I'm looking into this! I am not trained in journalism but I have a pretty strong suspicion that there are a bunch of people who are in our community. I'll be reaching out to see if I can get some people to do this!
excellent perspective of thinking carefully about the readers' perspectives and how to focus the messaging on what we mean to convey -- with an example to illustrate good practice. Have posted it to our group.
Great as usual. I'd add a footnote from FrameLab that Elon Musk and his DOGE is a use of Orwellian language and we should not use the term. It's not a government department. Duran suggests we all call it... "Destruction of Government by Elon." Perhaps this positions the intention of the Kleptocrats as well as your framing what the government does well. Thoughts?
My instinct is to not talk about them at all ever, at least until they actually do something. They should not exist and we should not help talk them into existence. But I have to think about it. It's a tough question, always, whether to ignore or reframe!
This is an outstanding letter today. I am going to forward it to several journalists and see if they bite. I have been asking people who voted for Trump -- "How do you feel flying on an airplane under an FAA that isn't carefully managed by knowledgeable people?" I have found that this is a good starter question to get people to talk civilly about what our government does for us. It would be great to put together questions like this -- as you did with raw milk and the FDA -- as a handbook. Count me in if you assemble a team to work on this. As you said -- there are many of us. Let's get to work.
Re: discussion on learning from the civil rights movement
Contemporary substacks and media platforms can learn from Ida B. Wells' approach' Journalism is about revealing systemic truths, challenging power structures, and catalyzing social transformation.
The civil rights movement's strategies remain remarkably relevant: unite diverse constituencies, speak truth to power, and create change through persistent, principled action.
I love this! It's not enough for us all to have social media and opinion pieces. I think we all need to be building more real journalism like what you are talking about! Yes!
This is a wonderful and timely piece. We cannot let the narrative float that our Civil Service are terrible. They r doing the best with what they were given. I hope that our collective stories are heard and we take care to improve the system despite the perceived setbacks.
Liz Plank wrote today about billionaires spent over a billion dollars on right wing media that lies and doesn’t play by the rules and lies. Half the country only listens to that media. How do we break through facing that obstacle?
My best recommendation is that we stop spending all the media real estate that we DO have under our control - our substacks and our blue sky accounts, our Facebook accounts and so on - talking to each other about the right-wing, and spend all of that resource to talk to voters about what we believe to be important. Talk to them directly not assuming that they already know all the political stuff that we already know, but talk to them like human beings, like you would tell a friend.
I guess that’s all we can do. It’s just tough fighting through the reality of what we are up against. I need to talk to liberals to keep my sanity. I want to share your information with liberals so they are armed with proper knowledge. I honestly do try to engage right wing friends or coworkers and it’s like breaking through to a cult. Desires are the only intentional reason for action and their entire identity is wrapped up in believing lies and have zero desire to see anything in a way that would crack that identity. They also lack the brain function to see hypocrisy and rationalize while under political stress. I’m just battling hopelessness today, sigh.
Excellent suggestions for language that doesn’t just recapitulate the R talking points. I will add “traditional family” to this good no-no list. Biblical families were not monogamous and male power did not rest on the size of a husband’s paycheck. People didn’t work for wages at all.
Re: public service. My criticism extends beyond today's Republican leadership. The Democratic Party and its elected officials bear responsibility for this moment. For two decades, Democrats have been negligent—failing to robustly defend essential government programs and missing critical opportunities to reform them substantively.
This systemic failure allowed conservative narratives to gradually erode public trust in government institutions. Democrats often defended programs perfunctorily instead of demonstrating their tangible value to citizens. They became reactive rather than proactive, allowing opponents to frame government services as bureaucratic waste rather than collective investments in community well-being.
The result? A hollowed-out civic understanding where many Americans no longer viscerally comprehend how public services improve their daily lives. Republicans dismantled these programs piece by piece, while Democrats offered tepid resistance and occasional procedural objections.
Meaningful defense requires more than protection—it demands continuous improvement, transparency, and compelling storytelling about how government serves people's actual needs. Democrats consistently failed at this fundamental task of political communication and institutional stewardship.
The current assault on public infrastructure is as much a failure of Democratic leadership as it is a triumph of conservative strategy.
As a government worker who’s seen other GOP leaders nominate officials with the intent of destroying the agency they’re meant to administer, I’m skeptical about whether the public (or enough of it) can be made to care, however the story is told. I hate to sound “defeatist” about it, and I’m not saying it’s not worth trying—along with the other efforts, including what you call “personal attacks,” many of which in these cases are serious. I think, whatever hits home and does the job, for each candidate, should and must be used. Too many people in the U.S. just don’t care what the branches of government do, until it’s too late to care.
My concern is that we have contributed to the US public's "not caring" by not standing our ground or pushing back when Reagan started to attack "government" as a whole so long ago. You might notice that we defend our "programs" but we let their denigration of "government" go unchallenged. We're fifty years into a message death spiral. It's hard to reverse, but we had better start asap, and the more passionately we stand up for it, the sooner it will change!
