Before I make a start on the questions laid out for me by Willy and Bill, the hybrid Ai / human purveyors of Satirical Planet News, I wanted to say thank you for approaching me with your proposal to look into my writing. The profiling achieved, and the resulting breakdown, was astounding, to say the least.
Three years ago, I wasn’t a writer. Two years ago, I was still battling to keep afloat my one-man-band graphics and web design business; the looming threat of Ai making things extremely tricky. One year ago, I was two months into my pathway to this article when Peter Jukes of Byline Times contacted me out of the blue about publishing one of my longer data deep dives that he’d come across on 𝕏. Today, I am writing almost all of the time.
It’s been an eye-opening learning curve and transition into this new career path, so I am genuinely grateful when anyone notices my work, let alone spends the time to critique it in such an innovative and specific fashion, so I am more than happy to answer the 3 Questions provided to me by Willy and Bill. Here we go.
Question One — Have I shifted to the position of ‘compulsive witness’ and do I feel pressure to keep documenting my perceived failures in the system?
Let me deal with the pressure question first.
When I began this journey, it was because of a growing sense of unfairness, inequity throughout the political ecosystem and the media. The breaking point was when I noticed, in late 2024, that Rupert Lowe, specifically, was achieving unparalleled engagement across 𝕏 and that some of his posts were garnering upwards of 50 million views. In fact, it seemed as though there were very few that were below a million. It led me to start documenting this engagement and broadened outward to cover Nigel Farage — another who, at that time, was also raking in millions of views per post.
When my data-led spreadsheet analysis started to gain traction on social media, it was quite the thrill. Who knew that tables, charts and boxes full of numbers could ignite such a frisson of interest? At the outset, I hoped to draw some attention to the issue, but I had no idea that it actually would achieve anything — after a second month of data dives on Farage and Lowe, they noticeably dialled back their engagement on 𝕏 to a much less conspicuous level, Byline Times had been in touch, and I’d had my very first article published.
At this stage, I did begin to feel some pressure. Pressure to keep things going. A growing sense of urgency and desire not to let people down. There was un undercurrent of imposter syndrome that was pulling at my psyche. I was brand new to this game; could I keep it up, and would it sustain interest?
I had to give myself a stern talking-to and persuade that inner daemon of insecurity, that all was well and I was only doing things on a casual basis; my work was not changing policy or hammering on the doors of No. 10.
The talking-to worked, and I was able to clamber down from the plateau of publication and vindication that had been foisted upon me. It gave me a renewed sense of urgency, but I could now write without the imposter syndrome — I was on the right track and people were actually interested.
Since that point last year, the pressure valve has remained active and whenever I feel a growing sense of trepidation, I can step back and take some time. I’ve learned to temper the urgency alarm. Accuracy is at the heart of everything I do and while I see many commentators rush to push out a story, I can wait. I’d far rather get things correct, than have to issue a correction.
Now I have an audience. My engagement is not at Rupert Lowe levels, but it has increased sixfold in less than a year, but I don’t feel the pressure now, not since that talking-to. I have learned to ignore the trolls, even accept them as a strange backhanded compliment — I have ‘regulars’ who comment on everything I write. My notifications, emails and DMs are on permanent overload which can be overwhelming but again, I manage as best I can without letting the pressure build too much.
The specific detail in your question about the regulatory bodies is becoming more and more of a feature in my work; I am currently halfway through an article about this very topic.
Perhaps the term ‘compulsive witness’ is a little jarring but, I guess, in essence, that’s how I see my writing, specifically on politics.
A quote from your amazingly detailed analysis, “Don’s writing is best described as purposeful vigilance, holding the dial at productive alertness because the world he’s describing keeps trying to knock it to either sleepwalking complacency or helpless overload.”
I was drawn to the term ‘purposeful vigilance‘ — a synonym of compulsive witness, but it feels softer somehow.
The time I spend on my articles can be draining, but the compulsiveness does take over. A personality trait that has always been with me and, I think, is a vital driver in this field. It has led me to discover things others have not, to engage in detail over rhetoric, and stops me trying to rush things out. In that respect, I am compulsive, entirely.
The witness component, well, yes I feel that the more eyes on a subject, the greater the light shone into the dark corners, the better. If I can continue to highlight the dark regions of politics, I will.
Question Two — How do I manage the “Friction of Ambiguity” when a link is missing, and do I view the absence of a connection as a lack of evidence, requiring more in-depth investigation?
I’m going to let you into a little secret here about my investigative writing — when I start these deep dives, I never have a structured plan in place. There is no considered planning or forethought as to how I’m going to move forward.
Usually, a thought will pop into my head as I’m falling asleep, or more often, when I first wake up. I’ve learned, as I mentioned above, not to rush things, so I’ll jot things down in my phone notes app, head downstairs and make a coffee. Only then can I start to process the thought bubble into a more cohesive idea and decide if it’as worth looking into further. Most thoughts don’t make it past this stage, and I’m slightly concerned that there may be a limit to Apple Notes that I’m barrelling towards. You see, when I write and make connections through data analysis, my focus narrows, and I can spend hours on that one project, completely laser-focused. The rest of my life’s organisation is a sloppy mess — my partner and son would attest to that.
