4 ms·

In Defense of Substack

23 points by jashkenas 6y ago

brodouevencode 6y ago
Roberts has an industry and an ideology to protect. It only makes sense that she would say such things. EDIT: clarity
Traster 6y ago
I find it kind of ironic that Taibbi undermines his entire argument that he's holding to standards despite not being at a reputable news organisation by making a douchey jibe about his subject's job in the first sentence. >The answer connects to one of the primary reasons audiences are moving to places like Substack: the perception that traditional news outlets have become tools of the very corporate and political interests they’re supposed to be overseeing. Ah, the Ted Cruz defense - people think this thing, so let's pretend it's true. Nevermind the fact the only reason they think it's true is because I told them it's true. I think at the end of the day, Taibbi is making a rather unconvincing argument that you can write a slanted, cherry picked article to back your own political bent and that's still objective journalism because the cherry picked facts are wrong. Which just seems like an absurd failure to get to grips with a world in which climate change is a debate and people spent decades dying of cancer because of manufactured "objective facts" about smoking.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  The stats show a record low trust in mainstream media. And no one denies narrative pressures in the newsroom, where behaving like Fox News is the norm at places like CNN and MSNBC, and some argue the NYT. Your comment about objectivity in scare quotes, are you arguing there is no objectivity to seek out? Or are you pointing out that facts can be false? It's unclear why you put that in quotation marks.
  - Traster 6y ago
    I'm saying that "Objectivity" isn't the same thing as only reporting facts. It's a valid point that journalists should feel a responsibility to present their facts in a way that they believe accurately reflects the world. Out comes some extremely suspect October surprise and Greenwald doesn't want to talk about the elephant in the room, no instead he wants to talk about how worrying it is that the news organisations didn't gullibly repeat the obvious BS. It's perfectly valid for the editor to say "Hey, that's not actually the story here, that's the contrarianist hot-take"
    - mancerayder 6y ago
      You didn't tell us the elephant in the room Greenwald failed to report on?
      - Traster 6y ago
        That the actual story is the source of the October surprise and the fact it was an obvious attempt to sling mud. Greenwald didn’t want to sling mud, he just wanted to turn up and write an article about how muddy Biden was looking these days.
- MikeUt 6y ago
  "Nevermind the fact the only reason they think it's true is because I told them it's true." Is that really the only reason? Could things such as major networks hiring ex-CIA personnel [1] contribute to that impression? Or maybe Reuters and the BBC acting as an arm of the UK foreign office [2]? Edit: And of course the article itself cites some compelling reasons in the very next paragraph. [1] https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/23/cnn-msnbc-15-spooks-mccabe/ https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/23/cnn-msnbc-15-spooks-mccab... [2] https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...
  - Traster 6y ago
    You're making my point for me. You say "How can you trust these people! They're hiring people who used to work for the CIA!", I say "If I want accurate reporting about the intelligence community, I probably want to have some qualified perspectives". It doesn't mean you have to accept their party line. but if your argument is that CNN shouldn't be hiring people who've worked in the intelligence community, you're arguing for CNN to do a bad job. Your second citation is pretty funny, are you really telling me Americans don't trust their media because the UK FCO sponsored pro free media content in Russia?
    - MikeUt 6y ago
      I'm sure if Russia was covertly training journalists in the US to produce an “attitudinal change in the participants,” promoting a “positive impact” on their “perception of Russia.” and CNN was full of ex Russian FSB agents, you'd also see it as completely benign.
      - Traster 6y ago
        You think that CNN being full of ex-Russian agents is the same thing as CNN having former CIA people?
        MikeUt 6y ago
        With the exception that they're promoting US instead of Russian interests, yes. A glance at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Central_Intelligence_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Central_Intelli... should dispel any delusions of CIA trustworthiness.
aksss 6y ago
I appreciate that Taibbi and Greenwald keep pointing out the revolving door between mainstream news media and the intelligence agencies. I don't think this gets nearly enough attention, or the idea of manufacturing consent in general. Roberts' defense of mainstream media - the idea that they are pinnacles of trust and ethics - is threadbare at this point. She's fantasizing about an industry culture that doesn't exist (and may never have), demonstrably. Spending $50/yr on Taibbi and/or Greenwald is some of the best investment you can do in journalism today.

