Everybody has one. It’s the summary statement of what we believe; the marriage of Truth, Fact and Experience.
Maybe.
It’s reasonable to presume some number of us have not objectively examined how our narrative was formed. Most often it comes from an assimilation of things with which we agree and a rejection of those we don’t. How and why we deem certain things ‘agreeable’ and not others is the issue. This is not about Brussels sprouts and root canal versus ice cream and orgasms. These pages properly praise some matters and keelhaul others not easily defined. Personally, I suspect readership is comprised of those who generally agree across the spectrum.
Example: after 26 posted articles on a variety of subjects, I’ve received two generously complimentary comments and 0 critical despite the subject matter and my email/web site posted at the bottom of each piece – including this one. For clarification, I am not trolling for fan or hate mail; merely illustrating the point that readers and writers here appear to be in general agreement. OTOH, it could be all my other colleagues are receiving love letters or death threats and I’m just lucky that way.
Irrespective of the sidebar above, the question is: how is your narrative composed? Are the ingredients (facts) researched and supported by other trusted and true sources? Or are they included because they feel good for whatever the emotional connection and so you agree? This is important. To be true to yourself, your personal integrity, to be able to share and defend your narrative with unassailable facts, becomes your impenetrable shield against the slings and arrows of uninformed, unthinking chowder heads. (See: Mainstream Media, most liberals, some conservatives, libertarians, non-descript independents and politically uninformed agnostics).
From my personal observation and ‘new boy’ status, The Blue State Conservative is populated with talented writers, many with oblique perspectives that make unique points which can fortify one’s narrative without employing the ubiquitous ‘talking points’, the roadside trash littering the Information Highway. Talking points are used when there’s nothing of value to say. This isn’t to impinge all other sites and aggregators with a parallel philosophy. It is to suggest, when considering how to fortify your personal narrative for public exposure, to give credence to the old adage “garbage in, garbage out”.
Paraphrasing the personification of individual integrity, Bill Clinton, it depends on what the definition of ‘garbage’ is. Based on content, The Blue State Conservative is a worthy measurement of what to leave in, what to leave out. Reading it is indicative of a strong commitment to factual integrity. There are additional worthy sources. Research them for the same consistent accuracy and facts that will challenge your principles and sharpen your narrative.
How great would that be?
By Brian Wilson
Brian Wilson is a nationally ignored talk show host and occasional un-indicted co-contributor. He recently released his fourth book, “50 Stories; 50 Years in Radio”, now busily scribbling an unlikely screenplay for Book #3. With his spare hour, he is focused on splitting the atom and pursuing the ever-elusive Whirled Peas, all from his technically challenged studios on the formerly pristine shores of the Great Unnamed Lake, allegedly in the Southeast. Brian is also a regular contributor to The Blue State Conservative.
This story syndicated with permission from The Blue State Conservative