Starting today, and every Friday, the PolicyMic team is going to highlight three cool things that happened on PolicyMic each week and outline a few major questions that we need your help answering. Please use this as an opportunity to share anything else that’s on your mind regarding PolicyMic too. PolicyMic had several huge successes:
1) Our high-school super star pundit, Matty Carville wrote an article about five leading feminists of 21st century. After generating a lot of buzz on Twitter, word leaked that the NYTimes staff circulated the piece. We love seeing pundits like Matty, who averages 8 Mics per article, build a real following based on high quality work. Congrats!
2) Pundit Matthew Swift was invited to speak on Fox Business with Juan Williams following his piece on the Florida primaries. Watch him take on the big guns!
3) In partnership with Harvard’s Institute of Politics and the Harvard Political Review, we are hosting an awesome competition where winning debaters get the meet Peter Thiel, one of the world’s best technology investors. The competition is limited to Harvard students and is a pilot for future PolicyMic-wide events.
Now for your feedback. This week we also published two controversial articles: one written by a birther and one on global warming. In the Harlem HQ, we’ve been debating where to draw the line on what opinions PolicyMic will publish. Both pieces reflect the opinions of many Americans and also started very intense debate. On the other hand, we did not necessarily agree with their validity. What do you think? We are trying to be the first fully democratic media that promotes new voices, thoughtful discussion, and an amazing community. What's the correct balance between fact and opinion? Should the editorial board be proactive in deciding what to publish, or should we allow the crowd to debate (and promote or reject) all opinions?
We look forward to hearing from you.
Photo Credit: Duncan Wolfe.
