5 ms·

Traditional newspapers and newer media (like Buzzfeed, Huffpost, Vox...) are scared, especially their journos. The clickbait, garbage content factory approach j

Traditional newspapers and newer media (like Buzzfeed, Huffpost, Vox...) are scared, especially their journos. The clickbait, garbage content factory approach just doesn't cut it anymore, and it doesn't raise their profile as journalists offering anything of value. They despise Substack because it threatens to erase the last thing they have left in this business, a kind of ill-perceived legitimacy that they demand their work at a major outlet should give them. The success of independent Substack writers just vaporizes this entirely. They are stuck in a low-paying job, have no prospects in this industry, and no one to appreciate their pathetic work except their like-minded media colleagues. That's why they hate Substack writers. Substack writers pull traffic, the average journos @nyt, wp, you name it, don't. I highly recommend this post from ferddie de boer https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/its-all-just-displacement https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/its-all-just-displaceme...

ed25519FUUU 5y ago
As someone who followed the spygate saga of Trump (I mean really followed) it became clear to me that the journalist is much more important than the outlet for credibility. Good journalists were the key to good information and writing. Substack makes a big difference because those “10x” journalist no longer need to be tied to an outlet.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  What’re the journalists on substack that are publishing new, investigative journalism that isn’t itself linking to or reliant upon other news that got the scoop first? Genuinely asking. (I don’t want and don’t care about commentary. Commentary imo is outrage wank.)
  - comodore_ 5y ago
    The "confrontational libertarian" Glenn Greenwald, who ironically switched to substack because the intercept, tried to meddle with his reporting about the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was censored by facebook and twitter. EDIT: I guess some people think this a controversial take, hence all the down votes.
    - marcus_holmes 5y ago
      I've been reading his stuff after his "Why I left the Intercept" got posted here. I've gotta say, I agree with lots of what he's saying about journalism nowadays. The whole article about journalists using the language of victimhood [0] to protect themselves really struck a nerve. I've seen this attitude and behaviour first-hand. Commercial journalism is a mess, and getting messier. The business model is broken, and journalism is trashing what's left of its reputation trying to save it. I don't know if Substack is the answer. It might just be the final nail in the coffin. But something has to replace this mess. [0] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-attack-the-powerless https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-attack-the-powe...
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      I looked into Glenn Greenwald but as I said before I’m not looking for political commentary, just the facts, from reporters who aren’t just re-reporting something that some other journalist already found.
  - SllX 5y ago
    https://thedispatch.com/about https://thedispatch.com/about Here you go. Link is to about page because I cannot remember for the life of me what is members only and what is not. They’ve got reports, fact checks, morning newsletters, weekly newsletters, podcasts (which are all non-member accessible), and guest pieces.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      I googled “the dispatch political bias” and got political garbage like “ Bernie Sanders and the Rise of Woke Marxism” which took me to a real article on the dispatch website with that title. How the heck is this not political commentary? I’m explicitly asking for news that doesn’t have stuff like this.
      - SllX 5y ago
