Penny Wiseacre

Would you all like to be lab rats?

I don't talk much about my day job on my personal blog for many reasons, some of which may actually demonstrate mature good judgment.

But one of the ongoing tasks I have is to assess email as an effective form of editorial content. I spend a lot of time thinking about email newsletters -- what makes the good ones good, why they work in this age of social media and texting, how to make them work better, how much effort it takes to produce something of value to the readers.

It's one thing to think big thoughts on the job. I'm also doing some private experimenting so I can bring real-world experience to bear on anything I say on the job.

My new experiment: I've launched a semi-daily newsletter of my own through Tiny Letter. It's called So What, Who Cares, and you can subscribe here.

So What, Who Cares is published every Monday-Thursday night. I point out three to five things that you might like to know, explaining why they matter (So what?) and who they affect (Who cares?). It's a news digest with context -- and the odd bit of pop culture gushing when I read or see something worth my time.

Because I am commiting to my professional experiment for a few months, long-form blogging here will be infrequent at best. But I hope to see you all via Twitter, or via subscription to So What, Who Cares. (You can read the archive here.)

And if you all have ideas on how to continue conversations based on what I'm covering in So What, Who Cares ... I'm all ears. Facebook? Twitter? Open posts here? Tell me.

In defense of the explicitly awful (or why I'm glad I wasn't warned)

I read Luke Malone's well-researched, nuanced and thorough piece at Medium yesterday, You’re 16. You’re a Pedophile. You Don’t Want to Hurt Anyone. What Do You Do Now?

The opening is raw, because it describes a specific, recorded act of abuse against a physically restrained 18-month-old child, detailing both the sights and sounds that the story's subject (and, presumably, the reporter) saw in the footage.

(I am not linking the piece, but I will note that a slightly less stomach-dropping iteration of it aired on This American Life in April.)

I nearly tweeted something all outrage-y at Medium to ask why they didn't include a trigger warning or any indication that the story leads with disturbing, explicit content. Today, 24 hours later, I think I can understand why there wasn't any trigger warning.

(The Awl's interview with Luke Malone is both enlightening and problematic; I urge you all to check it out for a behind-the-scenes look at how he reported the story.)

First off -- it's a story about people who want to have sex with very small children. That alone should tip you off to the nature of the subject matter.

Second  -- It's one thing to talk about children's sexual abuse in the removed language of social policy, all, "Well, child sexual abuse is defined by a power differential, a knowledge differential and a gratification differential." It is another to see all three of those things as they appear in real life. The explicit example helps define the scope of the evil perpetrated.

Third -- Understanding exactly what is out there -- and understanding your own reaction to it -- cracks open the rest of the piece: The terror of realizing that you need help and everyone you ask is going to recoil, doubled by the terror that you'll become the monster in the footage.

My heart goes out to the young man who is at the heart of the article's piece: He did not ask for the sexual makeup he has. This piece is ultimately about how poorly we as a society provide preventive measures for at-risk populations. Prevention is a vital component in providing protection to our most vulnerable fellow humans.

The article would have been diminished if we did not understand exactly how high the stakes are -- both for the young man who needs help to avoid becoming a monster, and for the people who would cross his path if he didn't get that help.