Long-time reader Damen writes a diary today in which he notes the appearance of “tunnel vision” in the subject matter of writing at Irregular Times lately: a lot of consideration of the Patriot Act, the war in Libya and Americans Elect, to the detriment of a number of other subjects of interest.
Damen’s post raises a number of questions in my mind:
1. Which is preferable in political writing: posts raising awareness (if glancingly) on a number of topics, or posts returning often to a particular subject of interest to develop detailed understanding (at the expense of breadth)?
2. Is that a false dichotomy? Is there a third option?
3. Are there technologies or techniques that could help we at Irregular Times to be more efficient in our work or more broad in our knowledge?
4. Apart from the abstract issue of breadth versus depth, are there substantive subject areas that the writers at Irregular Times should be looking into but for which we seem to have a blind eye?
5. What is Irregular Times about?
It never hurts to pause occasionally for some self-reflection; more useful than self-reflection is feedback.
This is an invitation. Please, let us know what you think about what you’ve been reading (and not reading) at Irregular Times lately. I won’t promise that we’ll follow your advice, but I do promise that we’ll listen.
