Help Crosscut continue putting forth uncomfortable truths

Why critical thinking is critical for journalism and our region, and how Crosscut is renewing its commitment. Please renew your financial support as well.

David Brewster.

David Brewster.

Many years ago, touring the American Southwest, I picked up a small local daily and admired its terse and monosyllabic tagline: “The truth. Well told.” I later learned this was the founding motto of the McCann Erickson advertising agency, dating back to 1912. Regardless, my variation of that for Crosscut has been: “Hard truths. Well told.”

A hard truth is an uncomfortable revelation or argument, one that cuts against the grain of conventional understanding, a “crosscut” if you will. Another way of saying it is that a hard truth shakes one from complacency and advances the argument. Journalism, an inexact craft, is always advancing the argument. That means today’s hard truth needs to be pushed aside by a new hard truth.

But one truth holds firm for this adventure in thoughtful, fair-minded, and community-supported public journalism: we need your support as an Annual Member. Now, during the fall pledge drive, our biggest of the year, is a good time to join or renew. Memberships have tiered privileges, and start as low as $35 a year.

One of the things that I admire about Crosscut is how many writers it has who know how to tack against the winds of prevailing and tired outlooks. Some examples: Jordan Royer’s case for a balanced economy in Seattle, not just a research-based workforce. Doug MacDonald’s uncomfortable discovery that our growth management strategy is not working, since people are moving to where they are not supposed to go. Knute Berger’s crusade to extend our sentimental attachment to historic preservation to all kinds of much more difficult opportunities. Judy Lightfoot’s discovery, in helping homeless and mentally ill people, that they can be very helpful to her. Mark Hinshaw’s tough-minded critique of the preliminary designs for Seattle’s waterfront park, making the point that our penchant for satisfying all possible players is producing a mish-mash.

I also like that these stories are "well told" by writers with voice and personality and a feeling for vivid detail.

We are all trained in school to use “critical thinking.” It’s a way of eluding the emotional and illogical traps of many arguments, thinking things through critically and with independent sources of information. Seattle, which tends toward niceness and complacency, very much needs more critical thinking. It’s coming, for our educated workforce thrives on this kind of rigor in its highly competitive businesses. (Microsoft workers, it’s said, never met an idea that they couldn’t critique.) Those of us who practice it need moral and financial support, for we are habitually brushed off as reflexive “contrarians” or grouches.

So I might suggest a new tagline for this kind of journalism. “Critical. Thinking.”

Crosscut is a critical, meaning essential, aspect of our local civic culture. I’m thrilled that our new publisher, Greg Shaw, is deeply committed to this kind of probing, fresh, challenging journalism. Under him and the new jolt of energy and funding he is bringing to Crosscut, this institution will long last, stay true to its mission of smart journalism, and add all sorts of new dimensions to the online medium we practice. Please join me by becoming an annual member and giving a boost to the new directions, new leadership, and the fine old cause of journalism in the public interest.

Like what you just read? Start or renew your Crosscut membership online today.


Topics: Media

About the Author

David Brewster is founder of Crosscut and editor-at-large. You can e-mail him at david.brewster@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, Oct 8, 12:49 p.m. Inappropriate

Great sentiments, Brewster, and thank you for your fine work over the past 50 years.

And I realize that you have neither the direct responsibility nor the time to monitor every myth/lie/falsehood which creeps in to X-Cut.

But I wish you would have someone examine the myth of declining tree canopy. I read it once again in Martha Baskin's piece
http://crosscut.com/2012/10/05/environment/110849/if-madronas-could-talk-would-they-beg-more-tree-fr/?_cs=1#c38128
in which she writes "Solito says forty years ago the city’s tree canopy was 40 percent, compared to the current 23 percent."

Solito may believe it but it is not true. I've corresponded with Knute on this over the past several years and I think that I have been able to show Knute and even convince him that the declining Seattle tree canopy is based on one faulty study. ("Convinced" albeit grudgingly, as I think that Knute, like many others in Seattle of our age, would prefer to see little before us but decline)

So, if you are interested in hard truth, please get someone on to the "declining tree canopy" lie.

Posted Mon, Oct 8, 1:22 p.m. Inappropriate


To me, "hard truths well told" is the best reason for giving sustaining financial support to Crosscut. Among the hard truths are topics that the remaining local mainstream press, radio and TV shun, under-report, or distort in reporting. Examples:

* Persisting racial and gender discrimination by organizations that publicly pledge otherwise.

* Lobbying in Olympia -- who's getting what amounts of cash or other favors from whom, and with what effect?

* Is the "climate of opinion" in The Great Nearby changing concerning the Israel-Palestine situation (variously defined by various groups), the various forms of US involvement (are these complicity in, or support of?) in the Israel-Palestine situation? -- and consequences of same for Israel, for the US, and for The Great Nearby. There ARE consequences for us, whether the "climate of opinion" is changing, or it's not changing.)

Charlton2

Posted Mon, Oct 8, 2:35 p.m. Inappropriate

Thanks for explaining the source of "Crosscut." If you explained the goal behind the name before, I missed it.

As for "critical thinking," yes occasionally schools attempt to teach it, but generally it is something that comes to one via independent learning, after or apart from schooling. Alas, not many people appear to have time any more for the necessary reflection.

A word of warning. You are the second web personality I have experienced proclaiming critical thinking. If Crosscut's past is any indication, Crosscut is far more serious about the matter than Walter Russell Mead, who just went so far as to remove the ability to comment from his "critical thinking" site. Needless to say, in that the value I found there was in the cross talk, I don't go there anymore.

afreeman

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »