4 ms·

While Scott has a pretty decent natural talent for writing, he also has a MD, he's a board licensed practicing psychiatrist who has been working for a decade in

While Scott has a pretty decent natural talent for writing, he also has a MD, he's a board licensed practicing psychiatrist who has been working for a decade in the field, and he has spent at least the last twenty years gaining a pretty decent broad exposure to statistical and research methods. I don't believe he disclosed what Substack paid him, but he is in the "paid tier" and has said it was a mistake to even agree to that because the subscriptions he has gotten exceed what Substack paid him. In short, if you want most journalism to hire licensed medical doctors with decades of experience in science and statistics, and natural writing talent on top of that, expect journalism to get a lot more expensive. A market certainly exists for Scott, but I'm not sure the market exists for all journalists to be as highly qualified as Scott. Or, for that matter, even for CDC and WHO PR arms. They definitely aren't paying their communications officers whatever Substack is paying Scott, or probably even what his psychiatry practice is paying him.

naasking 5y ago
> I'm not sure the market exists for all journalists to be as highly qualified as Scott I'm not sure we need as many journalists as we currently have. Do we really need another rehashing of the latest culture war nonsense? If you strip out all of these pseudo-journalists and consider only journalists covering real facts and in-depth analysis, that's a considerably smaller group that could plausibly consist of a number of Scotts.
- _djo_ 5y ago
  That's what the public demands, so that's what news companies cater for in order to make a profit and stay in business. Few journalists like covering that sort of stuff, a whole bunch dreamed of being investigative journalists breaking corruption and other public interest stories. But there simply aren't enough people reading those stories to maintain nearly enough staff for them. Scott Alexander can also do what he does because he's not required to be totally accurate. It's opinion, backed by experience and training, but still opinion. He's also not writing to a deadline, except one he sets himself. Real journalism is a lot harder than informed commentary.
  - naasking 5y ago
    Journalists aren't required to be totally accurate either. Most journalism is opinion, especially these days. Sometimes also informed opinion backed by experience, often not even that. I'm just not seeing this distinction you claim exists.
    - _djo_ 5y ago
      Journalists at established media houses are accountable, including to internal and external ombuds or public editors. They also rely on reputation. Of course a lot of what's supposed to be 'journalism' isn't, like talking heads on cable news.
      - naasking 5y ago
        > Journalists at established media houses are accountable, including to internal and external ombuds or public editors. They also rely on reputation. Which is ultimately irrelevant, because most mainstream outlets are partisan and look after their own, both on the right and left. You only need to look at the ridiculous coverage of Obama, Trump, Russia, Rittenhouse and dozens more examples over the past few years. The people who peddled misinformation haven't suffered any consequences.
- cafard 5y ago
  There are a lot of real facts out there, more of them every day. Not all of them worth considering show up in spreadsheets at central sites, some have to be ascertained and reported by someone on the spot. And I would distinguish between reporting and commentary.
bhelkey 5y ago
I am not sure that Scott would fit into a newspaper environment. Scott has some really interesting articles. He has one huge advantage over journalists. He seemingly doesn't work in the same deadline constrained world that typical journalists do: >> I know I’m two months late here. Everyone’s already made up their mind and moved on to other things.

naasking 5y ago

> I'm not sure the market exists for all journalists to be as highly qualified as Scott I'm not sure we need as many journalists as we currently have. Do we really need another rehashing of the latest culture war nonsense? If you strip out all of these pseudo-journalists and consider only journalists covering real facts and in-depth analysis, that's a considerably smaller group that could plausibly consist of a number of Scotts.

_djo_ 5y ago
That's what the public demands, so that's what news companies cater for in order to make a profit and stay in business. Few journalists like covering that sort of stuff, a whole bunch dreamed of being investigative journalists breaking corruption and other public interest stories. But there simply aren't enough people reading those stories to maintain nearly enough staff for them. Scott Alexander can also do what he does because he's not required to be totally accurate. It's opinion, backed by experience and training, but still opinion. He's also not writing to a deadline, except one he sets himself. Real journalism is a lot harder than informed commentary.
- naasking 5y ago
  Journalists aren't required to be totally accurate either. Most journalism is opinion, especially these days. Sometimes also informed opinion backed by experience, often not even that. I'm just not seeing this distinction you claim exists.
  - _djo_ 5y ago
    Journalists at established media houses are accountable, including to internal and external ombuds or public editors. They also rely on reputation. Of course a lot of what's supposed to be 'journalism' isn't, like talking heads on cable news.
    - naasking 5y ago
      > Journalists at established media houses are accountable, including to internal and external ombuds or public editors. They also rely on reputation. Which is ultimately irrelevant, because most mainstream outlets are partisan and look after their own, both on the right and left. You only need to look at the ridiculous coverage of Obama, Trump, Russia, Rittenhouse and dozens more examples over the past few years. The people who peddled misinformation haven't suffered any consequences.
cafard 5y ago
There are a lot of real facts out there, more of them every day. Not all of them worth considering show up in spreadsheets at central sites, some have to be ascertained and reported by someone on the spot. And I would distinguish between reporting and commentary.

bhelkey 5y ago

I am not sure that Scott would fit into a newspaper environment. Scott has some really interesting articles. He has one huge advantage over journalists. He seemingly doesn't work in the same deadline constrained world that typical journalists do: >> I know I’m two months late here. Everyone’s already made up their mind and moved on to other things.