#5m4f

Familiarize yourself with the ombudsman’s office of your news sources: Part of this task is just familiarizing yourself with what an ombudsman (not always called an ombudsman these days) does. The ombudsman (or equivalent) at a news outlet is the body that acts as the advocate for the public at that news outlet: there usually is one main, head-person of some sort, who may be referred to either as “the ombudsman” directly (or some less gendered version of that), or as “the public editor,” as at The New York Times. However, they often have a staff, which is why I’m using the phrase “the ombudsman’s office”, rather than just saying “ombudsman” by itself. (Also, note that I’m using “ombudsman” rather than “public editor” because it’s a more established term and it’s also going to be a lot less confusing when it comes to bullet pt. 2, which is about sending letters to the editor—the editor editor, not the public editor. See?)

Anyway. In their role as the defenders of the public interest, the ombudsman’s office does things like investigate complaints about their outlet’s behavior, or advocate for reader interests behind closed doors at that outlet; as well as enforcing the outlet's rules on journalistic ethics. If you want to take issue with the conduct of a news outlet (e.g., this paper’s reporting on A is consistently misleading or inaccurate because of X, Y, and Z), and you actually want action, not just a letter that is published in that outlet for the record and/or other readers, you should contact the office of the ombudsman. Which, again, may not actually be called the office of the ombudsman, which can make things a little tricky.

This is one occasion where Google is both the simplest and, I suspect, the best option. I happened to know that the public editor of the NY Times is called the public editor, so I googled “new york times ombudsman” to see what happened: Google did exactly the right thing, and returned the NY Times public editor’s office as the first result. I am going to guess, without loads of evidence but with a pretty strong hunch, that you can do this for most reputable media outlets and get pretty decent results.

Your task, for this subheading heading, is to find the ombudsman’s office (or equivalent) for the two (or more) main news sources that we chose last time; and track down the information you would need to contact them. Also make a note of how they publicly respond to inquiries: i.e., do they publish a blog or regular column about their work? If so, where can you find that? In your 5M4F document, either make note of, or save a link to, both any requirements that the ombudsman’s office makes for incoming complaints, and the place where you see the results. If there is a specific person identified as the ombudsman or public editor, note their name, too. Here is my entry for NPR (so, if NPR is one of your sources, you can just copy paste this--that's one source as a freebie!):

NPR Ombudsman/Public Editor: Elizabeth Jensen - @EJensenNYC

Familiarize yourself with the process for sending letters to the editor to your news sources: This should really say "letters to the editor or equivalent" but I'm getting tired of typing "or equivalent" over and over, so. If one of your sources is NPR (for example), they don't publish letters to the editor but they do accept and sometimes play listener comments, which would be the equivalent. You're smart people, you can use your judgement.

Anyway, letters or otherwise, figure out how your preferred news outlets accept and publish reader/listener/consumer feedback, whatever form that takes. Once again, track down the information you would need to give them that reader/listener/consumer feedback. Also make a note of how they publicly respond to inquiries: i.e., do they publish a regular "Letters" column? Do they play listener calls every morning at 8:11? Whatever form this appears in, where can you find it? In your 5M4F document, either make note of, or save a link to, both any requirements that the editor’s office makes for incoming letters, and the place where you see the results. Here is my entry for The Guardian (so, if The Guardian is one of your sources, you can just copy paste this--that's one source as a freebie!):

Letters to the Editor at The Guardian: [email protected] - more info

Write your first letter to the editor: Again, or equivalent: if you're going to make a call, the equivalent would be to write a script for yourself, practice it, and then make your call.

Probably the easiest place to write a letter at the moment is on the neutering of the ACA and the GOP's genuinely life-threatening proposal to replace it, especially if you are a person who is covered by the exchanges and in danger of losing your care. Lots of news outlets are asking for reader/listener stories, so this is an easy way to ease yourself in to the process of getting involved with your news sources, if that seems overwhelming on a broader scale.

