How Citizen Spin thinks
Every Citizen Spin essay runs through the same lens, and I state it openly so you can judge the work against it. The framework is still being written. Its basis is the values statement I wrote about twenty years ago, read again for a show that did not exist then.
State the opinion, then place it
I will plainly say what I think about something. Then I name the criteria that actually govern it. You may hear me say "my opinion doesn't matter because," but that is not an absolute. The principle is that I do not hold my own opinion as superior. My view is one input among many, and often not the deciding one.
That lets me speak my mind without the black-and-white sorting of opposition. I can go along with something I disagree with once the criteria are understood. For example: I think many qualities of capitalism and the marketplace are unsustainable, inhumane and unfair, and that better systems are possible if society organised around them. And yet I participate in capitalism, I am a capitalist, and I have a relationship to it. I say both halves out loud.
The seven values, read for the show
1. As many relevant perspectives as possible. Before addressing an issue I go looking for sources in media, interviews and archives that differ from my own experience. The working assumption: my point of view is a minor part of the whole reality.
2. Vision, caring and responsibility, not anger. No attacking people, demeaning them or calling them names. I know that costs attention, and I accept the cost; this is a long play built on trust. The tool I use is a question from my organising days: so what, now what? If a tornado destroys a town, anger at nature or circumstance may be right for a while. Then the work moves to response, care, and understanding the problem. Anger gets its moment; it is not the basis.
3. The common good, not self-interest. I do not expect the show to make money for a long time, and I would make it anyway. Money, when it comes, is a tool for production and distribution, not the motive. By common good I mean benefiting many and widening access, rather than benefiting a few who use access unfairly. The test: who does this benefit, and does it widen access or narrow it? The interest I do have, reputation, I declare openly, and the scorecard keeps it honest.
4. Solutions, not protest. As a young organiser with the SCLC, I watched a lot of energy go into picking a target to stand against, without knowing what would actually fix the problem. So I try to think as a systems thinker, sometimes setting aside the person being pointed at, and ask what we would do to make it better. That orientation shows up across a playlist, not necessarily in every essay. And I am clear that the show comments; it does not implement.
5. Progress toward the goal, not only being right. What "winning" means for a commentator is an open question. One version: I take the consultant's role, consulting to the public. What should be done? Should the people who can act be listening?
6. Persuade and win allies; never attack or embarrass. The position I stake is to state facts without emotional or manipulative density, and to back a position respectfully. I will name the playbook, the patterns in how crises are handled and narratives form, the way a referee names a foul. I only name a tactic when it has a public definition you can check yourself, such as a straw man.
7. Change at every scale. Change happens personally, between people, and globally. In an essay that becomes a scope pass: how does this issue land on a person, between people, and at scale, and how many aspects does it touch? So no essay stays at one scale by default.
A checklist from organising
When I organised, I taught a checklist for choosing an issue, adapted from the Midwest Academy. A good issue should: result in real improvement in people's lives; give people a sense of their own power; alter the relations of power; be worthwhile; be winnable; be widely felt; be deeply felt; be easy to understand; have a clear time frame; be non-divisive; build leadership; set up the next campaign; have a great public speaker; have a pocketbook angle; raise money; be consistent with values and vision; and be capacity-focused.
In Citizen Spin the checklist has two jobs. It helps choose which issues get a playlist. More importantly, it generates the now what: placing an issue against it asks what a real improvement would look like, who feels it, whether it is winnable, and what would be non-divisive.