I’m not saying I disagree…Years ago, part of my dream/ambition was to learn enough about what one or more Federal agencies did, to write a series of really engaging, exciting adventure novels that would “trick” the public into caring about the heroine (as I’m a woman and a feminist, and tend to write and think mostly of heroines), as well as educate them about the work of the particular agency (and maybe other agencies with whom the heroine interacted) and the work of government and government agencies, generally. I’ve always thought that Democrats and elected officials and the folks who know and care about the work of government have done a pretty crappy job of pushing back on these narratives and of explaining the “real problem” with both Cabinet picks as well as those for the Supreme Court, for example…like why is it especially concerning especially that someone like Thomas who was the head of the EEOC would have been credibly accused of sexual harassment by someone, a woman, in his employ? Or that someone like Gorsuch with his personal history—his Mom having served in and tried to destroy the EPA and having been forced out of the agency—and clearly held grudges and a vendetta against the Federal government for that—would be unfit to serve and sit on cases involving the Government for that reason? So yeah, it’d certainly worth trying, but in the context of an electorate and a citizenry that so little understands the importance of government or what it does—what we do—until they stop receiving Social Security or other checks or the parks close, for example, that they’re willing to elect an idiot entertainer with zero government experience except to the extent he’s benefited from government-funded projects that he’s nonetheless mismanaged and discriminated on the course of—it’s difficult for me to believe that any one strategy will work. …One of the things I will do with my blog, though, is seek to educate others and myself of the importance of civil rights laws, basic Constitutional protections, and the work of certain government agencies, and people who are willing to fight for the same, so they understand why it’s important to fight for these things, now.
Actually this just gave me the idea for one or two more future stories for my “Campfire Stories of Resistance & Resilience” blog! I already wanted to tell the story of what happened to Shirley Chisholm when a bunch of southern Congressmen tried to sideline her by assigning her to the Committee on agriculture. If you get the chance, please check it out, and if you like it, subscribe, restock and refer! I am actively looking for submission of people’s “campfire stories of resistance,” at Lois@storiesofresistance.org, as well.
Hi, I don't think so, I used to find enough of those frequently enough in the Post's obituaries section. I'll have to check it out...thanks for the tip!
If you haven't read it yet, this amazing series in the Washington Post about the hidden heroes of the federal government is a great read!
https://ourpublicservice.org/blog/who-is-government-series-the-washington-post-event-recap/
I'm looking into this! I am not trained in journalism but I have a pretty strong suspicion that there are a bunch of people who are in our community. I'll be reaching out to see if I can get some people to do this!
This is spot on, Antonia. We’ll share this with our readers today, as well as with our Digital Field Team that does messaging online.
Thanks! I would love to collaborate with you and your wonderful group!
That would be great! Happy to jump on a call sometime. Feel free to message! - Nick
You will meet on Friday for sure! https://tinyurl.com/2024fpl
excellent perspective of thinking carefully about the readers' perspectives and how to focus the messaging on what we mean to convey -- with an example to illustrate good practice. Have posted it to our group.
Thank you!
Great as usual. I'd add a footnote from FrameLab that Elon Musk and his DOGE is a use of Orwellian language and we should not use the term. It's not a government department. Duran suggests we all call it... "Destruction of Government by Elon." Perhaps this positions the intention of the Kleptocrats as well as your framing what the government does well. Thoughts?
Hobie
My instinct is to not talk about them at all ever, at least until they actually do something. They should not exist and we should not help talk them into existence. But I have to think about it. It's a tough question, always, whether to ignore or reframe!
This is an outstanding letter today. I am going to forward it to several journalists and see if they bite. I have been asking people who voted for Trump -- "How do you feel flying on an airplane under an FAA that isn't carefully managed by knowledgeable people?" I have found that this is a good starter question to get people to talk civilly about what our government does for us. It would be great to put together questions like this -- as you did with raw milk and the FDA -- as a handbook. Count me in if you assemble a team to work on this. As you said -- there are many of us. Let's get to work.
This is absolutely brilliant. I want to make videos about this because it’s so so so important. Thank you for sharing this guide with us 🤍
Re: discussion on learning from the civil rights movement
Contemporary substacks and media platforms can learn from Ida B. Wells' approach' Journalism is about revealing systemic truths, challenging power structures, and catalyzing social transformation.
The civil rights movement's strategies remain remarkably relevant: unite diverse constituencies, speak truth to power, and create change through persistent, principled action.
I love this! It's not enough for us all to have social media and opinion pieces. I think we all need to be building more real journalism like what you are talking about! Yes!
This is a wonderful and timely piece. We cannot let the narrative float that our Civil Service are terrible. They r doing the best with what they were given. I hope that our collective stories are heard and we take care to improve the system despite the perceived setbacks.
This is excellent, and yes, never use acronyms! Drew Weston emphasized this also.
Liz Plank wrote today about billionaires spent over a billion dollars on right wing media that lies and doesn’t play by the rules and lies. Half the country only listens to that media. How do we break through facing that obstacle?
My best recommendation is that we stop spending all the media real estate that we DO have under our control - our substacks and our blue sky accounts, our Facebook accounts and so on - talking to each other about the right-wing, and spend all of that resource to talk to voters about what we believe to be important. Talk to them directly not assuming that they already know all the political stuff that we already know, but talk to them like human beings, like you would tell a friend.