If you don't want to write about healthcare, the question to ask yourself is: what is this news outlet's coverage missing, or obscuring, or eliding? As you're reading the news this week, especially when you're reading about issues dear to your heart and close to your lived reality, think about what the news articles say, and more importantly don't say? What do you know that can add to this story? That's your letter. Good letters to the editor are generally very short (significantly less than a page). That can make them hard to write when you're not familiar with the process, but it also means that you don't, like, have to do seven hours of research to write a letter to the editor. You want to keep your letter short, simple, and to the point: my recommendation is, if you're not familiar with how to do that, that you just write as much as you need to to get your idea out. Then, you cut it down, rewriting as needed to make things more concise. Once you get used to the process of honing your ideas to fit, letters to the editor will also become pretty quick to write.

Complain about Steve Bannon: Honestly at this point I don’t really care why you complain about Steve Bannon, just that you do it. There are just so many things to complain about. Given that he’s described the media as “the opposition party,” that’s certainly a fruitful potential place to start. Note that some issues are going to require you to be a bit cannier than others: note that Bannon's stated position on several topics (e.g. healthcare, DACA) has softened, but that matters very little in terms of how terrifying his actual actions have been.

Whatever you choose to tackle, write your postcard to President Bannon, asking him to rein in his <insert demeaning job title here> Donald Trump on the topic you've chosen, and then [make your calls] to your representatives asking them to go on record against Bannon's position on that topic.

New feature! I’ve compiled a summary of Senators and Congresspersons of particular interest, i.e., representatives whose seats that were considered “battleground” races in 2016 and are likely to have an especially hard time in 2018/2020/2022. Again, these people likely fall into one of two categories: one, they’re Tea Party hardliners who won’t help us out; or two, they’re moderates holding onto mixed or moderate districts. We want to press that second group, and press them hard, because that is how you swing mixed/moderate districts to the left.

In the parentheses after their names, I’m giving these representatives states, their parties, and their margins of victory in 2016. Note that the list is alphabetical first by state, then by the rep’s name. If your representative(s) is (are) on this list, especially if their margin was especially small, it is particularly important that you put pressure on them, and get other people in your district to put pressure on them too, because your vote could very well be their next swing vote—and they know it. If you contact these people, please either reblog or send me an ask letting me know how it went if you have a second (were they receptive? did you have to jump through hoops to get at them?) and I will compile (anonymously if you wish) that feedback to help other We With Us’ers put pressure where it hurts.

Congresspersons of particular interest (all info from Ballotpedia): Tom O’Halleran (AZ, D, 7.3%), Ami Bera (CA, D, 2.3%), Stephen Knight (CA, R, 6.3%), Darrel Issa (CA, R, 0.5%), Mike Coffman (CO, R, 8.3%), Stephanie Murphy (FL, D, 3%), Brian Mast (FL, R, 10.5%), Carlos Curbelo (FL, R, 11.8%), Brad Schneider (IL, D, 5.2%), Rod Blum (IA, R, 7.7%), Bruce Poliquin (ME, R, 9.6%), Jack Bergman (MI, R, 14.8%), Jason Lewis (MN, R, 1.8%), Don Bacon (NE, R, 1.2%), Jacky Rosen (NV, D, 1.3%), Ruben Kihuen (NV, D, 4%), Carol Shea-Porter (NH, D, 1.3%), Josh Gottheimer (NJ, D, 4.4%), John Faso (NY, R, 8.6%), Claudia Tenney (NY, R, 5.5%), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA, R, 8.9%), Will Hurd (TX, R, 1.3%), Barbara Comstock (VA, R, 5.8%). You can also refer to the lists of DCCC/NRCC targeted incumbents for 2018, though those are much longer and kiiiiind of like the Democrat/Republican letters to Santa, at this point in the game.

Senators of particular interest (all info from Ballotpedia): Marco Rubio (FL, R, 7.7%), Tammy Duckworth (IL, D, 15.1%), Todd Young (IN, R, 9.7%), Roy Blunt (MO, R, 2.8%), Catherine Cortez Masto (NV, D, 2.4%), Maggie Hassan (NH, D, 0.1%), Richard Burr (NC, R, 5.7%), Pat Toomey (PA, R, 1.4%), Ron Johnson (WI, R, 3.4%). Note that none of these senators are up for election again until 2022, and that Democratic senators, writ large, are, right now, feeling much more vulnerable than Republican senators, writ large.