I almost got sidetracked there into a stream of consciousness, but luckily, I have the framework of these questions to rein me back in.
As I was saying … I don’t plan articles out. Ever. I write and research as I go. Because I’ve never been trained in journalism or writing styles, I find that this suits me best; perhaps the constant self-interruption allows me to leave the page and come back to make changes every few paragraphs. A sort of self-editing feature I have built in.
When trying to make links and connections it means that I can get sidetracked reasonably easily but if I hit a dead end, then I might scribble a note and return to it the following day. If that still doesn’t pan out, then I will be open and admit that within the writing — your excellent analytical feature picked up on that. I write about fairness and transparency within politics a great deal, if I wasn’t open with my readers then the hypocrisy alarms would be sounding loudly.
My preferred means of dealing with friction of ambiguity is to lay it out for anyone to see. I have no qualms about admitting when I don’t know something or fail to find a connection that I was aiming for. That absence of connection makes me even more determined, and oftentimes I’ll leave it some weeks before coming back to the problem. Occasionally, the issue presents itself, but usually, it requires a new strategy. Sometimes, though, it’s a brick wall, and it can be just as important to admit defeat in these situations.
I have built a forceful network of contacts over the last year or so, and I lean on them at these times — I have accountants, financial gurus, crypto folk, all sorts that I have reached out to and are always willing to help. I’m truly grateful for these guys — they have filled in a great many blanks when I’ve hit a hurdle in my writing or research.
Question 3 — Is my data-driven writing constructed in a way to provide epistemic armour, and does this provide a form of protection found lacking in the state?
The way I write has been shaped by the way I read. For years, I was an avid consumer of politics and news without actively making a contribution.
I’ve watched threats and arguments online for years; some stay within the chosen platform, but others spill out into real world scenarios, sometimes involving courts. As I’ve become more viewed, I hesitate to say well known, but that’s what I’m coyly hinting at, I have become far more self-aware. As I mentioned earlier, I have no training in how to write, it’s an entirely organic process for me, so I learn from my environment — another form of self-editing that I have evolved over the last couple of years.
Your analysis focuses on some phrases I have used in articles, such as “I have no desire to be sued”, and this is borne out as truth.
Epistemic Armour? Perhaps, but in my mind it comes down to a few things:
-> my attempt to always be accurate, and when I’ve made a mistake, correct things willingly and openly.
-> my desire to remain unsued.
-> most importantly, to acknowledge my own limitations.
The third point calls back to my answer in question two — I have no problem admitting my mistakes and if my knowledge is stretched, I will always reach out for help. Is this an epistemological fracture or failing?
As for the second part of the question, honestly, I hadn’t previously considered this. Am I seeking to provide myself with a replacement for state supported protection?
I guess that, on a subconscious level, this may well be true. My overarching view of our political structures and systems, is that they fail most people that really need them. This applies to welfare as much as it does to the ever-increasing pothole that was once our road network. When I write about politics, it is rarely from a positive perspective, and maybe I am trying to fill in the cracks that I see appearing across our society.
We live in an unprecedented era — I would contest that, outside of world wars, this is the most turbulent time in recent history. Our politicians are failing us. The regulators cannot keep up. Journalism has been reduced to rolling news and clickbait headlines.
When I write, I try to keep things factual and relevant but always with one eye on the light speed news cycle because things become out of date within minutes. It’s becoming more and more difficult to reach out for help and protection from previously trusted parties, so I do endeavour to build that into an article with accurate references and dating of sources.
So we’re here, at the end and having written all of the above, I find that I’ve actually learned more about my own writing style, and some of the psychology behind it, than I’d previously ever considered. Thanks to Willy and Bill for providing me with that insight. It’s been a blast.
SPN
Thank you so much Don for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and generous response to our questions.
We really do appreciate the time, care, and honesty you put into answering them. We know how much work sits behind both your writing and your reflections on it, and it meant a great deal to us that you engaged with the questions so fully and openly.
We also wanted to say thank you for your kind words about the analysis itself. We spent a long time working through the material and shaping those three questions, so it was genuinely gratifying to read your response and see how seriously and thoughtfully you took the piece.
Your answers gave us a great deal to think about, and we are very grateful for the depth, candour, and generosity of spirit throughout.
With thanks again,
Willy & Bill
North West Bylines - Citizen Journalist
✍️ Interested in taking part?
Our 3 Questions programme is designed for writers who want a deeper, more precise understanding of their voice. If you’d like to be interviewed or know someone who should be, subscribe and get in touch.
👉 Join the writers and readers already exploring how style, structure, and intent shape meaning. Subscribing is free, the insight is the reward.
Everything here is free to read, and it stays that way. If you want to keep Satirical Planet ad-free and Bill caffeinated, you can:
💸 [Go paid] – Support the chaos.
☕ [Buy me a Ko-fi] – ☕ [Buy me a coffee] – A one-off thank you.
Disclaimer:
This section is analytical rather than satirical. Interpretations are based solely on the writer’s submitted work and provided context.