2. Who is the Weekly Sift for?

I sometimes describe the Weekly Sift as “the political blog for people who don’t have time for political blogs”. It’s aimed at ordinary Americans who want to stay informed without making a full-time job out of it.

That’s why the Sift only comes out weekly (on Mondays) as 4-6 posts that total up to around 3000 words. That’s 6-8 pages of a normal-sized book. If you’re really pressed for time, you can just read the weekly summary post, which has a thematic quote, lists the other posts of the week, and tells you what they’re about in one or two sentences.

Closely related to “Who is the Weekly Sift for?” is “Why does anyone need it?” We are, after all, swamped with news. A generation ago, people got by with half an hour of Walter Cronkite and one or two local newspapers. Now we have several 24/7 cable news channels, countless blogs, and internet access to just about every paper in the world. Staying informed ought to be the least of your problems. It ought to be hard not to be informed.

How’s that been working out for you?

Hype and manipulation. If you feel less informed — or maybe more confused — than you used to, you’re not alone. As the volume of news goes up, what mainly increases is hype and manipulation, not good coverage.

So you can’t avoid hearing about the latest celebrity meltdown or missing co-ed or sensational murder. In fact, you can’t avoid hearing the same facts about those stories over and over again. But because those situations don’t affect you and you can’t affect them, none of them have anything to do with being an informed citizen in a democracy.

The things an informed citizen needs to know — what our government is doing or planning or proposing, which candidates for high office have a clue, and whether the slick talking points you hear have any substance backing them up — are surprisingly hard to get a handle on. The pundit from the Left tells you it’s raining, the one from the Right says it’s sunny, and the journalist/host can’t be bothered to stick his head out the window and tell you what he sees. (That would be “taking sides”. It used to be called “reporting”.) (Watch Jon Stewart skewer CNN for this.)

The problem isn’t that the mainstream media is too liberal or too conservative. It’s that so much of what you see is either lazy or manipulative. Pundits aren’t telling you what they think, they’re trying to get you to do what they want. That’s why it’s so embarrassing when talking heads who think they’re off the air get recorded on an open mic. Suddenly you’re hearing what they really believe rather than what they want you to believe.

Corporate propaganda. An even bigger obstacle for the would-be informed citizen is corporate propaganda. Corporations stand to make or lose vast sums of money depending on what the voting public believes about issues like pollution or product safety or unions or global warming. So if they can shift public opinion by spending a few million or even a few hundred million — to them that’s just smart investing.

And they’ve gotten very good at it. (Two books that I’ve reviewed on the Sift tell the story very well: Doubt is Their Product by David Michaels and Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.)

It’s bad enough when corporate PR departments put out press releases that newspapers republish more-or-less verbatim. But the problem goes deeper than that. Corporate money funds (apparently) independent think tanks whose research (apparently by coincidence) comes to the conclusions the corporation wants.

Sometimes they even manage to build fake research institutes inside well-known universities. So when your favorite newspaper quotes Dr. So-and-So of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, how are you to know that you’re hearing a message sponsored by Koch Industries, a fossil fuel company?

And even if you did hear that once, who can remember which institutes at which universities are suspect? Chances are, you’ll just end up with vague doubts about academic research in general — which is part of what the corporations are trying to accomplish.

How the Weekly Sift can help. First, I filter out stories that are already over-hyped. Sift readers, for example, learned nothing about the death of Michael Jackson. If you’re interested in that kind of thing, I figure you have no trouble finding it without my help.

Second, while I am opinionated (and probably more liberal than you), I try to be honest. If you read something in the Sift, you can be confident that I believe it myself.

Third, I don’t ask for your trust. The links in a post are there so that you can check up on me. If I say something is true, I try to find a trustworthy reference that backs me up. If I say So-and-So said such-and-such, I’ll quote it exactly rather than paraphrase it, and I’ll link to a complete text or video if I can find one. So if you think, “I’ll bet he didn’t really say that” or “Probably in context it isn’t as bad as it sounds” — don’t take my word for it. Click the link. See for yourself.

Breadth and depth. I’ve spent enough time wandering around the blogosphere that I’ve gotten plugged in to an unofficial network of bloggers who have similar standards. Their work, like mine, is easy to check.

So I don’t have to be (or pretend to be) a universal expert who reads everything. I just know people who know people who (collectively) read everything — or almost everything. And because we preserve links to the original sources, information can bounce through a bunch of blogs without degrading the way rumors do.