Engage thoughtfully if you live in one of the states that appears to have a state-wide rising Republican tide: try to focus on the bipartisan elements of the issues that you’re arguing for, and (even if you can't keep it bipartisan) keep it personal, rather than general. Your Tea Party-backed senator doesn't give two shits about human rights, but they do have to care about how what they do in Washington costs their constituents.

Also, for now: don’t contact any of these people if they don’t represent you directly. That can have value when it looks like one of them might be about to make a broader run (e.g. for state-wide office, if they’re in the House; or for the presidency), but for now it’s just going to be a waste of your time.

A note on protesting amid breaking news: As always, I recommend searching a reputable news source, like one of those two news sources you picked in 5M4F15 or The Guardian if you haven’t done that one yet, shortly before you make your calls, for any breaking-news updates that may require you to tweak your scripts. It’s often also useful to check your representatives’ website to see what press releases they have on a given subject, so you know whether (for example) they have already gone on-record as opposing Steve Bannon. If they have? Ask them to do it again. Make it clear that this stuff is important to you.

How to Write Your Scripts (excerpted from 5M4F-5): The basic phone script for calling your representatives goes something like so:

Hi, {can I ask who I’m speaking to? <, if they don’t say when they pick up>} _[Jot their name down.] _Hi, <their name>. My name is <your name> and I’m one of <your representative’s name>’s constituents in <where you live>. I wanted to let <your representative’s name> know that I strongly <support | oppose> <the thing you’re calling about>, because <succinct explanation of reason why you’re calling>. Is <your representative’s name> planning to <do the thing you want>?

Then you have to plan for a few different responses:

They’re with you: Thank you. Could you please let <appropriate pronoun> know that <expression of gratitude> and <indication that you will continue to watch your representative’s behavior and hold them accountable>?

They’re neutral: This subject is very important to me because <longer, more in-depth and emotive reason why you’re calling>. I would very much appreciate it if you could let <your representative’s name> know that I feel very strongly about this and would really encourage <appropriate pronoun> to <do the thing you want>. Is there any way I could follow up with you or <appropriate pronoun> later?

They oppose you: This subject is very important to me because <longer, more in-depth and emotive reason why you’re calling>. Can I ask why <your representative’s name> is <not doing the thing you want>? [Let them give you a reason, and write it down.] Okay, thank you. I understand <appropriate pronoun> concerns, but as one of <your representative’s name>’s voting constituents, I would really appreciate it if <appropriate pronoun> revisited <appropriate pronoun> decision because <alternate ****succinct explanation of reason why you’re calling>. Is there any way I could follow up with you or <appropriate pronoun> later?

<expression of gratitude>! <polite send-off>!

I want to point out that you probably don’t actually really need to plan for all of these responses. You can probably make a pretty good guess where your representative stands based on their party affiliation. However, especially if your representatives are moderates and often vote across the aisle, it’s not a bad idea to spend a little time planning for all three cases, because then your behind is covered, and you can recycle this language over and over on later calls, to different representatives. And yes: we will be calling other representatives.

This is the sample script that I wrote back in November, on a different issue and to Barbara Boxer, who has been replaced by Kamala Harris, but it gives you an idea how the Mad-Libs-filling process works:

Hi, {can I ask who I’m speaking to? <, if they don’t say when they pick up>} _[Jot their name down.] _Hi, <their name>. My name is <Ginny Washington>, and I’m one of <Senator Boxer>’s constituents in <West Hollywood>. I wanted to let <Senator Boxer> know that I strongly <support> <her resolution to amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College>, because <I think every American’s vote should count equally>. **{I just wanted to thank her for all her hard work on behalf of the principles of equal representation and equal protection under the law.**}

<Thank you so much for your time>! <Have a nice day>!

If you can’t make calls: I recommended before that if you can’t make calls, you copy down snail mail addresses so you can send snail mail letters, and that you grab an email address or online contact link no matter what. Calls are the most effective, if you can make them, but please, do send snail mail letters if you can’t, or an email if you also can’t swing a stamp or get to a post office. You can use the script above as a template for your letter, but you’re probably going to want to default to assuming that your representative opposes you, and you’ll have to of course make it sound like a letter and not a phone convo.

