3 ms·

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 po

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.

Lazare 6y ago
> 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.
- coolgeek 6y ago
  > That's not true of the overwhelming majority of Substack writers The majority, then, are writers who can't get a job in paid media - either because they're not good enough, or there aren't enough paid slots available to accommodate them. IOW, Substack is the 2020s version of Blogger, except that it has a payment/compensation system built in. As with "content producers" on YouTube, "influencers" on InstaGram, etc, there is vastly more supply than there is demand or available compensation. I'm not saying that there aren't good, original voices on Substack. I'm saying that the vast majority of writers on the platform are categorically similar to, and subject to the same system constraints as, other media/attention platforms.

Lazare 6y ago

> 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.

coolgeek 6y ago
> That's not true of the overwhelming majority of Substack writers The majority, then, are writers who can't get a job in paid media - either because they're not good enough, or there aren't enough paid slots available to accommodate them. IOW, Substack is the 2020s version of Blogger, except that it has a payment/compensation system built in. As with "content producers" on YouTube, "influencers" on InstaGram, etc, there is vastly more supply than there is demand or available compensation. I'm not saying that there aren't good, original voices on Substack. I'm saying that the vast majority of writers on the platform are categorically similar to, and subject to the same system constraints as, other media/attention platforms.