From the Editor

Magazine editors often have an unsettling “Yes, but” experience. You’ve just decided to publish a fine piece when you come across evidence that points in a contradictory direction. Both stories are true, but it would be awkward to point that out. Here are three current examples.

Konstantin Samoilov’s excellent article cites slam-dunk evidence that Russia’s government is virtually bankrupt. The international sanctions against its oil and gas exports have driven its economy nearly to collapse.

Yes, but! Recently, the sanctions against Iran’s oil, on top of the sanctions against Russia, have raised fuel prices in the US and opposition to Trump’s war. So, he is now letting oil be sold, despite those very sanctions. This price rise rescues Putin from economic collapse—at least temporarily. Both Konstantin’s facts and the antithetical ones are true. What will be the outcome? Awkward.

Next, Artificial Intelligence. Daria Oleinikova proves that AI harms the environment and especially harms students and others for relying on it. We totally agree. That should convince us to avoid AI altogether.

Yes, but! We use it ourselves for Peace Magazine. It saves time and improves the quality of our publication so much that we won’t give it up. The pros outweigh the cons for us and billions of other users. Awkward.

Finally, nuclear power. Tony Webb shows that proximity to reactors raises cancer rates.

Yes, but! There’s an upsurge in nuclear power right now, especially in Ontario, driven by reasonable climate worries (though nuclear is a false climate solution). Awkward.

People choose which stories to read. That’s the point of PSTW’s episode with Aja Romano about why some news gets covered but others not.

Yes, but! There’s another side to this conclusion too—that not all contradictory conclusions are derived from equal evidence. Sometimes, almost all the strong evidence points in one direction. So, it may matter a lot which story you get to read. That’s why editing is such an important job.