If you care about correct forms of address: weirdly, because these things are super arcane, technically the correct way to address your senator or representative is still “The Honorable <whoever>”, as in, “The Honorable Barbara Boxer.” That goes on the envelope. You can then write “Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. <whoever>” as your salutation.

Call your representatives: We need an independent commission, like the 9/11 commission, with subpoena power, to investigate ties between Trump, his campaign staff, and Russia. It’s way past time: Flynn’s resignation should have made that explicitly clear to everyone by now. Again: Trump launched his 2020 re-election campaign in Florida yesterday. It isn’t like this business of Russian election interference is somehow magically over.

This kind of investigation was originally proposed back in January, when it seemed like all we had to talk about was the email hack, but it didn’t get off the ground.  let’s be really clear about this: Flynn talking to Russian representatives about sanctions before Trump was even in the White House violates every norm we have about the transfer of power between successive administrations (we only have one president at a time! the incoming administration cannot negotiate with foreign governments until they are sworn in). We need for every single person reading this post to contact their representatives, and to get at least two other people to contact their representatives, too: demand that your congressperson publicly back the “Protecting our Democracy” bill introduced by Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and a bunch of other Democrats back in January, and newly backed on Thursday by Representative Walter B. Jones (R-NC), which would establish an independent, nonpartisan commission to investigate Russian interference in the election; and push your senators to also start pushing for an independent commission right away.

The key thing here is the need for an independent commission, like the 9/11 commission, with subpoena power, not more fruitless hamstrung faffing from Congressional Republicans who think reducing taxes for corporations and the 1% is more important than the very real possibility that sensitive information is or has been moving directly from the White House to the intelligence agencies of a foreign government, which, oh, yes, also happens to recently have interfered with our elections. Again: the key phrase here is an independent commission, like the 9/11 commission, with subpoena power. Once more with feeling: an independent commission, like the 9/11 commission, with subpoena power. Say this over and over and over again until it just rolls off your tongue like “I’d like a tall vanilla latte” or “What a beautiful dog!” or “Would you like to go back to my place, Rupert Graves?”

Basically, just make sure to be really, really explicit, when you make your calls: we do not want standing committee investigations; they’re staffed by members of Congress and are therefore not independent, and they often keep information secret. Even a bipartisan select committee is not adequate: the cloud of illegitimacy of Russian interference falls, potentially, on every single official elected in 2016, and that includes every single member of the House, and also a third of the Senate. Make sure your representatives know that’s on your mind, especially if they were elected in 2016.

Gather Your Posse: There are only about a hundred people following this blog; that’s not enough, on its own, to swing anything on our own. But it is enough if each of us recruits two buddies to make these calls with us.

By “recruit” I mean that you talk to them directly, and that you get each of them to affirmatively commit, explicitly, to calling their representatives too. There’s a principle in marketing that if you get someone to give you an affirmative commitment to something small, it both makes them more likely to do the thing that they committed to and it makes them more likely to commit to bigger asks in the future, like, say, voting for anti-Trump pro-human candidates in 2018, and 2020, and 2022. So I’ll start with you guys, before I work offline on getting my parents to commit to call: reblog this post or send us an ask to commit to making your calls this week! It’ll help hold you to it, and we’ll cheer you on! Then get two people, on or offline, RL friends or internet friends, to commit to you that they will make their calls, too.

You don’t have to be an asshole about this at all—in fact, I encourage you to not be an asshole about this—but I will say, if you’ve ever wanted to learn how to be an asshole marketer just to shore up your supervillain powers for the future, this isn’t a bad place to start.

And now for our recurring series, What is Steve Bannon Breaking This Week?

Free and Fair Elections: because Bannon is less obviously and overtly involved with Russia than other parts of Trump’s campaign machinery (though, lbr, he’s still the brains of this operation, so it’s not like he’s totally uninvolved), we’re going to have to approach our postcards and our calls a little bit differently this week.

A bit of concern trolling never goes awry. Start by writing a postcard to “President Bannon” expressing concern about how his aide Donald Trump’s refusal to call for an independent commission, like the 9/11 commission, with subpoena power, to investigate Russian interference is casting a cloud over President Bannon’s legitimate election back in November.

