When Writing About The 'Right Topic' Is Wrong

The booming market for US Election hot takes is a double edged sword for non-US experts and pundits.

When writing any form of commentary the easy option is to choose topics that are timely and have mass appeal.

Is Moo Deng, the baby pygmy hippopotamus that took the internet “by storm” with its cuteness, still trending across the world?

If yes, then the rational choice as someone looking to gain a following is to talk about Moo Deng.

Trending stories and topics exist as market opportunities for content producers.

This is as true for political commentators as it is for teens on TikTok, maybe more so, as the world is full of cute stuff but sometimes lacking in viral political intrigue.

They/I/We want attention, for whatever bizarre personal reason, so it makes sense to piggyback on stories and topics that have already captured a large and voracious audience, even if the original goal may have been to stick to one's ‘wheelhouse’.

It's the click economy, many academics have studied it (particularly its effect on editorial decision making, you can read more about this here - https://www.mlar.sk/the-clicking-economics-of-media-and-shifts-in-news-content-the-case-of-north-cyprus-online-media/), and its entrenched in the minds of most commentators at this point.

The end result of the click economy on audiences has been people engaging with a proliferation of shallow content rather than fewer but deeper takes.

That's fine when the trending topic is an adorable animal, like Moo Deng, but it becomes an issue when the most powerful and influential nation is undertaking a contentious and seemingly really close election that will have potentially significant ripple effects across the globe.

The US Election is everywhere, as it should be, and anyone writing about anything else is going up against the pundit equivalent of the Super Bowl.

They might as well be writing about shifting editorial decision making in Northern Cyprus online media for all the good it would do.

Again, this is fair. The US Election ‘matters’ and it does great numbers so of course every commentator regardless of preexisting knowledge, traditional subject matter, or even outlet.

Things that started as film reviews now become exercises in ‘How the film's villain is a metaphor for Trump’.

Editors and their outlets are right to do so from an economic perspective - this is a bullish market, even the punditry equivalent of penny stocks are seeing out-sized action - but it leads to lousy writing and lazy ideas gaining traction out of sheer volume.

As a writer, you owe whatever audience you have managed to muster the decency of humility, of knowing what you don't know and what you can't articulate sufficiently.

I studied international relations for two years at Victoria Uni, which felt largely focused on US politics, and then I stopped because it stopped being fun.

I still follow US politics closely, and I have opinions on it, but I understand it to an undergrad-level as a far-flung outsider my attempt would be sophomoric.

One of the overarching themes of this Substack is the relationship between the public and institutions that can sway or curry favour with the public.

I've dedicated my adult life to understanding and working within this interplay, which is probably why I'm more comfortable writing about it than I am writing about the pros and cons of Kamala Harris as President.

Trying to be everyone's everything is not always the right strategy, even in a popularity contest.