She also leaves out that the lofty Times poached McWhorter FROM SUBSTACK, LOL!
The whole argument against Substack is embarrassing when it's lodged by professionals from cushier outlets. Their self-interest is so glaring here, and the comparisons to pyramid schemes and the like are probably as much about too many college grads having NO IDEA HOW ECONOMICS WORK as they are about blurring the lines between tough markets and outright scams. (If Substack is a pyramid scheme, then Wordpress and Livejournal were, too--and that means we need to upgrade Herbalife to actual death cult.)
Also, if The Times wants to see a cesspool of indefensible speech, WHY ARE THEY NOT AFTER GAB? I don't think it should be taken down, I still think it's just words, but fricking Gab.com very often embodies the right-wing psychoscape people keep trying to convince me Substack is. Very much a cry wolf situation.
P.S. Jesse, you and Katie should take a look at Gab, it's worth reporting on because, unlike Substack, it represents a genuinely challenging place to hold onto one's principles of free speech. I don't peek often, but when I do, I hear a version of me standing over my shoulder with horns and a cape going, "YOU LIKE HETERODOXY NOW?!"
Forgot that poach was more than a synonym for "swiped," yeah. Did NOT mean it in the technical sense, just meant they saw he had a successful newsletter and said, "Hey let's get this guy on our newsletter roster!" (I'd go back and change the verb in my post but then this whole comment stream would make no sense, LOL. "Recruited" would be more appropriate.)
I was also a paid subscriber to McWhorter, and aside from the book excerpts, you'd get the kind of one-off content that he now does for The Times. When the newsletter at The Times was announced, he explained on the Substack that he couldn't really do two of them. His content at The Times is very much what I was paying to read at Substack, so it felt to me, as a consumer, like I'd lost my favorite columnist to a paper I didn't want to buy. Hence my being angry enough to level "poach" at the content hunters.
The part I don't understand about all of this is why this doesn't get pointed out by editors? It's not even about the author or the NYT org (potentially) disliking Substack and choosing to portray them in a certain light but the quality of the argument and writing is just very bad. I don't understand how this doesn't reflect poorly on the NYT, especially since this one isn't in the Opinion section.
Maybe it's just a coincidence (based on my knowledge of various things) but I find that the quality of NYT reporting is often significantly lower than in e.g. The Economist. In the latter I might still find myself disagreeing or finding factual problems but at least they're generally coherently argued and at least somewhat nuanced.
No one holds anyone responsible and we have no long term memory. That’s the problem in a nutshell and now it’s even in places like the NYT which is supposed to hold people responsible and be our long term memory.
We can all see what Tiffany Hsu is trying to do here if we focus on the content of her critique. Substack paid advances to "prominent white men," which is meant to produce an image in your mind of, say, Patrick Bateman or Trump or maybe even Bull Connor or Simon Legree, because all good liberals in 2022 know that all white people constitute and recapitulate all the crimes of prior evil whites just by existing and resembling them. "Prominent white men" is meant to convey retrograde repression or at least general bigotry from the benighted, unjust past.
And then there's "transphobic and anti-vaccine language" which are really just accusations of blasphemy, because we all know only bigoted Deplorables oppose or question the transgender agenda or are anything but obedient and enthusiastic when it comes to the Covid vax.
The NYT is not just in the journalism business, but it also sells tribal codes and allegiances and a daily guide to modern morality, ie. what to say and think, who to like and who to hate, which sites to click on and which to avoid, if you want to be a member in good standing of the tribe of Good People.
So in the symbolic signalling meant to slip through your cerebrum and score a direct hit on your amygdala, the NYT is a force for Good and a purveyor of the Good, while we freaks on Substack are suspicious, possibly evil, and in need of some good, solid "content moderation."
As a former daily regional newspaper journalist in the UK, the Lavery et al. approach to calling the shots to “write when I feel like it” would have had me fired on Day 1! The NYT journo’s failure to provide balance and context is exactly why I cancelled my subscription. It’s the corporate media wing of the Democrat Party, like CNN. The same people that, rightly, call out Fox News’ slavish pro-Republican coverage choose to ignore their own lazy slavish devotion to the Democrats. Two wrongs never make a right.
