We always read the comments.

Boy scream

Well, I do. As the digital producer for the show, I consider you part of our production team. I want your thoughts and questions to help shape the stories we tell and the ideas we explore. And you had a lot to say about our mini-documentary on the Proud Boys. As a staff, we spent weeks before the release of that piece hashing out some of the ethical issues that came up in reporting it. Now that you've all heard it, some of your questions bear repeating:

Why take the "Proud Boys" seriously at all?

"You have to be able to with guys like Gavin, sort out what he's saying just to piss people off and what he's saying as his actual beliefs. The problem with reporting as you've done is that you seem to be taking him far too literally." (Reddit)

"What their name didn't already spell out, your blurb has. I can't click on anything that gives these boys a platform." (Facebook)

We're a crew of producers who believe in taking pretty much anything in this life seriously, if we can learn something in the process. We also believe that real learning is often uncomfortable because it involves listening to people whose ideas we may not like. Kitchen table politics in a lot of American homes today probably sounds something like the Proud Boys conversations. Is this a cultural backlash against feminism and progressive politics? Is it a blip or a new movement with traction? We thought it was worth wading through the offensive jokes and vitriol to explore the answers.

Why not fact check some of the things Gavin McInnes says about the wage gap and campus sexual assault more directly?

"I also don't understand why such fact-checking happens outside of the show and not in the show itself...their statements go largely unchallenged in this show. I very much admired Alexandra's interview style and did not at all hope for her to get into debates with the men. However, as a listener, I'm getting wary of deliberate untruths getting air time without any explicit correction on-air at some point, and that is what I did hope would happen during Alex's conversation with Anne that framed the piece." (Facebook)

We gave a pretty lengthy response to that comment, but more or less, the answer is that this project wasn't about debating or arguing with Gavin or the Proud Boys. It was about hearing their beliefs in their own words. We couldn't introduce new facts or figures without giving them a chance to respond to them directly.

And moreover, this was already a 35 minute piece—we only have so much time to tell the story we're telling, and in this case, we had to make tough choices.

Why call the show "what's wrong with men"? It's only one group of men in the story, not all of them.

"I'm a man and thank you for lumping us all in the same bucket." (ttbook.org)

"McInnes' anger is obvious. It’s easy to appeal to insecure men who feel powerless or rejected, gather them up and reassure them that women are to blame. This is a movement designed to appeal to the powerless, the fearful, the weak and the puny. Men who are truly strong and have meaningful relationships with women won’t be found here." (ttbook.org)

Yeah, the title is a little flippant. Frankly, it’s designed to get your attention, so I guess it worked.

We also liked the double meaning. Depending on intonation, it can suggest there’s something wrong with men that needs fixing – or, that there’s nothing wrong with men and they’re being blamed unfairly. That'’s pretty much what the show was asking. We tried to represent both perspectives. If you know TTBOOK, you know we’re all about resisting easy definitions.

Thanks again for your comments (and your ears.)

—Mark