How to Read This Work — and Why It Exists

This series is not neutral.

That’s not an apology or a provocation. It’s a statement of orientation.

I have opinions, and I’m not neutral about systems that reward exclusion or punish dissent. I write from lived experience, from documents and records, and from direct involvement in the community issues discussed here. I bring references not to posture as objective, but to show my work — so readers can trace how I arrive at my conclusions and decide for themselves whether those conclusions hold.

What I am careful not to do is use my opinions to argue that any specific person is less worthy of voice, participation, or fair process. That distinction — between criticizing systems and disqualifying people — is intentional. It is also the ethical boundary that shapes everything that follows.

This prologue explains why that boundary matters, who this work is for, and how to read it with clarity rather than assumption.

Why This Series Exists

I am writing this because I have seen a pattern play out multiple times in which one person is isolated or scapegoated instead of supported. Over time, participation narrows, trust erodes, and outcomes begin to feel inevitable rather than chosen.

I can no longer participate in that dynamic without naming it. I also have the tools and experience to explain what I’m seeing, and to do so in a way that focuses on systems rather than personalities. Someone reading this in 10 years should only know the authors who added their names to the source materials.

This series examines the 2025 Ken Lake election — not to relitigate every disagreement, not to defend specific individuals, and not to assign motive or intent — but to understand how narratives form, how power moves through ordinary interactions, and how outcomes are shaped long before they appear final.

This work is not written from a position of safety. It is written in the hope that future participation — including my own — does not require the same tolerance for harm.

Who This Is Written For

This writing is for people who live and work with others.

It is for readers who care about fairness, process, and participation — including those who may disagree with my conclusions.

You do not need to share my perspective to benefit from the framework offered here. In fact, this work is strongest when applied to sources you trust, narratives you agree with, and positions that feel familiar.

Media literacy only works when it is used across lines of agreement.

What This Is — and Is Not

This is not a claim to objectivity.

Every account reflects choices: what to include, what to question, what to name, and what to leave out. Pretending otherwise hides power rather than limiting it.

This is also not a call for harmony, niceness, or avoidance of conflict.

The tone of this series is intentionally educational and measured. Solving the problems described here requires shared understanding across different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view. It matters to me that this work not foreclose dialogue prematurely.

I will refer to primary sources from the campaign, to meeting minutes from 2024–2025, and, where relevant, to Washington’s RCWs. I will describe recognized concepts in communication and sociology, and I will avoid ascribing intent to the people discussed in the articles that follow.

A Media Literacy Lens for What Follows

As you read, I invite you to hold a few distinctions in mind — not just here, but wherever you encounter opinionated writing.

First, separate stance from method. An author can take a strong position while still respecting fair process. Ask what the opinion is being used to do.

Second, watch for the shift from behavior to identity. Critique grounded in observable actions stays debatable. Critique that slides into character, motive, or “who someone is” becomes harder to challenge — and easier to weaponize.

Third, notice patterns, not moments. Individual decisions often make sense in isolation. Patterns reveal who is scrutinized, who receives grace, and whose presence becomes framed as a problem over time.

Many of the questions I ask in this series mirror the structure used in formal corrections: What is being claimed? What evidence is provided? What rule or policy applies? How is it being interpreted? And what does that mean for people going forward?

None of these questions require you to agree with me. They only require you to read actively.

Media Literacy Worksheet

Use this questionnaire to evaluate any information, in any format. This worksheet isn’t about deciding who’s right. It’s about deciding how much confidence a claim deserves, regardless of who made the claim.

Step 1: Notice your first reaction

• What is the title, and what format is this (news article, opinion, flyer, post, email)?

• How do I feel after reading it? (angry, relieved, validated, worried, energized, confused)

• Which specific words or sentences triggered that feeling?

Feelings are information. They are not conclusions.

Step 2: Understand what is being said

• What is the main claim or takeaway, in my own words?

• What does the author want me to believe, think, or do?

Step 3: Consider the source

• Who wrote this, and what is their most relevant role here?

• Who is the intended audience?

• What relationship does the author have to the topic?

• Do I have a relationship or opinion of the author that changes how I read their words?

Step 4: Look at how the argument is built

• Are claims supported with sources, documents, or examples?

• Can I independently verify any of those sources?

• Is the argument mostly about actions and evidence, or about character and motive?

Step 5: Watch for shortcuts

• Does this rely on shared assumptions, stereotypes, or “everyone knows” reasoning?

• Does it ask me to trust the author because of who they are, rather than what they show?

• Are complex situations presented as simple or inevitable?

Step 6: Reflect before judging

• What questions do I still have?

• What information would help me understand this better?

• If the author had not stated their purpose, what would I guess it is?

Authors are humans, not villains. Consider the most reasonable interpretation before the most damaging one.

Step 7: Decide what to do next

• Do I need more information before forming an opinion?

• Is this something to discuss, verify, set aside, or act on?

• What would a fair response look like?

What I am Aiming For

This series takes a deliberately meta approach. It looks not just at what happened, but at how language, framing, and repetition shaped the story that formed around this election.

Media literacy is not about spotting “bad actors.” It is about recognizing how power, interpretation, and repetition shape outcomes — often without anyone intending harm.

My goal is for readers — including myself — to become less susceptible to narratives that feel orderly, justified, or inevitable, while reinforcing bias and exclusion.

If this work succeeds, it won’t eliminate conflict. It will make us better at noticing bias, more effective in disagreement, and more capable of holding each other to standards that are fair, consistent, and humane.

A Commitment to Correction

If something I publish is unclear, incomplete, or incorrect, I will correct it using the same structure outlined above — without defensiveness and without assigning blame.

Accuracy and clarity matter more than being right the first time.

That commitment is part of the same ethic that separates criticizing systems from disqualifying people.

Previous

Next