-

Hi 👋 

The Media was very busy this week.

I found myself having trouble keeping up with my to-read pile. Which isn’t typically the case because I tend to be very picky with stories I line up for myself.

Not everything made the cut, though, and I still found space for one of my archive stories.

On that note, I’m also open to recommendations from you! Reply to this email if you have anything that you think I should read, and it might just find its way onto a future edition. I’m always always looking to expand my archive.

Oh, and I’m skipping the news blitz at the bottom this week. I lost myself too much in the longreads so I wasn’t able to pay too much attention to the news. And I didn’t want to fake it by coming up with a last-minute list.

In any case, thank you for being here and happy reading! 🙏🤓

One long read…

Something a bit different for this week.

I wasn’t actually sure that I wanted to make this our spotlight story for the week, but then the last 25% of the article really cemented the choice for me. Plus, its premise is incredibly unique and the headline really just grabs you, doesn’t it?

Despite its title, I think this story is less about picking a side in the upcoming elections and more about the entire machinery that campaigns run on.

It’s a really good peek into how politics work behind the scenes, how it’s changed through the years, and how one man—who’s been very central to the American political establishment—envisions what it should be in the future.

But really, more than a political story, I think this is at its core an unusual but nevertheless very philosophical profile of a dedicated, accomplished and brilliant man.

There’s a lot that the end of our life reveals about us as people, particularly when it’s an end that we orchestrate ourselves and have planned for years.

I mean, at the very least, it’s made me think not just about how I want to go, but also when I want to go. And if I’d ever reach a point where I can face my end confidently and with a contented heart.

But maybe that’s too much self-reflection for a Sunday morning. My bad! 🙇🏻‍♀️

🕓 Maybe 1 hour tops, with distractions.

… and then some

1 - How Gunfire and Fear Engulfed Gaza Hospital Before Israeli Raid | BBC, Free

I feel like there are some stories that I just can’t—shouldn’t—turn away from. Like it’s part of my moral obligation as a human and as a journalist to make sure it reaches the widest possible audience. That’s how this story felt. It’s harrowing and infuriating. The BBC even tried so hard to walk along the tightrope of objectivity, often cross-referencing videos, social media posts and eyewitness testimonies against statements of the IDF. But there’s only so much that that can achieve in the face of overwhelming evidence of atrocities, I think.

🕓 This is a long article, but for some reason it just flies by. I’d say an hour, tops.

2 - The Strange Death of a Boeing Whistleblower | The American Prospect, Free

This Boeing business has been all over my social feeds the past week, and as someone who is simultaneously mildly afraid of flying and not-just-mildly amused by conspiracy theories, I have to say… I get it. I wish the article treated it more like a True Crime story, but I understand that until legal proceedings uncover more evidence, there probably isn’t enough material yet to produce a meaty, factual longform story.

🕓 Good writing, good subject material and easy prose. I’d say 1 hour and 15 minutes?

3 - ‘All These Normal People, Packed into a Human Lasagne’: My Glamour-Free Night at the Oscars | The Guardian, Free

I so wanted to make this my spotlight story of the week. It’s funny, it reads really easily, and it’s not just one of those fluffy, pointless essays. It’s a really light-hearted and entertaining piece of experiential journalism that shines a different light on what is one of the most overdone media spectacles of the year. Plus it comes with a heart-warming twist toward the end that doesn’t feel forced. Definitely find time for this 🥰

🕓 Not terribly long, and definitely an easy read. Maybe 30 to 45 minutes, distractions included.

4 - DNA Tests are Uncovering the True Prevalence of Incest | The Atlantic, $

DNA tests have been around for quite some time now, so this subject should have been a low-hanging fruit (so to speak) for science journalists. But for one reason or another—probably because it’s highly taboo to begin with, or there were just other shinier things—it’s only now being written about. And honestly, Sarah Zhang is the best person to dig into this topic, probing around it with equal parts care, compassion and curiosity.

🕓 Again, not a particularly long story, but the subject can be a bit difficult. Definitely be careful while reading. If you do decide to read, it could eat up 40 to 50 minutes of your time.

5 - The Vicious Loop of Blood and Oil | Atmos, Free

This is a beautiful, sad and infuriating reflection on endless wars, insatiable greed and the bottomless, boundless capitalistic churn destroying the planet and its inhabitants. I wish there were more articles like these—that make connections between big problems, instead of narrowing down to find micro-solutions—so that we’d all be more accustomed to systems-level thinking.

🕓 Not too long, but also not an easy read. Maybe 30 to 45 minutes depending on how distracted you are.

6 - A police officer took a teen for a rape kit. Then he assaulted her, too. | The Washington Post, $

This is one of those infuriating and horrifying stories that really just leave you speechless. I found myself looking for people to blame partway through reading it, but then I realized that everyone was at least partly at fault (except the victim, of course). How can something so disgusting and blatant be missed by so many adults and a supposedly functioning law enforcement system?

🕓 This is a long and difficult story. It will take you well over 1 hour, including distractions and all the wincing and cursing.

Bonus reco!

I told you: There were a lot of big stories this week. I just couldn’t pick between this one and the Politico story above. So why not spotlight them both, right?

That said, I just want to make it clear that I don’t necessarily agree with everything this article argues. In fact, I disagree with most of it.

I concede that smartphones and social media and the dominance of the digital sphere are awful. For everyone, not just for growing kids and teens. But I think the article’s assertions are too sweeping and blames way too much on what it calls the “phone-based childhood.”

In my very un-expert opinion, there are many global problems that could be behind the poor mental health among the youth. The story acknowledges them, too, but only in passing: climate change, the declining standard of living, the ever-present threat of nuclear war.

These all could very plausibly be driving hopelessness among young people. I mean… I know they do for me.

Social media and being chronically online magnify the despair, certainly, but I’m not sure that it’s the root cause of the bleakness.

But the writer is a sociologist who has studied this for most of his professional life. I’m just a rando online tapping on my keyboard for hours on end. What do I know, right?

If anything, the arguments are worth thinking about. Definitely approach this one with an open mind, though.

🕓 Hmm. This one is long and can feel like it drones on and on at some point. I’d say… 1 hour and 30 minutes? Or a bit more.

Thanks for reading! Please, please reach out if you have feedback, suggestions, or questions. I know some of the stories I recommend might be behind paywalls, and maybe I can help you with access to those, too!

Also, please feel free to share The Lazy Reader with friends or family who you think might want to join us in reading more.

Until next Sunday! 👋