F**king Mondays: Too Much Swearing, Writing For Prestige, And Trump's Desperation

We blame readers for this

We’re back with another edition of “F**king Mondays” to start your holiday week off!

Too much swearing?

Every now and then we get a member cancelation along with a reason for unsubscribing citing “too much swearing” in either the podcast, or this column. We’ve had a few over the past couple of weeks, so I thought I’d remind you, dear reader, that we cannot be held responsible. Why? Because we ran a poll many months ago, and “F**king Mondays” was by far the favorite choice. Anyway, I’ll abide by the consensus and change the column title if readers would prefer*:

*The Banter reserves the right to ignore poll results and entirely discard reader opinion

Writing for prestige

Over the years I’ve freelanced for a number of generally well respected media outlets. Mostly these were for sports coverage (I used to be a boxing and MMA journalist), but I have also written about other subjects for a couple of mainstream publications. More recently, I did some science writing for The Daily Beast in what turned out to be an excruciatingly difficult piece. I had to track down scientists and chefs in multiple different countries, familiarize myself with some fairly complex scientific concepts, and then deal with two editors with different stylistic agendas.

I enjoyed writing the piece, but the compensation and prestige associated with The Beast wasn’t anywhere near enough for the amount of work required. The whole endeavor also took considerable time away from The Banter, and I came to the conclusion that that it was a distraction I really couldn’t afford. This is something many other journalists have come to find in the ruthless world of freelance writing and self publishing, where very difficult decisions have to be made in order to pay bills. As Erik Hoel in the Intrinsic Perspective argues, writing for prestigious organizations often isn’t worth it:

Even from a purely practical perspective, most of those clamoring don’t know the three main considerations that make the whole thing less attractive.

1. These organizations don’t pay (very) well for your writing.

2. It often doesn’t drive readers to your other work.

3. The impact/traffic of your piece will be less than you think.

This is all hidden by how publishing in a place like the Times is considered—no, it frankly is—incredibly prestigious. People do it just so they can put it in their bios, or finally get their friends and family to take them seriously. The prestige is so great it’s hard to for others outside the very small “makes a living by writing” crew to imagine that those with bylines in the Times, those who have so much cultural power, are not really reaping significant personal benefits outside of sporting a pretty halo of prestige. In fact, if you were a freelancer who relied on publications like the Times, you’d be at risk of being flat broke.

I’d be dishonest if I didn’t admit to wanting the prestige associated with writing for a major publication like the Times. It would make my parents proud, and I could introduce myself at all the parties I don’t go to as a real journalist instead of the editor at a relatively small newsletter. My experience writing for The Daily Beast however taught me I don’t care enough about the prestige to chase it. I infinitely prefer writing in my own voice about topics I believe for an audience I have built a genuine connection with. Building a subscription publication is extremely difficult, but I would urge aspiring journalists to cut their teeth in legit organizations, then go build your own thing as quickly as possible. It’s far more rewarding.

The Apocalypse

It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry when former president Donald Trump posts statements like this:

We discussed Trump’s descent into Nazi style rhetoric in the Members podcast this past weekend, and this is further indication that a second term would spell disaster for the country. That being said, Trump’s extreme language is also a clear indication he is getting increasingly desperate about his legal woes. Trump’s political power relies on whipping up his base into a frenzied state of fear and paranoia, and it seems the former president is losing his touch. Trump still has a cult like grip on the GOP, but it is nowhere near as powerful as it was in 2020.

A desperate Trump is still very, very dangerous, so it is important not to downplay or normalize this insane rhetoric. It might help if the media agreed to call Trump what he is; a fascist, so that the public knows exactly what they are voting for or against in the coming election.

An emotional response

In response to our latest episode of The Banter Roundtable Podcast a reader writes in about Justin’s criticism of the pro-Palestinian/anti DNC protest that turned violent last Wednesday:

Guys, let's try some subtlety here. First of all, the protestors were outside the DNC because that's where they thought they might be more effective. Why go protest outside the RNC when some of their members have stated they want to eradicate all the Palestinians? That's basically pissing into the wind, right!?! Go protest where you MIGHT have a chance of being heard. Second, while I respect your heritage and fully acknowledge the history, not everyone who isn't a part of your group is out to get you. We can actually see both sides of the issue, the mind-numbingly horrific nature of October 7th, and the mind-numbingly horrific nature of the indiscriminate bombing. Bebe has propped up Hamas and now, to stay in power and avoid prosecution, has no real incentive to stop bombing. I respect your background but your podcast is beginning to sound like you are using your heritage as a hammer and only seeing nails everywhere, including amongst people who might align with you in other areas.

There are a couple of points I’ll make here. Firstly, I want to accept some of the criticism in good faith. I do recognize that being of Jewish heritage makes this a deeply personal issue and that my perspective might be skewed. I think it is important to always entertain the notion that you might be wrong, or too emotionally involved to make a good judgment on a particular issue.

However, I do think it worth pointing out that liberals would never use this kind of language towards other minorities. It would be unthinkable in liberal circles to, say, question a black American on whether they were “using their heritage as a hammer” to speak out about anti-black racism. Mine and Justin’s point is that this courtesy is never extended to Jews because they aren’t regarded as a legitimate minority.

Again, this isn’t to say that the reader is wildly off base. It’s a valid point and one I strive to be intellectually honest about.

See you next week!

Please consider supporting The Banter by becoming a paid member. We are 100% independent and do not run advertising. Banter Members get access to all premium articles, The Emergency Meeting podcast, and exclusive member chat threads. Your contribution is greatly appreciated:

Listen to the latest episode of The Banter Roundtable Podcast:

MAGA Mike's Deal, Defining Hamas, Jill Stein's Russia Money, And George Santos Loves OnlyFans

For Banter Members:

The Emergency Meeting Podcast: Trump Goes Full Nazi