Yup. I was trying to unsubscribe but apparently it requires a phone call, so I put it off. When my credit card number got swiped a month ago, I was like: okay, finally the push I need to stop paying for NYT content.
Now I can pay for three more Substacks! Looking for good value because I really ought to be pinching pennies.
It’s so stupid in particular because, as far as I’ve seen, the reasons why objectionable content creators are something of a problem on Twitter or YouTube don’t apply to Substack. It doesn’t (in my usage) recommend anything to you, and certainly not prominently. It’s quite hard for hateful content to get promoted in replies/comments, since each Substack has at least one real human in a position to moderate comments and be somewhat responsible for them. Restricting comments to paid subscribers is an excellent (if not quite perfect) screen for spammers, fake accounts, and toxic lunatics.
I don’t view it as a replacement for the NYT in terms of basic news reporting, but rather a way to say “I am specifically interested in this particular person’s pet topic of reporting and/or opinions in general”. It’s a threat to Thomas Friedman but not to the front page. And in fact I am an NYT and WP subscriber.
What Substack needs, I think, is some kind of progressive taxation. In other words, the subscription fee should automatically decrease as someone gets more subscribers. I think a lot of subscribers are interested in funding a given reporter at a competitive level, but my limit of even $5/month subscriptions is much lower than the number of journalists or writers I’d like to read, and I have very different feelings about $5/mo to Jesse Singal than to someone with 10x the subscribers.
I spent a few minutes thinking about the purpose of going from Substack to Ghost citing lack of content moderation as a significant part of the rationale. It seems like there are a few things going on here at various levels.
1) I think this is part of the ongoing social censorship movement from the social justice fringe of left politics, academia, and journalism. I say "social censorship" because (typically) they are not attempting to enforce censorship through government, but seek censorship through social pressure. They endeavor to control thought through what is sayable in polite society. Every time they find someone unwilling to apply the social pressure they expect, they leave, and act as if said institution is immoral for failing to apply their brand of social justice to everyone else by fiat. They want an end to live and let live, to the idea of an institution which exercises very mild policies over the content it publishes. In this vein, if Ghost begins to spawn a lot of non-elite social justice popular writers, they'll leave there too. It's not the actual content policies that are a problem; it's allowing those who disagree with the elite social justice advocates to become popular. If Ghost allows this, it will be next in the crosshairs. It's not the policy. It's the result.
2) I think there is a misunderstanding by social justice elites as to what Substack means about abusive content (I'm not sure to what extent this misunderstanding is conscious). Substack says that it maintains the moderation rules as a means to deal with the very worst offenders. The social justice elites look at what Substack may see as offensive or mean content as illegally abusive, equivalent to physically abusive. If Ghost agrees with these social justice elites, and couples mild moderation language with a very expansive definition of what is abusive, the social justice elites have exactly what they want: a platform which pays lip service to free speech while gutting it just as social justice elites do.
When Jesse published his recent piece about the misleading conclusions reported from a paper on the mental health benefits of affirmative gender medicine I realised that Google is the point.
These NYT writers & their cohort are in a crumbling industry. Competition for readers and competition for good jobs is tougher than it’s ever been.
Getting certain perspectives to rank in Google search is not only the most effective way to mould opinion but to stand out personally. That’s a huge incentive for these writers when they want better deals or a new job.
As a subscription model business the NYT has an incentive not to apply rigorous editorial standards to criticism of a competitor. I currently spend more on Substacks than my old subs to the Guardian & the NYT.
Imagine you know nothing about identity politics or Substack and visit Google to find out a bit. See what dominates search results. I won’t spam the link, but my latest newsletter describes the dynamic better than I’m doing here.
I wish all of you would call out more unhappy "journalists" by name in re: threatened content creators seeking a safe space from macho, far right, conspiratorial, male, gay bashing, anti-semite, hate mongers like you, Weiss, Greenwald et.al. Likewise, a most enjoyable aspect, so far, of Musk's tilt at twitter is watching a similar crowd of self-flagellates soil their armour in anticipation of the horror of free speech being unleashed in their underwear like fire ants at an ill sited picnic. Knowing the names of some of these eloi would also be awesome, as we might follow their tearful self sacrifice as they march off into oblivion as well. One can only hope.
