Are you ‘Good’ or are you ‘Bad’?

I'm Jess and I do not have an opinion on Meghan Markle. But I do have a new Substack.

Good people vs. bad people.  These days, it seems that the world needs to classify anyone in the public realm as one or the other.  Meghan Markle: case-in-point. 

(image c/o my talented artist sister @maddybutcher - with whom I want to work closely on this blog - a little thought provocation with gorgeous art thrown in)

I don’t have any opinion on Meghan personally (and frankly, I’m not sure nearly as many people need to) but the fact that we can get so outraged and angry about an individual we don’t know is something that perplexes and saddens me.  This is partly because I’ve experienced a small microcosm of being in the eye of a media/ twitter storm and because I notice that increasingly, anyone who raises their head above the public parapet will experience this too - in some form or another.  

Have you ever said or done something you’re not entirely proud of?  Have you ever changed your mind on an issue once presented with new facts?   I bloody hope so.  Mistakes are the making of us and our most formative learning experiences.  We can never be 100% certain in our ideas or views and neither should we be; we can only hope to get slightly less wrong as we engage in a broader range of ideas and research.  But increasingly, we’re not engaging.  We entrench ourselves within our tribes. We’re ‘for’ or ‘against’ those in the opposite tribe - seeking confirmation bias and signalling our right-think in a strong ‘anti’ or ‘for’ stance.  When was the last time you heard someone say ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I’m not sure’?  Well, I’m Jess Butcher and I’m not sure whether Meghan Markle is a saint or a sinner.  I suspect neither.  But that’s not going to get me any clicks, that’s for sure.  

In the new world of ‘personal brand building’ (*rolls eyes) - it’s perhaps inevitable that there’s a growing trend towards playing the player, rather than the ball. Public figures are no longer just imperfect people but ‘brands’ selling us their agenda (a product, ‘thought leadership’, this newsletter) through force of personality and ‘lived experience’.  The further removed from them we are (ie the more ‘public’ they are), the easier it is to judge them.  Lived experience cannot be disputed, and is given more credence these days than facts and data, so it’s used increasingly by personal brand builders - but this makes the personal, public and open to commentary and criticism.

Personally, I’m not sure this is a healthy thing. I don’t need my politicians or favourite A-list actors to be people I could enjoy a glass of wine with.  I just want them to be industrious experts in their field of specialism - whether that’s working on a long term education policy (rather than a short-term soundbite) or causing me to blub in front of Netflix. 

There’s huge danger in all of this outrage.  Those who personally know the individuals at the centre of these storms tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that they, like any of us - can have good days and bad days; that we’ve all been guilty of doing silly, reckless or unthinking things - but also of doing kind, worthwhile and important things.  Does the former devalue the latter? Should it (assuming it’s not criminal)?  We’re all fallible and yet we are so quick to assign nefarious motivations to those in the public eye.  

Two weeks ago I was greatly surprised and delighted to receive an email informing me that I was being inducted into the Great British Entrepreneur Awards Hall of Fame.  (‘Good’ person). The next day, another email told me that I was being exposed in the Sunday Times for a pretty crap website I set up at university, 22 years ago that apparently attracted a ‘far right following’. It duly appeared with the caption ‘Dotcom flop’ under an unflattering photo.  (‘Bad’ person). All in the space of 24 hours. 

Most revealingly, I was privy to the explanation given by the public-spirited person who gave the story to the Times (fake news, btw):  ‘It just seemed a fun tip….  For someone who is very much in the public eye, it’s part of the package otherwise we’re living in a world without a free press run by people who want control on their terms’. To be fair, I get the free-press angle. But ‘Fun’? Or that my business ineptitude two decades ago was newsworthy? Not so much. 

Who even has the time?  Maybe I should be flattered to even be considered a ‘someone’ for whom that energy was deemed worthwhile.  But above all, my abiding concern was why anyone would apply for a public role these days. Is anyone whiter than white? This article - albeit in a major newspaper - was a minor paper cut in comparison to a previous media burning.  But that story is for Oprah in a few years time. 

I jest. I don’t want to be famous.  But I do want the potential to scale the work that I do and I’m left feeling conflicted by how far ‘personal brand building’ is required to do it.  One of my current missions is to shine light on nuance. I want to devote more of my time to trying to bridge black and white/ ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ thinking. It’s not popular. It doesn’t feed the algorithms, but I do believe it is imperative right now. 

I don’t want to be the ‘talking head’, I want to be a curious head and curate together the most knowledgeable people I can on various questions of societal, political and cultural importance. I reserve the right to sit on fences and ask unfashionable questions in my quest but unfortunately, even asking some of these questions has already (and most likely will continue to) come at a cost. 

We don’t all need to have opinions on everything and everyone.  Maybe we should just quieten down, listen, think a bit longer and reject the pull towards outrage.  It’s the antithesis of healthy conversation and perhaps more fundamentally, never brings anyone round - just entrenches ‘opponents’ further.  It also makes us cross, irritable and pessimistic which is the very worst state from which constructive solutions can be explored. 

Questions I’m currently asking myself: How can we constructively cross the tribes and burst the echo chambers? How do we revert to playing the ball? Can we ever ‘think out loud’ any more without the risk of saying the ‘wrong’ thing? How can we shine light on nuance in an attention economy that only rewards click-bait?  What are the best content-forms to tease out such discussions? (Blogs? Video? Yet another podcast? or perhaps on Clubhouse - my current obsession, where I’m hosting a number or rooms with my incredible ‘Start up Radio’ colleagues and hope soon to branch out into some of this broader subject matter. One place I know it won’t work is Twitter).

I would love to connect with anyone thinking about these same questions. 

Anyone with me?  And if not… should I assume you’re against?  

I’ll be musing on themes like this - both big and whimsical on a weekly/ fortnightly basis. Please do tell your friends!