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

141–150 of 169 posts

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#141

Post by aklemm »

dionian wrote: post #132
b215826 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The NYT take on Trump not condemning white supremacy only improves my view of the paper. Trump talks out of both sides of his mouth in that scenario (and so many others) as a way to lay an evergreen trap for critics. I want my paper to take a broader view and then make a decision on best possible info; Trump never convincingly condemned white supremacy.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#142

Post by jrsj »

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.

right because a media that just lies about basic facts to push establishment political agendas including promoting unnecessary wars is good for the country & the world

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#143

Post by GeekyBear »

jimkleiber wrote: post #99
Meekro wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 jo…

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?

> why don't you trust them?

Have we already forgotten the NYT and WaPo pushing to get us into the Iraq War on false pretenses?

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#144

Post by jrsj »

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.

some of the more successful writers on substack are hiring people to do editorial work so even with this model it doesnt go away entirely

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#145

Post by sershe »

glennismyfren wrote: post #98
coldtea wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've yet to read what I would consider high quality journalism on Substack. It's a lot of quick take opinion pieces. Most of what passes for "high quality journalism" in "high quality outlets" are fluff pieces and government/corporate PR masquerading as facts. And as Alan Kay said: "a point of view is worth 80 IQ points". I'd rather read the opinion of people with well honed points of view than what passes as news…

Glenn Greenwald has written a number of very good pieces on his Substack that I would in no way describe as quick take opinion pieces and Matt Taibbi has the best reporting on the journalism industry itself going around. These guys are "well honed" because they're well read on the activities of the media and they think and communicate clearly Maybe you're not reading the right posts or you just agree with the prevail…

Thank you for the Autonomous Zone reference. Googling for this and finding local news, Fox and NY Post is really eye-opening. Apparently it's not even worth mentioning... optics would be bad for the -useful idi- compassionate supporters more towards the center.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#146

Post by lq313c »

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…

> The Economist ... rarely editorialize their articles.

What? The Economist is almost entirely editorials. The only difference between it and other editorial-only publications like Foreign Affairs is that the authors' names are deliberately removed to give the paper a sense of speaking with "one collective voice". Every article subheading is an opinion, and ends with a paragraph firmly staking out a position. The writing may be eloquent, and the graphs pretty, but the result is a publication that heavily editorializes, while lacking any debate or diversity of thought.

Examples from current issue:

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/20/bidens-muddle-o...

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/18/how-europes-vac...

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/03/...

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#147

Post by refurb »

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...

Indeed. Readers of WaPo should be outraged the paper took one source at their word when it came to statements from the President. Zero confirmation.

And it turns out it was all made up.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#148

Post by jiriknesl »

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

Of course, market is natural phenomenon. Every process with pressure, suction and or differences of potential is trying to achieve equilibrium. Electricity, hydraulics, they all manifest the same principles. Except that in nature, it's driven by pure physics. With people, you need to understand value and it's more generic. One step more generic from physics, is cybernetics. And market is a cybernetic system with difference of energies trying to achieve equilibrium.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#149

Post by jiriknesl »

mc32 wrote: post #6
jger15 wrote: post #2

"...it’s not that Substack will compete with existing publications for their best writers, but rather that Substack makes it easy for the best writers to discover their actual market value." Thompson on point per usual

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?

It depends on the reader. I, for example, always value, when I learn something new. No matter if it supports or questions my current views.

The issue with some Substack authors is they fall into Productivity Bullshit Industrial Complex (https://99u.adobe.com/articles/55974/the-creative-worlds-bul...) cathegory which is not very novel for anyone, who have read a few pieces in this space.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#150

Post by Lazare »

bosswipe wrote: post #135
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.

> The substack writers are media stars [...] They are rich and powerful

The vanishingly small minority of Substack writers who are media stars, and who are rich and powerful, yes. That's not true of the overwhelming majority of Substack writers. Also, even the handful of media stars has traditionally been utterly powerless in comparison to our corporate media.

What power, eg, Greenwald may have pales utterly in comparison to the power of a media conglomerate.

> On the other hand, the employees engaged in PC warfare on corporate slack channels [...] In another framing you would call them populists.

Culturally, they would probably be the first to view themselves as part of the elite. And as for being populists, that would seem to require them to be pursuing policies which are popular.

The "elite" framing may bother you, but I don't think it can be easily refuted either.

Post reply on HN