3 ms·

Interesting, on Twitter Noah Smith has become a laughing stock. I will say that generally, non-print media like Substack, personal blogs and Twitter can be a m

Interesting, on Twitter Noah Smith has become a laughing stock. I will say that generally, non-print media like Substack, personal blogs and Twitter can be a much higher quality replacement. Requires a little digging though.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
I've found the opposite. Print media publications seem to be higher quality with better editorial review. There are of course exceptions and outstanding blogs out there. I've seen some reporters go from working at a "big" publisher to Substack and I can tell the difference in their writing. Usually more extreme and alarmist. I chalk it up to less review.
- MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
  I agree the individual pieces are less polished and tend more towards alarmism or outrage. I still find it overall better, because logical inconsistencies and wrong facts will get called out viciously and without mercy. The result is a more correct worldview, but one needs to keep some distance, otherwise it can get unhealthy. Its the difference between a university debate club and an MMA cage. The MMA filter is much stronger, but there tends to be a lot more blood.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    > logical inconsistencies and wrong facts will get called out viciously and without mercy Even here, inaccuracies are promoted as fact regularly. I don't count on the social media herd as a compass. Other than this site I avoid news that comes with a comment section because internet anons have their own biases and agendas and aren't representative. You end up with nuance swept aside and extreme unflinching loudmouths getting the most visibility. A lot of this goes hand in hand with quitting social media.
    - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
      The print media is getting increasingly biased as well though! The NYT used to be the „paper of record“, not anymore.
chrchang523 4y ago
Just a personal opinion, but I'd characterize Noah Smith as "uneven", not "laughingstock". He hits enough high notes that I would be quite sad to see him go, even though I find him very unreliable.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

I've found the opposite. Print media publications seem to be higher quality with better editorial review. There are of course exceptions and outstanding blogs out there. I've seen some reporters go from working at a "big" publisher to Substack and I can tell the difference in their writing. Usually more extreme and alarmist. I chalk it up to less review.

MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
I agree the individual pieces are less polished and tend more towards alarmism or outrage. I still find it overall better, because logical inconsistencies and wrong facts will get called out viciously and without mercy. The result is a more correct worldview, but one needs to keep some distance, otherwise it can get unhealthy. Its the difference between a university debate club and an MMA cage. The MMA filter is much stronger, but there tends to be a lot more blood.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  > logical inconsistencies and wrong facts will get called out viciously and without mercy Even here, inaccuracies are promoted as fact regularly. I don't count on the social media herd as a compass. Other than this site I avoid news that comes with a comment section because internet anons have their own biases and agendas and aren't representative. You end up with nuance swept aside and extreme unflinching loudmouths getting the most visibility. A lot of this goes hand in hand with quitting social media.
  - MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
    The print media is getting increasingly biased as well though! The NYT used to be the „paper of record“, not anymore.

chrchang523 4y ago

Just a personal opinion, but I'd characterize Noah Smith as "uneven", not "laughingstock". He hits enough high notes that I would be quite sad to see him go, even though I find him very unreliable.