The Week
I really dislike consuming the news circuit on TV and my phone. I don’t trust the algorithms feeding me endless articles and videos, I don’t need the information overload, and I find my anxiety grows and my attention suffers when I take in too much news.
But I do like reading some news. It helps me connect ideas and explore new ones, and I think it’s good for a democratic society to know what’s happening. This is why subscribing to The Week has felt like a good call for our family.
The 30-page or so magazine comes to our house - no surprise, weekly - the old fashioned way through mail (although digital options are available a well). That might not be the best move for the environment (I confess), but it means I don’t have to look at the news on my phone which has other benefits. I can pick up the magazine when I want and set it down when I want. I can leave it at home. I can read it without blue light messing with my ability to sleep. It doesn’t flash ads and new content at me every 5 seconds. It doesn’t make my phone beep. You get the point.
Having it physically present in our home also means my teenage kids find it lying around the house and end up reading it as well. Then they often ask me and Chelsea questions about something they read - a social issue, government, economics, or an ethical controversy. I’m glad for the way it provokes conversation just by lying on the ottoman. It’s a gentle way to encourage critical thinking in our house.
Seems like I should mention The Week is also our dog’s favorite publication to chew and destroy. I’m not sure what that means. But it’s gotta mean something.
It’s also different than other periodicals in that it summarizes recent columns, opinions, and commentary from a variety of other cited news sources. Most of the magazine is drawing attention to the basics of what happened and what other publications are saying about it - all in abbreviated form. It succinctly and consistently covers a variety of voices (progressive, conservative, libertarian, centrist) and includes both American and international perspectives. It does an excellent job synthesizing these various voices into an easy-to-read flow of thought while ultimately leaving what to think up to you.
It’s a simple publication with minimal design, but the cover art is something I look forward to seeing when I pull it from my mailbox. My youngest daughter has started using the word “cheeky” in my home - either because she’s watched the British Junior Bake Off or because we live in row houses with people who used to live in the United Kingdom (either way, it’s adorable). But “cheeky” is the right word for this publication’s art and articles - just the right dose of irreverence and humor without being rude. I like news that doesn’t take itself too seriously while avoiding attacks that stoke fear.
I’ve often started an article in The Week with some internal sense of my feelings or position on an issue only to have that assumption challenged, if not changed, because of the way opposing and nuanced voices are given space. In a time when invisible algorithms feed us digital news that confirms our own biases, it’s too easy to not only ignore alternative positions but to forget alternative positions even exist. Spending time with this magazine reminds me things aren’t so simple. Even if my opinions don’t change as a result, I’ve often finished an article and said to myself out loud, “Well, that’s a really hard issue, isn’t it.” Now at least I can see perspectives I couldn’t before.
So many issues reveal themselves to be deeply complex with even some investigation. It’s often hard to fully understand things going on in our society, apply effective solutions, and act redemptively in response. In a world full of simplistic tag lines and repetitive talking heads, just pausing to acknowledge the existence of complexity feels like a win.
I once heard some friends - while lamenting the ego, outrage, polarization, and lack of critical thinking in the current American situation - suggest the following experiment:
What if we refrained from arguing our own position until we:
Learned about the position of the opposing side.
Were able to repeat the opposing side’s position back the opposing side in a way that they could respond, “Yes, that’s what I meant” - in other words, free from caricature and exaggeration.
And then express our own position, even if we still disagreed.
That theoretical opportunity might not always be available in conversation (and certainly not on social media), but if we’re going to cultivate humility in our own souls and move toward actual solutions for what’s broken in our world, we’ll need to recapture the art of actually listening, thinking, and innovating together. That would be so different than having our positions reinforced by our side over and over again, having fears inflamed about the other side by people who are making money from our fear, resulting in shouting at the other side and even dehumanizing them.
Sounds like this experiment would be good for our marriages as well.
Maybe that’s why I appreciate The Week the most. Is it completely balanced? Of course not (it leans center-left most frequently). But it’s disciplined in providing space for a wider-range of voices - even voices that likely would disagree with the publication’s editors. I like to read things that help me learn to practice a little more humility and listen a little better. Hopefully it teaches my teenagers and me something about not rushing to conclusions. In a small way, maybe that makes us better agents of hope in the world.
