When outrage becomes the default setting, thinking gets outsourced to the loudest tribe. We invited Substack writer and teacher David Dennison to help map a way back to clear thought, using real-world examples to show how independent journalism can resist the dopamine rush of instant certainty and invite deeper inquiry instead.
We start with the state of media: why partisanship sells, how predictable framing keeps audiences hooked, and what reader-supported platforms like Substack make possible. David unpacks how dissenting takes can live without an editor’s gatekeeping, and how basic tools—public statutes, Google, even ChatGPT—let anyone verify claims before a narrative hardens. A fast-moving Minnesota incident becomes a case study in how rapid storylines outpace facts, why legal context matters for public judgment, and how speed can erase nuance when lives and policies are at stake.
From there we tackle immigration and identity. We separate humane admissions from willful evasion, argue for policy that acknowledges real invitations and real risks, and push back on the false binary of open versus closed borders. On race and identity politics, we revisit the cost of insulating weak arguments with moral intimidation, and make a case for liberal principles: free inquiry, evidence-first claims, and respect for both progress made and work unfinished. Finally, we talk about classrooms as places to teach, not recruit, and why safeguarding neutral learning protects trust and helps students build durable judgment in a noisy world.
If you crave analysis that prizes clarity over team colors, this conversation is for you. Subscribe to The Common Bridge on Substack, share this episode with a friend who values nuance, and leave a review to help others find thoughtful, independent voices.
Engage the conversation on Substack at The Common Bridge!
