day-to-day work as a journalist. That said, I’ve run into one of the problems I think is so prevalent in the news media: Talking for the sake of talking.

I have a list of draft articles that I’ve been working on but haven’t published, mostly because I don’t feel like what I had to say about that particular issue was relevant or insightful.

It reminds me of the 24-hour news cycle in which networks are ironically both short on time and working hard to fill all of it. The need to fill time is one of the reasons punditry has become so prevalent on the major cable news networks. There simply aren’t enough resources available (and if there were, those resources aren’t devoted) to journalists producing long-form packages that would fill up 24 hours of news each day.

What you’re left with, is what cable news does all day long: Live interviews. A host sits at a desk and has a columnist, a reporter, or some analyst come on and talk about whatever the news is that day. It could be a legal analyst discussing their thoughts on the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago, or it could be a commentator providing their thoughts on a bill moving through Congress.

There is some value in this, no doubt. Punditry can help draw meaning out of the facts and connect the dots for people. Doing it live is also great when there is actual news taking place and anchors need experienced voices to provide context.

I’d be remiss, though, if I didn’t also point out that another big reason why cable news is so devoted to punditry is ratings. Passionate and inflammatory commentary rates well. Everyone loves a good ‘ole fashioned hot take. But these hot takes, unfortunately, often draw poor conclusions and rely on rampant speculation, snap judgment, and bad logic.

This is what I want to avoid in my commentary.

Leave a comment

One of my favorite YouTube channels is a Canadian conservative political commentator named J.J. McCullough. He’s based in Vancouver and while his YouTube channel mostly focuses on issues of culture, he has talked about his prior work as a political pundit for the Canadian-based Sun News.

“In commentary, as in electoral politics, the motive is often just to pander to people’s emotions or use your verbal and intellectual skills to rationalize their pre-existing biases,” McCullough says of TV punditry.

He acknowledges there is an “art to that,” but he talks about how immature he sees his early years of commentary over the pressures he felt to shoehorn his viewpoints into the rigid orthodoxy of some standardized viewpoint. For him at the time, it was whatever the correct “conservative” argument would be for any given issue regardless, he says, of whatever logical flaws or contradictions they may contain.

The reality is, that no one fits perfectly into our country’s two major political silos. No one fits 100 percent into the viewpoints of the Republican Party or 100 percent into the viewpoints of the Democratic Party. I don’t doubt that some people think they do, but that’s an effect of tribalism rather than being authentic to one’s actual internalized beliefs or worldviews.

There are plenty of conservatives who are in favor of abortion rights, while there are plenty of Democrats who think the country needs to reign in deficit spending, as examples.

“Life is much easier when you can get comfortable saying things like, ‘I don’t know’ or ‘Maybe they’re wrong’ and not feel like your whole identity will come crashing down,” says McCullough.

I wholeheartedly agree.

So, bringing this full circle now, I’ve been trying to think about what MJR News should be. I’m not sure I’ve discovered that, but I have found some things I don’t want it to be.

I don’t want to write commentary simply for the sake of writing commentary. There are issues that I might feel lukewarm about or that I feel I don’t have anything particularly interesting to contribute to, so I’m not going to write about them.

I don’t want to waste my time or yours.

That may mean a somewhat sporadic publishing regimen. Anchoring myself to deadlines of daily, weekly, or even monthly columns is not only a lot of work, but I don’t think people truly have the ability to internalize and contemplate what they really think about issues at such regular intervals. Some issues are easy and we can instantly say, ‘Yeah, that’s wrong and here’s why.’” While others are more complex and take reflection and research. I’d rather not be reactionary.

Also, as many of you may know, I’ve been prepping for law school over the past year and that takes up a lot of my attention at the moment. Fall applications just opened so I’m trying to juggle a lot anyway. (Wish me luck!)

What’s next

In summary, what I’d like to do with MJR News at the moment is stick to publishing commentary as I see fit and when I feel have something meaningful to contribute. But in between those times, I would like to share the things I find interesting out in the world.

As someone working in the news media, I come across a lot of stuff: Articles, podcasts, books, etc. and I'd like to use this as an outlet to share those things. Those of you who follow me on Instagram are probably aware of how often I post articles to my stories that I find interesting or worth writing a short comment about. Sometimes those turn into an idea for a column, other times they only merit one line about why I’m deciding to share it.

So, I’m planning to start putting out a weekly recap with this Saturday being the first run at it. Throughout the week as I see interesting things I’m going to compile them into a tidy email that will have some context or thoughts about why it’s interesting and what I took away from it. I plan to keep these musings to the relevance of MJR News as it has been up to now, meaning mostly news, politics, and history stuff.

Finally, I’m also going to leave some space for personal news for those of you who might be interested and would like to keep tabs on me, especially as I embark on law school over the next year.

If you’re still here with me, thanks for reading and I hope you find some value in my weekly recaps, whether it’s insight, humor, or simply information.

As always, let me know if you have any thoughts. Please consider subscribing.

Talk soon! ✌️