Then complain about Bannon to your actual elected representatives: Take a different tack when you call real politicians. Steve Bannon has publicly lauded Putin’s “traditionalism” as a key “underpinning of nationalism”, while openly admitting the kleptocracy (he even used that word!!) of Putin’s regime. He just doesn’t think it matters, since Russia, like the U.S., is part of the “Judeo-Christian West.” (TRANSLATION: at least Putin is white / hates ladies / isn’t a Muslim!!!) Give your senators and house representative a call to let them know that Putin’s kleptocracy should be appalling to anyone who supports democracy, and that Bannon’s choice of racist ideology over democratic ideals is horrifying for someone on the National Security Council and with a hand on the the puppet strings of the ear of the president. Insist that they speak out publicly against Bannon’s influence.

New feature! I’ve compiled a summary of Senators and Congresspersons of particular interest, i.e., representatives whose seats that were considered “battleground” races in 2016 and are likely to have an especially hard time in 2018/2020/2022. Again, these people likely fall into one of two categories: one, they’re Tea Party hardliners who won’t help us out; or two, they’re moderates holding onto mixed or moderate districts. We want to press that second group, and press them hard, because that is how you swing mixed/moderate districts to the left.

In the parentheses after their names, I’m giving these representatives states, their parties, and their margins of victory in 2016. Note that the list is alphabetical first by state, then by the rep’s name. If your representative(s) is (are) on this list, especially if their margin was especially small, it is particularly important that you put pressure on them, and get other people in your district to put pressure on them too, because your vote could very well be their next swing vote—and they know it. If you contact these people, please either reblog or send me an ask letting me know how it went if you have a second (were they receptive? did you have to jump through hoops to get at them?) and I will compile (anonymously if you wish) that feedback to help other We With Us’ers put pressure where it hurts.

Congresspersons of particular interest (all info from Ballotpedia): Tom O’Halleran (AZ, D, 7.3%), Ami Bera (CA, D, 2.3%), Stephen Knight (CA, R, 6.3%), Darrel Issa (CA, R, 0.5%), Mike Coffman (CO, R, 8.3%), Stephanie Murphy (FL, D, 3%), Brian Mast (FL, R, 10.5%), Carlos Curbelo (FL, R, 11.8%), Brad Schneider (IL, D, 5.2%), Rod Blum (IA, R, 7.7%), Bruce Poliquin (ME, R, 9.6%), Jack Bergman (MI, R, 14.8%), Jason Lewis (MN, R, 1.8%), Don Bacon (NE, R, 1.2%), Jacky Rosen (NV, D, 1.3%), Ruben Kihuen (NV, D, 4%), Carol Shea-Porter (NH, D, 1.3%), Josh Gottheimer (NJ, D, 4.4%), John Faso (NY, R, 8.6%), Claudia Tenney (NY, R, 5.5%), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA, R, 8.9%), Will Hurd (TX, R, 1.3%), Barbara Comstock (VA, R, 5.8%). You can also refer to the lists of DCCC/NRCC targeted incumbents for 2018, though those are much longer and kiiiiind of like the Democrat/Republican letters to Santa, at this point in the game.

Senators of particular interest (all info from Ballotpedia): Marco Rubio (FL, R, 7.7%), Tammy Duckworth (IL, D, 15.1%), Todd Young (IN, R, 9.7%), Roy Blunt (MO, R, 2.8%), Catherine Cortez Masto (NV, D, 2.4%), Maggie Hassan (NH, D, 0.1%), Richard Burr (NC, R, 5.7%), Pat Toomey (PA, R, 1.4%), Ron Johnson (WI, R, 3.4%). Note that none of these senators are up for election again until 2022, and that Democratic senators, writ large, are, right now, feeling much more vulnerable than Republican senators, writ large. Engage thoughtfully if you live in one of the states that appears to have a state-wide rising Republican tide: try to focus on the bipartisan elements of the issues that you’re arguing for—for example, national security and the importance of the legitimacy of the American electoral process, when it comes to this specific issue of Trump’s Russia ties and Russian electoral interference.

