Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sovereign writers and Substack

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 169 posts

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#71

Post by tarboreus »

tarkin2 wrote: post #67

Vaguely off topic, but why do so many programmers use substack and medium to write about programming? Why not use their own programming skills to create their own website, rather than consume a service? I used to love visiting programmers' websites, where programmer's would use their skills to not only write, but create. Now it's largely a drab stream of medium posts.

Network effects. Medium and Substack help discoverability. It's trivial to geta site online, but difficult to have people come across it.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#72

Post by jameshart »

WJW wrote: post #35
mc32 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that raises a question. What will readers value? Will they value rigorous writers who may provide discomfort or engaging writers who write to choirs?

Presumably different audiences will prefer different writers, as they always have.

One of the dangers is that it turns out audiences actually prefer writers constrained and filtered and checked by editors.

But by the time they realize that, editors won’t exist any more.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#73

Post by jameshart »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #3

Of course things aren’t so simple; Sullivan, like several of the other names on that leaderboard, are, to put it gently, controversial. That he along with other lightning-rod writers ended up on Substack is more a matter of where else would they go? While Substack is portrayed as being a good move for writers and journalists (and certainly it is, financially), I don't think this is actually good for journalism as a w…

Substack is a great move for a columnist but a terrible move for a reporter.

Unfortunately not all journalists are completely clear which of those they are.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#74

Post by oh_sigh »

tarkin2 wrote: post #67

Vaguely off topic, but why do so many programmers use substack and medium to write about programming? Why not use their own programming skills to create their own website, rather than consume a service? I used to love visiting programmers' websites, where programmer's would use their skills to not only write, but create. Now it's largely a drab stream of medium posts.

I host my content on other services because I have a full time job, a family, and interests outside of tech. Even though I can do it all myself, what's the point? I get paid well into 6 figures for my tech job. What are the odds my blog will start generating that kind of revenue? Basically zero. And I can talk about things I actually do create on my blog, even if my blog is hosted on substack or medium. I just can't point to my actual blog hosting itself as something I created. But that's fine, because it isn't even a particularly interesting problem to solve. I'd be fairly unimpressed if someone was doing general purpose programming for a couple of years and couldn't throw together a barebones blog.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#75

Post by soneca »

jameshart wrote: post #72
WJW wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably different audiences will prefer different writers, as they always have.

One of the dangers is that it turns out audiences actually prefer writers constrained and filtered and checked by editors. But by the time they realize that, editors won’t exist any more.

Very unlikely that they won’t exist anymore.

And whichever low number they are reduced to, they will start to grow again because there will be people willing to pay for their services.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#76

Post by Meekro »

jameshart wrote: post #72
WJW wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably different audiences will prefer different writers, as they always have.

One of the dangers is that it turns out audiences actually prefer writers constrained and filtered and checked by editors. But by the time they realize that, editors won’t exist any more.

I'd like my journalists to be constrained by the truth, and paid editors in the context of a "traditional" newspaper are one possible way to achieve that. However, if you believe the stats on this, trust for traditional news sources is at record lows.

I personally don't trust traditional news sources very much. Therefore, I'm open to trying something different. I've been a happy subscriber to a handful of Substack journalists for a few months now. It's too soon to say whether this will be a lasting improvement, but it's hard to do worse than the mainstream media.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#77

Post by adolph »

ceilingcorner wrote: post #49
bhupy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what journalism has always been like, save for a few decades in one specific country (the US). The past few decades of supposed "objectivity" and "neutrality" in American journalism were a historical aberration. https://www.wired.com/story/journalism-isnt-dying-its-return...

Anti-discrimination laws, human rights, and democracy are also historical aberrations. But I think they're kind of worth keeping around. Perhaps getting accurate facts about the world is also important?

Were people getting accurate facts about the world previously?

Wen it came out in 1988, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s Manufacturing Consent rattled the accepted view in post-Vietnam, post-Watergate America that journalists’ relationship to power was essentially adversarial. Instead, they argued, the institutional structure of American media — its dependence on corporate advertising and sources in the upper ranks of government and business — created a role for the press as creators of propaganda. Without any direct press censorship, with full freedom of speech, the media narrowed the political debate to exclude anything that offended the interests of the market or the state.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/10/matt-taibbi-interview-fai...

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#78

Post by mdoms »

Substack is what happens when the mainstream media elites overplay their hand and force heterodox writers out of the "mainstream". As it turns out there are still plenty of people who want to read this kind of writing, and we don't appreciate the gatekeeping from formerly reputable sources.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#79

Post by pessimizer »

mc32 wrote: post #57
WJW wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably different audiences will prefer different writers, as they always have.

Yes but like food diet, is junk food more profitable or are staples more profitable? What should we aim for? If junk is more profitable, is that okay? Do we all jump on that wagon while the going is good, or do we think a minute about what is more fulfilling?

Media outlets other than substack are also hiring terrible people, and optimizing for trash.

To me the largest difference between large corporate outlets and substack (and other reader-financed journalists) is that large corporate outlets will keep people employed for years that nobody wants to read and could never support themselves independently - journalists who are only important and interesting because of their access to the outlet. The outlets themselves keep those journalists around as pure vehicles for the opinions of their owners.

At least with these outlets, the owners are the readers. If the readers like trash, they'll pay for trash. If the owners like quality, they'll demand it. I don't have to worry about how the subject of the article will affect Bezos's net worth, or wonder how David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, or Thomas Friedman are still employed.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#80

Post by madmadjo »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #65
mc32 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but like food diet, is junk food more profitable or are staples more profitable? What should we aim for? If junk is more profitable, is that okay? Do we all jump on that wagon while the going is good, or do we think a minute about what is more fulfilling?

Obviously trash sells and it always has ("The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience"), but some people care more about things like truth and style than they do about money.

This is the world we're living in. Unfortunately, I can give you only one upvote...
Post reply on HN