You Don’t Appreciate What You Got Until It’s Gone

A free press has long been considered a critical pillar of a well-functioning democracy. With recent events worldwide, it has become more apparent to many that quality journalism is a luxury that cannot be taken for granted. There is no denying that over the recent generations, there has been a gradual degradation of its perceived importance to society.

As society’s value for the institution shrinks either progressively or dramatically, it becomes increasingly more vulnerable to powerful players with opposing interests battering it beyond repair. History has shown that once gone, any attempt to reattain its former glory is almost always too little too late.

So the question becomes how can the institution be bolstered, and made more robust?

Journalists must recalibrate the way they inform and persuade in a way that is more accessible to a larger proportion of the general population. The right change will organically lead to a subconscious surge in its value to a great deal more people.

The Principles of Masslang

When the target audience is the general population — whether you are writing to inform or persuade, it is wise to adhere to the Principles of Masslang. Experience has shown, with very few exceptions, that departing from these basic tenets comes at the cost of inaccessibility to more people. Becoming less accessible also means losing credence and relevance — the two most valuable currency for a journalist.

Simplicity

Simple Vocabulary

Always use common words that everyone is familiar with. Don’t use the word automobile to mean the more familiar term car.

Always use simpler less-sophisticated words over more complicated words — even if the word does not capture 100% of the intended meaning or connotation.

Don’t try to show off your vast vocabulary. Not only does your article become more inaccessible, but you also come off as potentially pretentious and less relatable.

Simple Concepts

If the idea you want to express is too complicated for the general population, then prioritize your preparation time on distilling the concept into the purest form possible. This step can’t be emphasized enough.

Be ready to cut out complexities. If the complex concept has too many exceptions or seeming contradictions that require a higher-order theory to reconcile, then ignore it. Don’t discuss it. If ignoring it renders your entire article to be of no intellectual value, then your article belongs in an academic journal for a targetted audience - not for the general population.

Simple Logic

Keep the level of logic to a minimum. The reader should not have to deliberately stop and think for more than 5 seconds to comprehend your reasoning. Ideally, they should not have to stop and think at all, except perhaps twice at a maximum (and not more than 5 seconds for each stoppage).

In essence, don’t be a lawyer!

(Note: It appears the legal fraternity is slowly drifting from legalese to plain-language drafting.)

Don’t Offend

If your article is offensive or contains anything that is offensive, then ask yourself if you intend to consciously or subconsciously offend factions of the general population. If so, then don’t waste your time even writing the article. It will have zero persuasive value. It will have zero informative value. Your article will achieve absolutely nothing except generate enemies.

If on the other hand, you can honestly say that your intention is not to offend, but your idea or concept is naturally offensive to some, then you need to brace the reader beforehand.

Obviously, most readers will still get offended. That is part of life. However all readers will appreciate the warning — and a small minority will be able to “open their mind” temporarily.

To warn the reader, you can use The Gutter on the side.

Counter Intuition

Everyone has their own understanding of how the world works and how society functions. This is called the “mass–model.” Usually, for any given topic the general population holds a range of views, but when classified in broad strokes, they are limited in number.

In all cases, the mass–model is underpinned by numerous “paradigm–examples.” A paradigm–example is one that is by fiat considered unshakably true and correct. Any attempt to argue otherwise will immediately lose your credibility.

As an example, if I were to present a mathematical and astronomical case that the world was not round, I would immediately lose credibility even before the reader processed the content of my argument. If we rewound the clock 600 years and attempted to prove the contrary statement, we would again be met with similar resistance.

Intuition, on the other hand, is based on simple logical conclusions that derive from paradigm–examples. They are usually 1–2 hops of logical reasoning away from the paradigm–example.

Regardless of whether your content is challenging a paradigm–example or the reader’s intuition, the final result is the same. Your credibility will be devalued, and any logical deductions you make that are inconsistent will be a moot point.

If your article challenges all mass–models of the general population, there is no point in writing your article. It belongs in an academic journal for a targetted audience.

If your article challenges some mass-models but not all, then again consider warning your reader by using The Gutter on the side.

Be Smooth

Each distinct idea that you express (whether demarcated by paragraphs or not), should be smoothly connected with minimal abrupt jumps. It should logically flow like a gentle stream, where one idea directly relates to the next and so forth.

In scholarly articles, it is not uncommon to address anticipated counter-arguments and exceptions. When writing for the general population, keep these disturbances to the flow to only the essential. There is only a limited number of disturbances that the general population can handle before getting bored or overwhelmed. Don’t be tempted to over-include for the sake of “completeness.”

It’s better to simplify by cutting than to over-complicate by including.

Adopting The Right Mindset

For every editorial decision, have the mindset that the audience is the “average person” — Better still, have the mindset of the “average person.”

Always walk in the audience’s shoes. They want to consume news and information. They want to make ethical political decisions. It is up to journalists to make it as easy as possible for them.

It has to become second–nature for you to always consider their level of intelligence, open-mindedness, and tolerance for offensiveness.

You also have to realize that they are time–poor with far more pressing matters always on their mind. Work and family commitments will always come first.

It may be the case that your calibration is way off. Perhaps your family is far “superior” to the general population. Maybe you went to the finest schools and universities. Maybe you always worked in high–profile white–collar environments your entire life. In that case, your calibration probably is way off. There is no substitute for immersing yourself among a broader cross-section of society. Nor is there any excuse.

Just remember that if your article puts too much pressure on them to digest: your article, their opinion of you and your reputation will always end second best.

Exceptions

There are times when explicitly rejecting these principles is prudent. The obvious scenario is when the target audience is not the general population. If that’s the case, the principles never really applied in the first place.

However, let’s assume that your ideas are complex and cannot be simplified further, yet you genuinely believe that you must write it. The key to resolving this dilemma is to cut your losses and create an “exogenous article.”

An exogenous article is one which does not attempt to satisfy these principles. Instead, a more specialized target audience is chosen. It serves to supplement the “masslang version,” but is clearly marked as the authoritative statement of your real opinions.

If the reader of the masslang version seeks further clarification of your position, they will know where to find it.

Disrespect

Some will argue that these principles patronize the reader and are either unethical or counterproductive. This interpretation is perfectly reasonable when looking through the lens of the status–quo. After all, critics of this variety would readily summarize these principles as “dumbing down” the content at the expense of completeness and accuracy, which they say leads to lower-quality journalism, which leads to less-informed members of society. These same critics, however, would rarely vocalize that the principles are grounded on a desire to placate and adapt to the general population — many of whom were not so lucky in the genetic lottery.

These critics can’t be further from the truth. The current status–quo is actually more condescending to the “average person” due to a writing standard that actively disenfranchises large sectors of society from properly consuming the news and information required to make an “informed political decision.”

Conclusion

Sooner or later journalists will learn to see the wisdom of these principles as mostly sound — if not wholly. They will discover that adopting these principles will create articles that are more informative and more persuasive. Their work will resonate more deeply with the general population. Still, some holdouts will remain. These holdouts usually subscribe to a mass-model that expounds the notion that the key to influence is to “sound smart.”

If their goal is to educate and influence the constituents of their political system, then they can look no further than the relative ease in which a brilliant salesperson such as US President Trump was able to dismantle their influence during the Republican Primaries and the 2016 General Election.

Trump highlighted the power of taking a gun to a knife fight all the while his opponents and journalists were smugly “sounding smart.”