Personally, I add two things to the mix: I’m a good popularizer, which means that I come up with analogies, images, and metaphors that simplify ideas without losing their essence. And second, I’m good at making connections. The Sift is at its best when I manage to convince you that what you thought were two stories are actually two parts of the same story.


  • Laura  On September 13, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    In your discussion of the privileged you are writing from a free American or western world viewpoint. In many other places Christian does mean persecution and even death and yet because these Christians know that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life they are willing to be persecuted and die for his teaching. I agree with many of your points of the privileged fearing change but there are some things that cannot change, the word of God being one and we will die to hold to that truth.

    • Kevin  On October 26, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      Right. But here in America, it is Christians who beat kill harass and maim others for not following their rules, and it is the pathological acceptance of the transparently absurd idea that God sat down one day to write an instruction manual that is driving the entire human race toward a potentially fatal climax.

  • Rebecca  On October 26, 2013 at 1:46 am

    Thank you! I had read an article in the rolling stone about food stamps that leaned so far to the right that even liberal me doubted it. I tried to research the facts and all the information before finding your post would not spell out the exactly who was eligible , what we are spending and what exactly would change. I appreciate the actual numbers and information provided with out all the drama of an associated party.

  • Anonymous  On December 12, 2013 at 11:07 pm

    Canadian here. Do any of those bloggers with similar standards to yours blog about Canadian issues?

    • weeklysift  On December 13, 2013 at 7:36 am

      Undoubtedly some do, but I don’t have any names to give you.

  • Bill Roden  On September 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Thanks for giving a new and welcome look at issues with fresh insight.

  • jackgetze  On September 10, 2014 at 8:16 am

    You’re not too liberal. Like Karl Marx, you’re uneducated about economics and about human nature.

    • recoloniser  On September 29, 2014 at 5:49 pm

      You mean that you disagree with Mr. Muder’s views on these, which is an entirely different matter. Using ad hominem arguments has, as always, the effect that I now would have trouble taking anything you bring to the table seriously. Bring some cogent argument and I might consider it.

  • William Farr  On September 30, 2014 at 8:47 pm

    Thanks. I think I will find this interesting and informative.

  • Sandi Saunders  On October 31, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    I am thanking God I found you! You made my week!

    • weeklysift  On November 1, 2014 at 7:11 am

      I love the tag line on your blog “living blue in a red state”. Happy to help you keep doing that.

  • Paul Kilduff  On April 8, 2015 at 12:54 pm


  • Jim M  On May 6, 2015 at 10:01 am

    I love your ending line in the description of Who is the Sift for? -> “…what you thought were two stories are actually two parts of the same story.”
    To your point, my 13-yr-old son is an avid History buff – and he is convinced there is ONLY one, continuing story: He can sit you down and clearly detail the long chain of political events that connect the start of World War I, to Sept 11.

  • Nancy Graham Holm  On September 4, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Thank you, Doug.
    I appreciate your observations, research,
    dot connecting and sense of proportion.
    I’ve recommended you to several prople
    who think so well of their own opinions,
    they couldn’t be bothered. Their loss.
    But I won’t give up!

  • bellebleus  On September 19, 2018 at 1:30 pm

    I happened upon your work. Thank you for this insightful and well-written piece.

  • patriciaje  On April 16, 2019 at 1:33 am

    Thanks for the honesty and a sense of reasonableness. I am frankly exhausted by the screaming headlines I see on even mainstream media outlets. Just looking for news and information. I doubt if you are more liberal than I am, but would be thrilled if that is the case. Thank you for a great weekly read!!!!

  • Richard Knudson  On March 5, 2021 at 10:52 am

    Doug Muder, We have been reading The Weekly Sift for some time. I have a question I hope you might address: Is it possible for Democrats to change the rules on the Filibuster long enough to pass HR1 (voting rights +) and then vote to reinstall the Filibuster if 2022 puts Republicans back in control? Or would this action simply become the new norm for both parties?

  • Professor Tom  On April 19, 2023 at 5:25 pm

    The fairness doctrine introduced 1949 was abolished by President Obama in 2011. It had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.

    After 13 years of polarization maybe time to bring it back also for social media.

  • Professor Tom  On April 19, 2023 at 5:27 pm

    The fairness doctrine introduced 1949 was abolished by President Obama in 2011. It had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters.

    After 13 years of polarization maybe time to bring it back also for social media.

    Let’s unite our nation


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: