Letter to the Op-Ed Columnist

Bill McClellan is a columnist for the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Conservatives who disagree with him call him a liberal. Liberals who disagree with him call him a conservative. I tend to think of him as an individual who typically sides with the common man. Below is a letter I recently submitted to him.

Hello Bill,

I really do enjoy your articles. It helps that we agree on many, many things. I'm sure that I would enjoy setting down to drink a beer with you. Your participation on the KETC Donnybrook program somewhat reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's Junto group. I've always imagined old Ben sitting at a round table discussing political, religious, and scientific topics over a pint of ale. I can see the tin cup in the center of the table. This cup was used to collect penalties of discourse. I assume the funds were used to purchase the next round of ale. Bill, I understand that you are frugal. Your respectfulness is high, so I doubt there would be many opportunities for you to buy a round of ale.

If you and I were members of a Junto, we would disagree on very litte. I guess we would vote the same way. I suggest we have the same passion for the common man. Our professions are different. I am a software engineer, while you are a journalist. I'm sure that you cared back in the late nineties that many jobs in my field were lost to overseas competition after de-regulation. Many op-ed journalist supported de-regulation. Thomas Freidman and David Brooks were among the highest acclaimed opinion shapers in the field of journalism when it came to the free market economy.

Every morning for the last 15 years I've read the op-ed articles under a bowl of Raisin Nut Bran cereal. If the mood was right I would substitute eggs for the cereal. If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm very opinionated. Sometimes I agree with the opinion shapers and other times I don't. More likely than not, I find a flaw in the journalist method of reason. The inability to bring visibility to these flaws has festered for many years.

Bill, while I do respect you and mean you no harm, your profession is obsolete. There is a better way. I have a theory. The best argument of an average individual is better than the average argument of the best op-ed journalist.

A Better Way

What if the media model was flipped up side down where the journalist was the student and the reader the teacher?

Iteration is a major factor for developing an intelligent argument. An argument is forever changing. Coaching and public measurement provides the motivation for an author to change direction or clarify his or her point of view.

Random attempts to get people to review my thesis is nearly always met with resistance. The idea is not mainstream, there is too much to absorb, and the current website lacks resemblance to the end product. The addition of the five point gauge provides a minuscule sample of the end product. Though there is not enough functionality to sustain interest.

An idea to stimulate more interaction may be within reach. Key to this idea is coaching. A reader is allowed to vote on an article as much as they wish, though the last vote is the only one which counts toward the score. Prior votes are maintained as a measure for the author to determine the progress of the article. Along with the five point gauge an attribute could be provided allowing the reader to volunteer as a coach for the author and/or the article. As a coach the reader will be emailed a message when the author publishes a new revision of the article. This email would trigger the reader to re-examine the article, provide private comments, and to re-score the value of the argument.

This coaching mechanism provides a limit for the number of articles a reader is responsible for. The Do Good Gauge as a whole is understood to be overwhelming. There are aspects of the idea which relate to psychology, philosophy, political science, journalism, mass communication, computer science, cognitive science, theology, and many other un-thought of areas of study. A given individual is not expected to have an interest in all of these ideas. One hundred or more participants would likely provide coverage of the expertise necessary to improve the quality of the Do Good Gauge argument in a manner worthy of higher visibility. The energy of the millions of individual who attentively read op-ed political articles with disdain and mistrust could be channeled in a more productive manner. Bill, this I suggest is the better way.

Best Regards,

Scott Nesler
The Do Good Gauge