The Science of Democracy

If I Had My Way
One Man's Opinion -- for what it's worth.


To: Joe Pompeo - jpompeo@politico.com

From: Doug Skoglund - skoglund@pdmsb.com

Date: 01 Jul 2016 09:15 CDT

Subject: What is the problem??

My thanks for posting an Email address - You have opened the door for additional communication, a very important move in today's complicated world. I am contacting you because of your post, "New York Times braces for big change." And, I quote:

This summer, The New York Times is ushering in a transformation more radical than it has seen in almost half a century, perhaps since the great Abe Rosenthal overhaul of the 1970s, which created the wide-ranging, multi-section Times we know today. 

Back then, the Times was grappling with economic headwinds and the rise of TV. Now the Times-like all newspapers-is grappling with economic headwinds and the rise of the smartphone, and its future is on the line once again.

"The Times has changed enormously in the past few years, but it still hasn't changed enough," said David Leonhardt, a prominent economics columnist who is overseeing a sweeping strategic review by a team of seven Times journalists known as the 2020 Group, a sort of advisory committee for executive editor Dean Baquet. "That's why he thinks we need to do this."

In a staff memo last month, Baquet warned that the newsroom "will have to change significantly-swiftly and fearlessly." Some of these changes are already coming into focus, from a big reimagining of the metro section ("what a New York report should look like for a news organization that is increasingly international"), to a complex reorientation of how the print edition is put together. ("Assigning editors, in the very near future, will not worry about filling space.") 

What is the problem?? Have you left that out or has the Times failed to define it?? I suspect the latter, since I assume that you would lead with that if it were defined. 

Now, if they don't understand the problem, how do they know what action to take?? Or to express that differently, how do they know that the action they are taking will solve the problem -- it is very possible that the action will make matters worse and we would have a company just "going around in circles."

And, as a matter of fact, that is exactly what we have -- the Times is simply another company going around in circles because they don't know what they are doing -- they don't know how to solve problems.

Which leads me to my purpose for writing you and my purpose for the title at the top of this page -- "The Science of Democracy." You see, I am an Engineer (30 years) turned Programmer (40 years) that wants to write a book with that title because our entire system has failed to do the job (note Brexit and the Donald Trump matter)

Our forefathers did a great job creating our form of government; however we have failed to update our Constitution to serve the needs of a democracy in the 21st century. Science has done a fair job, overall, informing us about the workings of the universe; however, the major problem in society is the number of people that don't believe in either science or democracy. We need a science of democracy and we need to democratize that science.

And I need some help -- the task is too big to accomplish in the time I have left, besides, I am not a writer. Could I interest you in some additional discussion on the topic??

To be continued (of course)

Doug Skoglund skoglund@pdmsb.com

I don't provide for comments since that is a system designed to control the communication process -- I do provide an e-mail address!! (Please put a [MYWAY] in your title to get my attention).

BTW, I am working on a replacement system for individuals -- and I sure could use some help. Please see http://pdmsb.com, a work-in-process.

This page posted at http://ifihadmyway.com/C1010012.htm

2016 Archive List

2015 Archive List

2014 Archive List