        Do me a favor and read the about page. Here’s an excerpt: “ We don’t apologize for our conservatism. Some of the best journalism is done when the author is honest with readers about where he or she is coming from, and some of the very worst journalism hides behind a pretense of objectivity and the stolen authority that pretense provides.” Aptly describes my exact problem with most “news” publishers: they’re less than upfront and honest about their own biases and everyone has them, and it shapes the institution’s biases as a whole. The meat and potatoes is the Morning Dispatch and Weekly Dispatch, but they also publish opinion pieces. You’re not always going to agree, just as I don’t always agree, but you asked. Check it out or don’t.
        thujlife 5y ago
        He asked for substack author, and you provided a non substack link.
        SllX 5y ago
        Believe it or not, that’s actually a link to a Substack site. The Dispatch has had a custom domain since they launched at the tail end of 2019.
  - ed25519FUUU 5y ago
    Getting the “scoop” is something reserved for soft pieces. That’s exactly how it works. If you have bad news that’s coming out, you find sympathetic journalists who will help you frame it in a beneficial way (even if the news is damaging). You’re going to see a lot of this with the nursing home scandal in New York over the next few months. This was something really common throughout spygate.
- viraptor 5y ago
  This makes me both anxious if those independent journalists will be able to keep high quality. Sure, they can do opinions, but if there's a big event, NYT gets a pass - will they? NYT has resources they can move around, independents don't. On the other hand being able to subscribe to specific quality writers and not sponsor the package deal with crap included (reminds me of cable packages) feels great.
  - Arnt 5y ago
    Do you really care about that big event? I mean to the extent that you optimise your daily news reading to accommodate it? This isn't meant to say that you won't really. (You may say that I do — I've subscribed to a staid broadsheet for most of my life and get a thick wad of paper delivered every morning.) It's meant to make you ask the question of yourself. Do you want something that'll get that pass, do you want those clueful commentators, or what do you want? ("Want" so much as to pay for it.)
meheleventyone 5y ago
I wonder if Substack subsumed newspapers and other aggregated media would we be in a better or worse position? For me at least Substack presents a solid wall with very little to help discovery. Who do I subscribe to and why? The website is awful at showing me interesting writing. Right now they seem heavily reliant on the writer already having a platform and there is no opportunity for serendipitous discovery. I've also got the sinking feeling that it won't reduce the proliferation of low quality content for clicks because that business model is perfectly feasible in the subscription world. It might even speed it up as people gravitate towards paying for content that they agree with or tickles them. I'm also concerned about what this paywalled, atomisation of information and ideas does to society. Looking at the subscription rates it looks very expensive to maintain a rounded view or even to subscribe to more than a handful of writers. If we're going to complain about newspapers and journalism losing their way (in a value to society sense) does the model of Substack actually fix it or is it just a way for a minority of writers to find financial success?
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  > For me at least Substack presents a solid wall with very little to help discovery. Who do I subscribe to and why? The website is awful at showing me interesting writing. This is by design, because if they did recommend "controversial" people, they'd be accused of being a [bad thing.]
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    That sounds quite conspiratorial. Are you saying the majority of popular content on Substack is actually just "controversial" people rather than quality journalism?
    - ceilingcorner 5y ago
      No. I can't find the original post, but I do remember reading a Substack post (by the founders) saying that they deliberately don't like using content recommendation systems.
    - 5y ago
germinalphrase 5y ago
Does the “average” Substack writer really pull that much traffic?
- dsr_ 5y ago
  Unlikely. As in book publishing, music, and TV network shows, the hits subsidize the rest. Also as in those other industries, nobody knows what will be a hit until they're well on their way up, so a thriving business needs to be willing to experiment.

