3 ms·

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. W

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.

b215826 6y ago
> 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.
- dionian 6y ago
  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.
  - aklemm 6y ago
    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.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      He did explicitly condemn white supremacy. > As I said on -- remember this -- Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. > And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesville-transcript-20170815-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesv... If NYT claimed that he didn't, it's anything but "best possible info". You're not immune to propaganda or misinformation just because you happen to be against Trump.
- lq313c 6y ago
  > 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-on-immigration https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/20/bidens-muddle-o... https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/18/how-europes-vaccine-caution-can-cost-lives https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/18/how-europes-vac... https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/03/the-uns-peacekeepers-are-under-pressure-to-quit-congo https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/03/...
- rchaud 6y ago
  Rarely editorialize? The entire magazine is opinion. The Economist doesn't interview anybody, doesn't cultivate any sources, or ever break any stories. It mostly reads like recent university graduates cosplaying William F Buckley. Perhaps it just 'feels' like it doesn't editorialize because their writers are all nameless and faceless and share the same ideology, so there is never a difference of opinion. Problem with the economy/society/military? Just deregulate and privatize!
jrsj 6y ago
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
heisenbit 6y ago
The focus on less opinion in the US media is misguided. This focus on purity is not leading to better reporting but has lead to honest writers hide their point of view and manipulative writers twisting facts under the presumed cover of neutrality. And it has led to ‚pure’ opinion which can be disconnected from facts and that is tolerated as acceptable. Imho. US media needs an injection of more common sense through properly contextualized facts - and the human experience of the writer is a big part of this.
JeremyNT 6y ago
Yeah, Substack is just the next iteration of Medium. What's new is that rockstar opinion writers with enough name recognition are able to generate clickbait targeted for their specific followers and make a living in doing so, rather than relying on the opinion sections of major publications. So now i guess the established troll farms like the NYT or WSJ editorial pages are the clickbait minor leagues while Substack is the majors. This doesn't seem to be any better, really.
- rchaud 6y ago
  80-20 rule applies. Only a few will become truly well known, and the others will scratch and scrape for crumbs. Back in the 2000s, 'blogs' were all the rage. It was where 'real journalism' happened, away from the red tape and PC-ness of newsrooms. Sound familiar? 15 years later, somebody like Andrew Sullivan or Breibart are the only 'bloggers' people even remember.

b215826 6y ago

> 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.

dionian 6y ago
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.
- aklemm 6y ago
  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.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    He did explicitly condemn white supremacy. > As I said on -- remember this -- Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. > And you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesville-transcript-20170815-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-charlottesv... If NYT claimed that he didn't, it's anything but "best possible info". You're not immune to propaganda or misinformation just because you happen to be against Trump.
lq313c 6y ago
> 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-on-immigration https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/20/bidens-muddle-o... https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/18/how-europes-vaccine-caution-can-cost-lives https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/18/how-europes-vac... https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/03/the-uns-peacekeepers-are-under-pressure-to-quit-congo https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/09/03/...
rchaud 6y ago
Rarely editorialize? The entire magazine is opinion. The Economist doesn't interview anybody, doesn't cultivate any sources, or ever break any stories. It mostly reads like recent university graduates cosplaying William F Buckley. Perhaps it just 'feels' like it doesn't editorialize because their writers are all nameless and faceless and share the same ideology, so there is never a difference of opinion. Problem with the economy/society/military? Just deregulate and privatize!

jrsj 6y ago

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

heisenbit 6y ago

The focus on less opinion in the US media is misguided. This focus on purity is not leading to better reporting but has lead to honest writers hide their point of view and manipulative writers twisting facts under the presumed cover of neutrality. And it has led to ‚pure’ opinion which can be disconnected from facts and that is tolerated as acceptable. Imho. US media needs an injection of more common sense through properly contextualized facts - and the human experience of the writer is a big part of this.

JeremyNT 6y ago

Yeah, Substack is just the next iteration of Medium. What's new is that rockstar opinion writers with enough name recognition are able to generate clickbait targeted for their specific followers and make a living in doing so, rather than relying on the opinion sections of major publications. So now i guess the established troll farms like the NYT or WSJ editorial pages are the clickbait minor leagues while Substack is the majors. This doesn't seem to be any better, really.

rchaud 6y ago
80-20 rule applies. Only a few will become truly well known, and the others will scratch and scrape for crumbs. Back in the 2000s, 'blogs' were all the rage. It was where 'real journalism' happened, away from the red tape and PC-ness of newsrooms. Sound familiar? 15 years later, somebody like Andrew Sullivan or Breibart are the only 'bloggers' people even remember.