New Technologies. New Platforms. New Languages?

Because you are highly likely to be less of a saddo than me, you may never have reflected on just how impactful the invention of the printing press was [1]. Prior to it, the reliance on learned scribes and religious clerics to interpret, curate and disseminate knowledge was huge. Then one day, access to printed text proliferated rapidly and for a moment it felt like knowledge could democratise. But realistically, the gatekeepers just wore more suits and fewer robes. Journalistic conformity, media conglomeration and appetites for censorship have fluctuated in the centuries since but society has trended towards transparency, visibility and liberty on the whole because you can both learn to read AND access a book.

Just think for a second how disruptive this was. We can look back now at some of the horrors of how medieval royalty, judiciary and clergy abused their authority and mismanaged what the plebs were allowed to know/do/say/think. But it wasn’t risk free to proliferate direct access to knowledge that had previously required a filter of the educated who could read, write and think ‘properly’. The people who could read, write, interpret, ponder and orate can be considered ‘scholars’ in a broad category and ‘experts’ within sub-disciplines. Wasn’t it best that those who could properly comprehend such powerful ideas as ‘The Word of The Lord’ be an essential step between text and layman? Much ink and blood was therefore spilt in deciding how free ‘free speech’ should be, and of course such debates rage on regarding these thresholds.

I doubt you’ve failed to notice how familiar the opportunities and challenges associated with the printing press sound to the internet age. Especially the way in which the democratisation of opinion has this time coincided with huge reach and impact being afforded to literally anyone whose ideas inspire people to pay attention to them. In our sector, we have a fascinating mix of institutions, platforms and influencers where credibility is hugely variable. A therapist interested in elbow pain who works their way up in an academic setting, publishing papers on primary research would be forgiven for celebrating their inclusion in a highly respected journal… which is then read by fourteen people, none of whom are in MSK, six of whom are family members. Simultaneously, a therapist interested in elbow pain who develops a following on the internet would be forgiven for celebrating their viral Tik Tok video… which lacked evidential backing of one of its claims and used jargon misunderstood by several fitness influencers who then produce response videos.

These two caricatures aren’t completely incompatible, but we can’t pretend that tension isn’t likely when their sense of credibility is derived so differently. Physio Matters and this, its ever-growing Gutenburg-esque periodical, are platforms for both these therapists and everyone in between. But we’re also ambitious (stupid) enough to go beyond simply publishing varied views. We see a route forward to improve compatibility and enhance industry-wide dialogue, but let me explain why it will take for us to reach into our memories of school time language classes to sort this out.

When you encounter someone who is speaking a language that is not their first, you give them significant leeway so as to understand what they are getting at. They are forgiven various imprecisions in vocabulary and formality because they’re trying their best and it's LITERALLY FOREIGN to them. You COULD hold them to the standards you might hold a native speaker and lambast them for a grammatical error that offended you and your disabled aunt of colour, but you’re not a total moron, so you don’t.

How about we encounter the styles and arguments of others in our field with a similar level of charity? First seek to understand. Ask rather than assume. Cut each other some slack. Your colleague is more likely to be wrong than evil. Giving them an opportunity to rephrase is a basic courtesy. One day we might have a universal MSK phrasebook, code of cultural conduct and an agreed upon pathway to professional credibility, but until then let’s respect the various languages and cultural backgrounds that make our field such an interesting space.

This month our printing press inks the name of another set of MSK legends. Matt Phillips explains what to look for and what to overlook with runners’ gait analysis. The authors ( Roger Kerry et al) of the increasingly infamous ‘teaching modern manual therapy’ paper unpack their thoughts further. Giles Hazan has penned a lovely piece on metabolic comorbidities just as we and our patients ponder how we shift the Christmas pud. Like many people, Daniel Connolly has a lot to say about the FCP debacle, but unlike many people he is willing to write it down. Tim C. was once my fave occupational health physio commentator and he’s now my favourite health tech commentator, so you’re in for a treat with his explainer on what we can learn from Med Tech and finally, MSKMag’s answer to The Stig; Glen O’Humeral went to Therapy Expo and asked us to publish a transcript of him talking to himself.

Hope this made sense? Did it translate OK from Mandarin?

Jack Chew

Editor In Chief