Thank you John and Spacemoon for the very civil and thoughtful feedback! I and we sincerely appreciate it — we do this for you, and it’s sometimes hard to know who’s on the other side of the screen and how they’re feeling, so we won’t know unless you say so!
I’ve never written anything “professionally” / for the public before, and English is my fourth language. No excuses, just wanted to share where I’m coming from and that the feedback is warmly-received and helpful.
Doing these news roundups is essentially a volunteer thing, yet takes enough work to be a part-time job. Stephanie did a great job with Covid (which was the reason these news roundups started to begin with) for two years. The duty changed hands earlier this year partly because we expanded the topics outside of health (Stephanie’s profession), and because it takes a toll on whoever’s volunteering to do this. Steph has a life and needed a break, and now that I’m 6+ months into it, I totally see the toll it takes too. TBH part of why there were no roundups this week is that I needed a mental health break from doomscrolling 24/7.
(We’re talking internally about how to get multiple people chipping into this so we can kind of rotate, share the load, and round out the personal styles/perspectives that inevitably leak through into the writing. Should have some big TP news related to this in the near term.)
I will drop the “Opinion” links, because we definitely want to stay objective. I’ll try to only share analysis/opinions when they themselves could be news. For example, if the well-respected head of UN’s nuclear watchdog writes a personal blog post with their opinion about the likelihood of Putin using nukes, in my eyes that’s worth including because, although it’s opinion, it’s credible enough to impact how we all could be evaluating the nuke risk. I’m of the belief that opinions/analyses themselves aren’t bad, it’s that modern media has been sharing the wrong opinions (e.g. extremists rather than experts.)
I just looked through some past articles and talked with @John Ramey about if/where/how there was too much climate talk. I can see how the longer-term existential stuff about climate could get repetitive. So my litmus test going forward will be more stringent around “is this news/point something that would influence people’s actions today?” And I’ll move the longer-term stuff that’s still important to include (e.g. “Big new study shows catastrophic changes happening faster than expected”) towards the end of the post.
Besides that, if you care to, I’d appreciate some specific examples of where I overweighted climate news (or whatever else you think could improve)?
As you empathized, it is somewhat tough because climate change does impact so much of the near-term stuff, including things outside of pure weather such as crop yields and gas prices. And things like inflation and culture wars won’t matter when our physical home stops being habitable.
Re the suggestion of having posts for long-term vs. short-term, I get where you’re coming from, but our goal is to keep current events in these twice a week posts, so I’ll first try to improve the balance between long and short within one post.
Cheers ❤️
p.s. Keep in mind that anyone in the community can make their own contributions/posts! The upcoming new website design is meant to make that easier, too.