ed25519FUUU 5y ago

As someone who followed the spygate saga of Trump (I mean really followed) it became clear to me that the journalist is much more important than the outlet for credibility. Good journalists were the key to good information and writing. Substack makes a big difference because those “10x” journalist no longer need to be tied to an outlet.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
What’re the journalists on substack that are publishing new, investigative journalism that isn’t itself linking to or reliant upon other news that got the scoop first? Genuinely asking. (I don’t want and don’t care about commentary. Commentary imo is outrage wank.)
- comodore_ 5y ago
  The "confrontational libertarian" Glenn Greenwald, who ironically switched to substack because the intercept, tried to meddle with his reporting about the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was censored by facebook and twitter. EDIT: I guess some people think this a controversial take, hence all the down votes.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    I've been reading his stuff after his "Why I left the Intercept" got posted here. I've gotta say, I agree with lots of what he's saying about journalism nowadays. The whole article about journalists using the language of victimhood [0] to protect themselves really struck a nerve. I've seen this attitude and behaviour first-hand. Commercial journalism is a mess, and getting messier. The business model is broken, and journalism is trashing what's left of its reputation trying to save it. I don't know if Substack is the answer. It might just be the final nail in the coffin. But something has to replace this mess. [0] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-attack-the-powerless https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-attack-the-powe...
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    I looked into Glenn Greenwald but as I said before I’m not looking for political commentary, just the facts, from reporters who aren’t just re-reporting something that some other journalist already found.
- SllX 5y ago
  https://thedispatch.com/about https://thedispatch.com/about Here you go. Link is to about page because I cannot remember for the life of me what is members only and what is not. They’ve got reports, fact checks, morning newsletters, weekly newsletters, podcasts (which are all non-member accessible), and guest pieces.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    I googled “the dispatch political bias” and got political garbage like “ Bernie Sanders and the Rise of Woke Marxism” which took me to a real article on the dispatch website with that title. How the heck is this not political commentary? I’m explicitly asking for news that doesn’t have stuff like this.
    - SllX 5y ago
      Do me a favor and read the about page. Here’s an excerpt: “ We don’t apologize for our conservatism. Some of the best journalism is done when the author is honest with readers about where he or she is coming from, and some of the very worst journalism hides behind a pretense of objectivity and the stolen authority that pretense provides.” Aptly describes my exact problem with most “news” publishers: they’re less than upfront and honest about their own biases and everyone has them, and it shapes the institution’s biases as a whole. The meat and potatoes is the Morning Dispatch and Weekly Dispatch, but they also publish opinion pieces. You’re not always going to agree, just as I don’t always agree, but you asked. Check it out or don’t.
      - thujlife 5y ago
        He asked for substack author, and you provided a non substack link.
        SllX 5y ago
        Believe it or not, that’s actually a link to a Substack site. The Dispatch has had a custom domain since they launched at the tail end of 2019.
- ed25519FUUU 5y ago
  Getting the “scoop” is something reserved for soft pieces. That’s exactly how it works. If you have bad news that’s coming out, you find sympathetic journalists who will help you frame it in a beneficial way (even if the news is damaging). You’re going to see a lot of this with the nursing home scandal in New York over the next few months. This was something really common throughout spygate.
viraptor 5y ago
This makes me both anxious if those independent journalists will be able to keep high quality. Sure, they can do opinions, but if there's a big event, NYT gets a pass - will they? NYT has resources they can move around, independents don't. On the other hand being able to subscribe to specific quality writers and not sponsor the package deal with crap included (reminds me of cable packages) feels great.
- Arnt 5y ago
  Do you really care about that big event? I mean to the extent that you optimise your daily news reading to accommodate it? This isn't meant to say that you won't really. (You may say that I do — I've subscribed to a staid broadsheet for most of my life and get a thick wad of paper delivered every morning.) It's meant to make you ask the question of yourself. Do you want something that'll get that pass, do you want those clueful commentators, or what do you want? ("Want" so much as to pay for it.)

meheleventyone 5y ago

I wonder if Substack subsumed newspapers and other aggregated media would we be in a better or worse position? For me at least Substack presents a solid wall with very little to help discovery. Who do I subscribe to and why? The website is awful at showing me interesting writing. Right now they seem heavily reliant on the writer already having a platform and there is no opportunity for serendipitous discovery. I've also got the sinking feeling that it won't reduce the proliferation of low quality content for clicks because that business model is perfectly feasible in the subscription world. It might even speed it up as people gravitate towards paying for content that they agree with or tickles them. I'm also concerned about what this paywalled, atomisation of information and ideas does to society. Looking at the subscription rates it looks very expensive to maintain a rounded view or even to subscribe to more than a handful of writers. If we're going to complain about newspapers and journalism losing their way (in a value to society sense) does the model of Substack actually fix it or is it just a way for a minority of writers to find financial success?

ceilingcorner 5y ago
> For me at least Substack presents a solid wall with very little to help discovery. Who do I subscribe to and why? The website is awful at showing me interesting writing. This is by design, because if they did recommend "controversial" people, they'd be accused of being a [bad thing.]
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  That sounds quite conspiratorial. Are you saying the majority of popular content on Substack is actually just "controversial" people rather than quality journalism?
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    No. I can't find the original post, but I do remember reading a Substack post (by the founders) saying that they deliberately don't like using content recommendation systems.
  - 5y ago

germinalphrase 5y ago

Does the “average” Substack writer really pull that much traffic?

dsr_ 5y ago
Unlikely. As in book publishing, music, and TV network shows, the hits subsidize the rest. Also as in those other industries, nobody knows what will be a hit until they're well on their way up, so a thriving business needs to be willing to experiment.