23 points by jashkenas 6y ago

Roberts has an industry and an ideology to protect. It only makes sense that she would say such things. EDIT: clarity

I find it kind of ironic that Taibbi undermines his entire argument that he's holding to standards despite not being at a reputable news organisation by making a douchey jibe about his subject's job in the first sentence. >The answer connects to one of the primary reasons audiences are moving to places like Substack: the perception that traditional news outlets have become tools of the very corporate and political interests they’re supposed to be overseeing. Ah, the Ted Cruz defense - people think this thing, so let's pretend it's true. Nevermind the fact the only reason they think it's true is because I told them it's true. I think at the end of the day, Taibbi is making a rather unconvincing argument that you can write a slanted, cherry picked article to back your own political bent and that's still objective journalism because the cherry picked facts are wrong. Which just seems like an absurd failure to get to grips with a world in which climate change is a debate and people spent decades dying of cancer because of manufactured "objective facts" about smoking.

mancerayder 6y ago
The stats show a record low trust in mainstream media. And no one denies narrative pressures in the newsroom, where behaving like Fox News is the norm at places like CNN and MSNBC, and some argue the NYT. Your comment about objectivity in scare quotes, are you arguing there is no objectivity to seek out? Or are you pointing out that facts can be false? It's unclear why you put that in quotation marks.
- Traster 6y ago
  I'm saying that "Objectivity" isn't the same thing as only reporting facts. It's a valid point that journalists should feel a responsibility to present their facts in a way that they believe accurately reflects the world. Out comes some extremely suspect October surprise and Greenwald doesn't want to talk about the elephant in the room, no instead he wants to talk about how worrying it is that the news organisations didn't gullibly repeat the obvious BS. It's perfectly valid for the editor to say "Hey, that's not actually the story here, that's the contrarianist hot-take"
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    You didn't tell us the elephant in the room Greenwald failed to report on?
    - Traster 6y ago
      That the actual story is the source of the October surprise and the fact it was an obvious attempt to sling mud. Greenwald didn’t want to sling mud, he just wanted to turn up and write an article about how muddy Biden was looking these days.
MikeUt 6y ago
"Nevermind the fact the only reason they think it's true is because I told them it's true." Is that really the only reason? Could things such as major networks hiring ex-CIA personnel [1] contribute to that impression? Or maybe Reuters and the BBC acting as an arm of the UK foreign office [2]? Edit: And of course the article itself cites some compelling reasons in the very next paragraph. [1] https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/23/cnn-msnbc-15-spooks-mccabe/ https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/23/cnn-msnbc-15-spooks-mccab... [2] https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...
- Traster 6y ago
  You're making my point for me. You say "How can you trust these people! They're hiring people who used to work for the CIA!", I say "If I want accurate reporting about the intelligence community, I probably want to have some qualified perspectives". It doesn't mean you have to accept their party line. but if your argument is that CNN shouldn't be hiring people who've worked in the intelligence community, you're arguing for CNN to do a bad job. Your second citation is pretty funny, are you really telling me Americans don't trust their media because the UK FCO sponsored pro free media content in Russia?
  - MikeUt 6y ago
    I'm sure if Russia was covertly training journalists in the US to produce an “attitudinal change in the participants,” promoting a “positive impact” on their “perception of Russia.” and CNN was full of ex Russian FSB agents, you'd also see it as completely benign.
    - Traster 6y ago
      You think that CNN being full of ex-Russian agents is the same thing as CNN having former CIA people?
      - MikeUt 6y ago
        With the exception that they're promoting US instead of Russian interests, yes. A glance at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Central_Intelligence_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Central_Intelli... should dispel any delusions of CIA trustworthiness.

aksss 6y ago

I appreciate that Taibbi and Greenwald keep pointing out the revolving door between mainstream news media and the intelligence agencies. I don't think this gets nearly enough attention, or the idea of manufacturing consent in general. Roberts' defense of mainstream media - the idea that they are pinnacles of trust and ethics - is threadbare at this point. She's fantasizing about an industry culture that doesn't exist (and may never have), demonstrably. Spending $50/yr on Taibbi and/or Greenwald is some of the best investment you can do in journalism today.