I guess that’s all we can do. It’s just tough fighting through the reality of what we are up against. I need to talk to liberals to keep my sanity. I want to share your information with liberals so they are armed with proper knowledge. I honestly do try to engage right wing friends or coworkers and it’s like breaking through to a cult. Desires are the only intentional reason for action and their entire identity is wrapped up in believing lies and have zero desire to see anything in a way that would crack that identity. They also lack the brain function to see hypocrisy and rationalize while under political stress. I’m just battling hopelessness today, sigh.
This!
Thank you for your expert assessment and guidance. I will try and spread the message!
No need to frame them. They really did things.
Excellent suggestions for language that doesn’t just recapitulate the R talking points. I will add “traditional family” to this good no-no list. Biblical families were not monogamous and male power did not rest on the size of a husband’s paycheck. People didn’t work for wages at all.
Re: public service. My criticism extends beyond today's Republican leadership. The Democratic Party and its elected officials bear responsibility for this moment. For two decades, Democrats have been negligent—failing to robustly defend essential government programs and missing critical opportunities to reform them substantively.
This systemic failure allowed conservative narratives to gradually erode public trust in government institutions. Democrats often defended programs perfunctorily instead of demonstrating their tangible value to citizens. They became reactive rather than proactive, allowing opponents to frame government services as bureaucratic waste rather than collective investments in community well-being.
The result? A hollowed-out civic understanding where many Americans no longer viscerally comprehend how public services improve their daily lives. Republicans dismantled these programs piece by piece, while Democrats offered tepid resistance and occasional procedural objections.
Meaningful defense requires more than protection—it demands continuous improvement, transparency, and compelling storytelling about how government serves people's actual needs. Democrats consistently failed at this fundamental task of political communication and institutional stewardship.
The current assault on public infrastructure is as much a failure of Democratic leadership as it is a triumph of conservative strategy.
As a government worker who’s seen other GOP leaders nominate officials with the intent of destroying the agency they’re meant to administer, I’m skeptical about whether the public (or enough of it) can be made to care, however the story is told. I hate to sound “defeatist” about it, and I’m not saying it’s not worth trying—along with the other efforts, including what you call “personal attacks,” many of which in these cases are serious. I think, whatever hits home and does the job, for each candidate, should and must be used. Too many people in the U.S. just don’t care what the branches of government do, until it’s too late to care.
My concern is that we have contributed to the US public's "not caring" by not standing our ground or pushing back when Reagan started to attack "government" as a whole so long ago. You might notice that we defend our "programs" but we let their denigration of "government" go unchallenged. We're fifty years into a message death spiral. It's hard to reverse, but we had better start asap, and the more passionately we stand up for it, the sooner it will change!
I’m not saying I disagree…Years ago, part of my dream/ambition was to learn enough about what one or more Federal agencies did, to write a series of really engaging, exciting adventure novels that would “trick” the public into caring about the heroine (as I’m a woman and a feminist, and tend to write and think mostly of heroines), as well as educate them about the work of the particular agency (and maybe other agencies with whom the heroine interacted) and the work of government and government agencies, generally. I’ve always thought that Democrats and elected officials and the folks who know and care about the work of government have done a pretty crappy job of pushing back on these narratives and of explaining the “real problem” with both Cabinet picks as well as those for the Supreme Court, for example…like why is it especially concerning especially that someone like Thomas who was the head of the EEOC would have been credibly accused of sexual harassment by someone, a woman, in his employ? Or that someone like Gorsuch with his personal history—his Mom having served in and tried to destroy the EPA and having been forced out of the agency—and clearly held grudges and a vendetta against the Federal government for that—would be unfit to serve and sit on cases involving the Government for that reason? So yeah, it’d certainly worth trying, but in the context of an electorate and a citizenry that so little understands the importance of government or what it does—what we do—until they stop receiving Social Security or other checks or the parks close, for example, that they’re willing to elect an idiot entertainer with zero government experience except to the extent he’s benefited from government-funded projects that he’s nonetheless mismanaged and discriminated on the course of—it’s difficult for me to believe that any one strategy will work. …One of the things I will do with my blog, though, is seek to educate others and myself of the importance of civil rights laws, basic Constitutional protections, and the work of certain government agencies, and people who are willing to fight for the same, so they understand why it’s important to fight for these things, now.
Actually this just gave me the idea for one or two more future stories for my “Campfire Stories of Resistance & Resilience” blog! I already wanted to tell the story of what happened to Shirley Chisholm when a bunch of southern Congressmen tried to sideline her by assigning her to the Committee on agriculture. If you get the chance, please check it out, and if you like it, subscribe, restock and refer! I am actively looking for submission of people’s “campfire stories of resistance,” at Lois@storiesofresistance.org, as well.
Wonderful! Have you read the wonderful series in the WashPost about the hidden heroes of the federal government? It's brilliant!
Hi, I don't think so, I used to find enough of those frequently enough in the Post's obituaries section. I'll have to check it out...thanks for the tip!