Let’s talk about negative media

I’m going to begin, in all fairness, by stating up front that I’m probably blowing this all way out of proportion.

I usually don’t get worked up over headlines. This far into life, there’s not much that comes out of media coverage that can really make my blood boil. But this week, I’m not embarrassed to admit, I got a little testy over this headline:

Let me start with a question: as a taxpayer, what are your initial reactions to that headline? If you support free market approaches to innovation, you probably had a bit of a negative visceral reaction to a very specific word: subsidies.

Let’s start with some context.

I think we all recognize that high-speed internet access, already a major issue for communities of all shapes and sizes, has taken on a special saliency in the world of COVID-related remote learning. Cities, suburbs and rural communities alike are facing a critical access issue. Yet even before COVID brought these challenges into stark relief, the federal government had been seeking ways to bridge the digital divide across our country.

For years, groups such as Connected Nation (their Ohio affiliate is known as Connect Ohio), have been seeking significant infrastructure investment, as well as administrative rule changes that will level the playing field between communities. Throughout, many have stressed government funding should remain technology neutral, setting a broad standard for program contractors to attain minimum levels of service and latency.

The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) is one development of the successful lobbying efforts of those interested in addressing the critical access issue facing so many in our nation. On 12/7/2020, the Federal Communications Commission released the final list of 180 successful bidders (out of 386 competitive applicants), including SpaceX’s contract award of $856 million.

To the reporter’s credit, in the course of the article she applies the nowadays pejorative “subsidies” universally throughout her article. Further, she goes on to address the selection of Charter Communications as the largest award under this program, to the tune of $1.2 Billion.

But why the singling out of SpaceX in the headline? Regardless of one’s view of the role of government in fostering innovation or opening new markets, I think most of us can agree that subsidy has assumed the categorization as a four letter word in our public discourse. It’s a go-to dirty word for just about every group trying to attack their opponents when federal funding is involved.

If you want to debate whether the federal government does or does not have a role to play in this issue, fine. BUT – if we’ve already ceded the ground and a competitive contract process is out there, why is the media pointing to one out of literally hundreds of successful applicants? That seems to move past reporting the news, and right into the realm of editorializing the value (goodness?) of some applicants over others.

It grinds my gears.

And then I remember this is actually not a terrible thing for SpaceX. Since its creation, SpaceX has had to carry the mantle of underdog, challenger, David facing the proverbial Goliath of government contract favoritism. With all that SpaceX has accomplished, especially in 2020, some are beginning to argue that they have become the Space Industrial Complex, that which they sought to destroy.

Then comes along this little nugget, revealing that there may still be some trying to hamper their progress, and call into question their value. Let’s face it, $900 Million is a BIG number even in today’s trillion dollar budgets. It’s so large that most can’t comprehend it in full – they just know it sounds really big. Coupled with the scroll-happy mentality of modern media consumption, many are beyond the habit of actually reading an article. They’re happy to digest the headline like a tweet and move on.

And I think SpaceX understands that on a very basic level. They also understand it’s to their own organizational culture to keep a chip on their shoulder and the mentality of a startup challenging the big guys.

SpaceX seems to have largely ignored this story. They didn’t fall into the trap that I did and get worked up. Instead, they pressed ahead with a successful test of Starship SN8. You should watch the video here (go ahead and fast forward to 1:47:30 to avoid a lot of waiting).

If you watch the video through to the end of the flight, you’ll note a very special ending when SN8 experienced a RUD (Rapid Unplanned Disassembly, i.e. it blew up when it landed a little too fast). That fiery ending honestly means nothing in the grand scheme of SpaceX’s approach to testing. Their team was ecstatic for all that was accomplished in this flight – even, notably, how the newest crater to adorn Boca Chica, TX was located right where it was supposed to be.

I think there’s a lesson for us all in this mindset. SpaceX is accustomed to failure and setbacks. They get it. If you aren’t failing, you’re not innovating enough. The same can be said for each of our organizations. It’s fine if we get bad press from time to time. It’s fine if we get singled out as industries – because that’s just one type of setback. And the really good organizations keep being scrappy underdogs with the right mentality to move past bad press.