Post

Government’s wins are often invisible: Systems that avoid plane crashes; alliances that avert war; surveillance that prevent pandemics. Government wins are often *the avoidance of loss.* So how do we tell the story of the destruction of government? The story of future losses *not* averted?

This question has been haunting me ever since Elon & co began their govt wrecking spree. Journalists are crippled in telling this tale. We cannot tally the wins because we cannot ever fully know why a war didn’t start or a plane didn’t crash. And we cannot tally losses that are in the future.

This is different than covering the private sector. Their wins and losses are easily measured in profit & loss categories. They do not count their wins in losses averted. And their failures are often hidden behind closed doors, trade secrets and NDAs.

Government’s public mission forces it to be transparent. Governments are subject to public records laws and public hearings. That means it's easier for journalists to uncover government failings than it is to cover corporate malfeasance. And yes, it is our job to do so.

But this information asymmetry has allowed cynical corporate aligned politicians to develop a false narrative that the government is a failing “deep state” that must be destroyed. That is not true. The proof is obvious: People want to move here. And it’s not just because of our great shopping.

32 reposts158 likes

People don’t want to move to failed states, no matter how great their malls are. They want to move to a place where they feel they’ll have a fair shake. Where they don’t have to bribe officials. Where the water and air is clean. Where they believe that wrongdoers will face justice.

Accountability is not free. It costs money to train and build a professional non-political civil service that is not just in it for bribes. It costs money to train and recruit for a court system that is independent and fair-minded. But the public supporting this wrecking spree doesn’t see that.

They only know seethe with their selected guru in revenge therapy daily The party of revenge daily As if in the arena watching Cassius Clay pummel the opponent in a fervor glee

So it has to be sold in specific and human terms: "Musk is defunding children's hospitals. Let's hear from this nurse who works at one." Many people think billionaires are cool and could not define "oligarchy" if a lit match was an inch from their foreheads.

Americans have been told for decades that the government sucks and the national debt is a disaster waiting to happen. Left and Right hate the government in different ways and for different reasons. Opposing Trump and Musk is an institutionalist project. That is a tough sell.

So we need to rethink how we as journalists tell this story. How do we write about losses averted? And the losses that loom when government functions are destroyed? I’m inspired by creators like @underthedesknews.bsky.social who regularly features “good news” about things working in government.

But as a data-journalist, I’m also itching for something more substantial. Could we be a little experimental in our analysis of government effectiveness? Could we be more comparative in our coverage of, say, our EPA versus environmental protections in other countries?

This is key. Valuing loss avoidance has always been hard, but the info asymmetry is new. The A to first Q is "by sad counter-example," but w/ disinfo, even that no longer works. ("The plane/economy/YOUR job/YOUR kids crashed because DEI/CRT/woke.") Antidote is also in the message: "He lied to you."