Focus group of one here, but you would do well in Ben's seat.
About midwestern diners: let's just stop that interview practice altogether. Growing up in flyover country, leaving it for the east coast and subsequent major cities, having all family (and a not insignificant number of friends) still living in flyover country: diner interviews are passe. Also focusing on rural residents as political curiosities serves no one. The best pieces on rural life--from Appalachia to the deep south to the rust belt to the Great Plains (N Dakota down to Texas--don't focus as much on politics but instead favor glimpses at how American infrastructure has let them down for decades. Also lacking are serious journalistic solid hit-pieces (yes, they're appropriate) on corporate ag and how vast corruption, human rights abuses, worthless contracts, environmental abuse have shaped the US. 60 Minutes lightly touched on this a couple days ago in a segment that clearly indicated how portions of stimulus money repeatedly to go individuals who have no legitimate interest/action in agriculture. But that is the rule, rather than the exception.
There are also upsides, though, that only get written about in a twee manner that merit further attention.
The best writing/coverage of rural America isn't coming from major networks or media: it's being written by folks with journalism chops that didn't opt to go for the Gawker Medias or the Buzzfeeds or the NYTimes or the WaPos of the world.
Now that I've sufficiently comment-jacked, in closing you should have Ben's job. But is adding the NYTimes to your credentials really worth dealing with their unethical bullshit? I subscribe to the Times FWIW but question it daily.
Focus group of one here, but you would do well in Ben's seat.
About midwestern diners: let's just stop that interview practice altogether. Growing up in flyover country, leaving it for the east coast and subsequent major cities, having all family (and a not insignificant number of friends) still living in flyover country: diner interviews are passe. Also focusing on rural residents as political curiosities serves no one. The best pieces on rural life--from Appalachia to the deep south to the rust belt to the Great Plains (N Dakota down to Texas--don't focus as much on politics but instead favor glimpses at how American infrastructure has let them down for decades. Also lacking are serious journalistic solid hit-pieces (yes, they're appropriate) on corporate ag and how vast corruption, human rights abuses, worthless contracts, environmental abuse have shaped the US. 60 Minutes lightly touched on this a couple days ago in a segment that clearly indicated how portions of stimulus money repeatedly to go individuals who have no legitimate interest/action in agriculture. But that is the rule, rather than the exception.
There are also upsides, though, that only get written about in a twee manner that merit further attention.
The best writing/coverage of rural America isn't coming from major networks or media: it's being written by folks with journalism chops that didn't opt to go for the Gawker Medias or the Buzzfeeds or the NYTimes or the WaPos of the world.
Now that I've sufficiently comment-jacked, in closing you should have Ben's job. But is adding the NYTimes to your credentials really worth dealing with their unethical bullshit? I subscribe to the Times FWIW but question it daily.
Daily yonder is great.
https://www.dailyyonder.com/analysis-democrats-turn-their-backs-on-rural-america/2016/11/14/16208/