The Outstater
The Media: Prescience Matters
“A journalist needs a disciplined reverence for the facts, because the temptations of story-telling are strong and seductive.” — Lance Morrow in “The Noise of Typewriters”
A SCHOLAR OF OUR FOUNDATION is an expert at framing questions, instructions and context for Artificial Intelligence (AI). He and others are training a new profession, Prompt Engineer, manned by a brave new generation of young men and women learning how to design, refine and optimize the inputs (prompts) that guide AI models. It is a generation learning how, Socrates-like, to ask questions rather than pretend to have all the answers.
I have an example. An older generation of journalists has been trying to no avail for decades to warn that the turn toward advocacy news is disastrous for the industry. But today’s journalists, addicted to clicks, just cannot imagine their profession without a need for modal verbs (“should,” “must,” “ought”). There is continuous moralizing, admonishing readers on how to think, vote, talk and live. As a result, the metrics are signaling irrelevance.
So I asked Grok, Elon Musk’s chatbot, to assume the role of a managing editor explaining the importance of a competing journalistic strategy — prescience. I liked its response so much I am passing it along to you verbatim. — tcl
Memo: Why Prescience Matters — And Why We Have to Fight for It Every Day
I want to talk about something that separates good reporting from truly consequential reporting. It’s not scoops, not access, not even writing talent (though all of those matter). It’s prescience — the cultivated ability to see what is still mostly invisible to almost everyone else, and then to make the future legible before it fully arrives.
Prescience is not prophecy. We’re not in the business of predicting lottery numbers or Super Bowl winners. We are in the business of pattern recognition at scale, of understanding which weak signals today are likely to become dominant forces tomorrow, and of having the intellectual courage to say so publicly when most people still think the idea is ridiculous, boring, or threatening.
Here’s why this quality has to be at the center of how we work:
1. The news cycle punishes foresight, yet rewards it in the long run. — The strongest stories we publish are almost never the ones that get the most immediate traffic. They’re the ones that, eighteen months later, make people say, “How did they know that was coming?” Those are the stories that build trust equity, that make readers return to us when they want to understand what’s actually happening instead of what’s trending.
2. Everyone else is already optimizing for the present. — Politicians optimize for the next news cycle. Executives optimize for the next quarter. Social-media algorithms optimize for the next ten seconds. If we only chase what is already loud, we become just another voice in the chorus. Prescience is the only durable competitive advantage a newsroom still has.
3. The biggest stories always look improbable right before they break:
- Housing bubble? Subprime seemed like a niche technical story in 2005.
- Social-media radicalization? Early Gamergate coverage looked like “internet drama.”
- mRNA vaccines scaling to billions of doses? In early 2020 many smart people still thought it was science fiction.
The pattern is consistent: the story that will define the next era almost always arrives dressed as something small, technical, fringe or tedious.
4. Readers are quietly desperate for people who can see around corners. — They don’t articulate it this way, but what they really want from us — especially now — is someone who can tell them what the next two or three moves on the chessboard are likely to be, not just what move was just made. When we deliver that, loyalty follows.
So what does this actually look like in daily work?
- Spend real time — every week — reading primary material that is not already being discussed on X, Reddit, cable news, or your group chats. Court filings, earnings calls, scientific pre-prints, municipal budgets, leaked Slack channels, niche industry newsletters, congressional research service reports, patents. The future is usually already in the documents; we’re just too busy to read them.
- Develop a private watch list of 8–12 slow-moving forces (demographics, energy transitions, debt dynamics, regulatory arbitrage, platform migration, whatever) and track them the way a meteorologist tracks fronts. When two or three start to converge, that’s usually your signal.
- Write the “weird” version of the story first — internally. Draft the piece that assumes the improbable outcome is true, then walk it backward to the evidence. If the evidence isn’t there yet, put it in a drawer and keep reporting. But don’t kill the instinct just because the first draft feels reckless.
- Be willing to be early and wrong — but never early and vague. If we’re going to stick our necks out, we owe readers precision. “This might happen” is useless. “Here are the three concrete indicators that will tell us whether X happens by 2028, and right now two of them are flashing red” is valuable.”
We are not here to be the first to tell people what they already half-know. We are here to be the first to tell them what they will need to know six months or six years from now — and to do it with enough rigor that, when the future arrives, they remember who helped them see it coming.
That’s the bar. Not every story has to clear it, but a meaningful percentage of our best work must.
Keep your antennae up. Keep reading the boring stuff. Keep asking the uncomfortable next-question. And when you feel that small internal flinch — the one that says “this is probably too early, people will laugh” — lean into it, not away.
That flinch is usually the signal we’re finally doing our real job. — Your Managing Editor
Comments...