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

131–140 of 169 posts

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#131

Post by b215826 »

hdhdbeupphw wrote: post #122
mdoms wrote: post #78

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.

The world already has enough clickbait and hot takes. Substack will probably make a lot of money, but it won’t increase the quality of journalism in the US. We need less opinion in our news diet not more.

> We need less opinion in our news diet not more.

There still are such news sources -- The Economist, Reuters, AP, etc., rarely editorialize their articles. Most other mainstream news sources like NYT, WSJ, etc., are just as clickbaity and cater to a specific demographic of the society just like Substack writers do. So I don't see it as a loss for journalism if people stopped subscribing to, say The Guardian, and instead supported a Substack writer.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#132

Post by dionian »

b215826 wrote: post #131
hdhdbeupphw wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world already has enough clickbait and hot takes. Substack will probably make a lot of money, but it won’t increase the quality of journalism in the US. We need less opinion in our news diet not more.

> We need less opinion in our news diet not more. There still are such news sources -- The Economist , Reuters, AP, etc., rarely editorialize their articles. Most other mainstream news sources like NYT , WSJ , etc., are just as clickbaity and cater to a specific demographic of the society just like Substack writers do. So I don't see it as a loss for journalism if people stopped subscribing to, say The Guardian , and…

Sadly, what you say about Reuters and AP are simply not true.

And I agree, less opinion is good, especially in the once-reputable legacy mainstream media like the paper of the record, the NYT, which pushed the trump-hater Michael Steele 'pee tape' rumor (and the idea that Trump did not explicitly condemn white supremacy ) amongst others.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#133

Post by solveit »

over_bridge wrote: post #119
prepend wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discovered maybe, but certainly not invented.

Don't even pretend that the market is some sort of natural phenomenon. That's got human fingerprints all over it

Could you define "market" because I don't think you're using the word the way I would use it.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#134

Post by [deleted] »

haberman wrote: post #123
jimkleiber wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, as I tend to trust many of the large media outlets, especially the NYT and WaPo. 1) Which outlets do you consider to be the "mainstream media" or "traditional media"? And 2) why don't you trust them?

Glenn Greenwald gets into this a lot. As one recent example, WaPo misquoted Trump's comments on his infamous phone call with the Georgia secretary of state and this was not corrected until two months later when the Wall Street Journal obtained a recording of the call: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-do-big-media-outlets-so...

[deleted]

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#135

Post by bosswipe »

mdoms wrote: post #78

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.

I hate this "elite" framing. The substack writers are media stars with megaphones powerful enough to influence politics and thus our lives. They are rich and powerful, in other words they are elites.

On the other hand, the employees engaged in PC warfare on corporate slack channels, or the social media mobs annoying advertisers, are mostly not the elites. In another framing you would call them populists.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#136

Post by mbgerring »

karaterobot wrote: post #128

> First, Substack is going to have a serious problem retaining its most profitable writers unless it substantially reduces its 10% take. This is the part I'm having trouble understanding. 10% doesn't seem like a high percentage for a distributor, even if they're just hosting text and images. Of course Substack also provides comments, notifications, admin/moderation, and some degree of marketing and aggregation effect…

Successful writers stand to increase their revenue by the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars by ditching Substack for any number of easy-to-administer self-hosted solutions. Writers like Yglesias gain absolutely nothing from staying on Substack. The CMS interface can't possibly be worth the pay cut they're taking by staying there.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#137

Post by prepend »

over_bridge wrote: post #119
prepend wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discovered maybe, but certainly not invented.

Don't even pretend that the market is some sort of natural phenomenon. That's got human fingerprints all over it

Markets exist in nature with the whole “seeking equilibrium” of so many natural systems (eg, chemical reactions).

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#138

Post by ddingus »

I love substack. My trust in domestic mainstream media is at an all-time low.

I am perfectly happy to read a diverse body of opinion, think for myself, and consider current events policy and many other matters on my own.

I think you should too. Substack makes that possible.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#139

Post by slim » 

  Sovereign writers, particularly those focused on analysis and opinion, depend on journalists actually reporting the news
this is not true anymore since long time. the news is increasingly broken by the source itself on social media

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#140

Post by sfRattan »

mbgerring wrote: post #136
karaterobot wrote: post #128

> First, Substack is going to have a serious problem retaining its most profitable writers unless it substantially reduces its 10% take. This is the part I'm having trouble understanding. 10% doesn't seem like a high percentage for a distributor, even if they're just hosting text and images. Of course Substack also provides comments, notifications, admin/moderation, and some degree of marketing and aggregation effect…

Successful writers stand to increase their revenue by the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars by ditching Substack for any number of easy-to-administer self-hosted solutions. Writers like Yglesias gain absolutely nothing from staying on Substack. The CMS interface can't possibly be worth the pay cut they're taking by staying there.

The CMS interface is only a small part of the value. If you cut loose and try to run a high profile blog/newsletter on your own, suddenly you're paying for IT professionals to do security because you are a high profile target and what you want to do is write, not stay constantly up-to-date on hardening your CMS, database, and sensitive information. Good operational security for a website with the threat model of a high profile, heterodox journalist probably costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

If Substack can effectively economize the provision of security for the blogs/newsletters of high profile writers, they might actually reach a scenario that inverts the dynamic of others like YouTube or Patreon: the higher your profile, the more attractive something like Substack becomes; the lower your profile, the easier it is to handle your own website administration and not worry about security.

Post reply on HN