Also, for now: don’t contact any of these people if they don’t represent you directly. That can have value when it looks like one of them might be about to make a broader run (e.g. for state-wide office, if they’re in the House; or for the presidency), but for now it’s just going to be a waste of your time.

A note on protesting amid breaking news: As always, I recommend searching a reputable news source, like one of those two news sources you picked in 5M4F15 or The Guardian if you haven’t done that one yet, shortly before you make your calls, for any breaking-news updates that may require you to tweak your scripts. It’s often also useful to check your representatives’ website to see what press releases they have on a given subject, so you know whether (for example) they have already gone on-record as opposing Steve Bannon. If they have? Ask them to do it again. Make it clear that this stuff is important to you.

How to Write Your Scripts (excerpted from 5M4F-5): The basic phone script for calling your representatives goes something like so:

Hi, {can I ask who I’m speaking to? <, if they don’t say when they pick up>} [Jot their name down.] Hi, <their name>. My name is <your name> and I’m one of <your representative’s name>’s constituents in <where you live>. I wanted to let <your representative’s name> know that I strongly <support | oppose> <the thing you’re calling about>, because <succinct explanation of reason why you’re calling>. Is <your representative’s name> planning to <do the thing you want>?

Then you have to plan for a few different responses:

They’re with you: Thank you. Could you please let <appropriate pronoun> know that <expression of gratitude> and <indication that you will continue to watch your representative’s behavior and hold them accountable>?

They’re neutral: This subject is very important to me because <longer, more in-depth and emotive reason why you’re calling>. I would very much appreciate it if you could let <your representative’s name> know that I feel very strongly about this and would really encourage <appropriate pronoun> to <do the thing you want>. Is there any way I could follow up with you or <appropriate pronoun> later?

They oppose you: This subject is very important to me because <longer, more in-depth and emotive reason why you’re calling>. Can I ask why <your representative’s name> is <not doing the thing you want>? [Let them give you a reason, and write it down.] Okay, thank you. I understand <appropriate pronoun> concerns, but as one of <your representative’s name>’s voting constituents, I would really appreciate it if <appropriate pronoun> revisited <appropriate pronoun> decision because <alternate succinct explanation of reason why you’re calling>. Is there any way I could follow up with you or <appropriate pronoun> later?

<expression of gratitude>! <polite send-off>!

I want to point out that you probably don’t actually really need to plan for all of these responses. You can probably make a pretty good guess where your representative stands based on their party affiliation. However, especially if your representatives are moderates and often vote across the aisle, it’s not a bad idea to spend a little time planning for all three cases, because then your behind is covered, and you can recycle this language over and over on later calls, to different representatives. And yes: we will be calling other representatives.

This is the sample script that I wrote back in November, on a different issue and to Barbara Boxer, who has been replaced by Kamala Harris, but it gives you an idea how the Mad-Libs-filling process works:

Hi, {can I ask who I’m speaking to? <, if they don’t say when they pick up>} [Jot their name down.] Hi, <their name>. My name is <Ginny Washington>, and I’m one of <Senator Boxer>’s constituents in <West Hollywood>. I wanted to let <Senator Boxer> know that I strongly <support> <her resolution to amend the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College>, because <I think every American’s vote should count equally>. {I just wanted to thank her for all her hard work on behalf of the principles of equal representation and equal protection under the law.}

<Thank you so much for your time>! <Have a nice day>!

If you can’t make calls: I recommended before that if you can’t make calls, you copy down snail mail addresses so you can send snail mail letters, and that you grab an email address or online contact link no matter what. Calls are the most effective, if you can make them, but please, do send snail mail letters if you can’t, or an email if you also can’t swing a stamp or get to a post office. You can use the script above as a template for your letter, but you’re probably going to want to default to assuming that your representative opposes you, and you’ll have to of course make it sound like a letter and not a phone convo.

If you care about correct forms of address: weirdly, because these things are super arcane, technically the correct way to address your senator or representative is still “The Honorable <whoever>”, as in, “The Honorable Barbara Boxer.” That goes on the envelope. You can then write “Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. <whoever>” as your salutation.