She also leaves out that the lofty Times poached McWhorter FROM SUBSTACK, LOL!
The whole argument against Substack is embarrassing when it's lodged by professionals from cushier outlets. Their self-interest is so glaring here, and the comparisons to pyramid schemes and the like are probably as much about too many college grads having NO IDEA HOW ECONOMICS WORK as they are about blurring the lines between tough markets and outright scams. (If Substack is a pyramid scheme, then Wordpress and Livejournal were, too--and that means we need to upgrade Herbalife to actual death cult.)
Also, if The Times wants to see a cesspool of indefensible speech, WHY ARE THEY NOT AFTER GAB? I don't think it should be taken down, I still think it's just words, but fricking Gab.com very often embodies the right-wing psychoscape people keep trying to convince me Substack is. Very much a cry wolf situation.
P.S. Jesse, you and Katie should take a look at Gab, it's worth reporting on because, unlike Substack, it represents a genuinely challenging place to hold onto one's principles of free speech. I don't peek often, but when I do, I hear a version of me standing over my shoulder with horns and a cape going, "YOU LIKE HETERODOXY NOW?!"
Because nobody the NYT writers know writes for (or visits) Gab. Substack overlaps with their interests, that's why.
(And behind every "Substack sucks" piece is a writer who is pissed off they didn't get an advance).
Agree, silly of me to take their motivations at face value--though I think many of *them* do!
> Times poached McWhorter FROM SUBSTACK
I don't think that's true. IIRC his substack was free and either he was asked to or decided to shut it down once he took the NYT gig.
Forgot that poach was more than a synonym for "swiped," yeah. Did NOT mean it in the technical sense, just meant they saw he had a successful newsletter and said, "Hey let's get this guy on our newsletter roster!" (I'd go back and change the verb in my post but then this whole comment stream would make no sense, LOL. "Recruited" would be more appropriate.)
I was also a paid subscriber to McWhorter, and aside from the book excerpts, you'd get the kind of one-off content that he now does for The Times. When the newsletter at The Times was announced, he explained on the Substack that he couldn't really do two of them. His content at The Times is very much what I was paying to read at Substack, so it felt to me, as a consumer, like I'd lost my favorite columnist to a paper I didn't want to buy. Hence my being angry enough to level "poach" at the content hunters.
His substack wasn't free (I was a paid subscriber). He set it up as essentially slow release of his book at $5 a newsletter.
Yeah he was technically poached from Slate, so he always had institutional backing.
The part I don't understand about all of this is why this doesn't get pointed out by editors? It's not even about the author or the NYT org (potentially) disliking Substack and choosing to portray them in a certain light but the quality of the argument and writing is just very bad. I don't understand how this doesn't reflect poorly on the NYT, especially since this one isn't in the Opinion section.
Maybe it's just a coincidence (based on my knowledge of various things) but I find that the quality of NYT reporting is often significantly lower than in e.g. The Economist. In the latter I might still find myself disagreeing or finding factual problems but at least they're generally coherently argued and at least somewhat nuanced.
No one holds anyone responsible and we have no long term memory. That’s the problem in a nutshell and now it’s even in places like the NYT which is supposed to hold people responsible and be our long term memory.
You are way too kind Jesse. That was article was a disgraceful piece of garbage, not journalism, and the Times should be ashamed of itself.
We can all see what Tiffany Hsu is trying to do here if we focus on the content of her critique. Substack paid advances to "prominent white men," which is meant to produce an image in your mind of, say, Patrick Bateman or Trump or maybe even Bull Connor or Simon Legree, because all good liberals in 2022 know that all white people constitute and recapitulate all the crimes of prior evil whites just by existing and resembling them. "Prominent white men" is meant to convey retrograde repression or at least general bigotry from the benighted, unjust past.
And then there's "transphobic and anti-vaccine language" which are really just accusations of blasphemy, because we all know only bigoted Deplorables oppose or question the transgender agenda or are anything but obedient and enthusiastic when it comes to the Covid vax.
The NYT is not just in the journalism business, but it also sells tribal codes and allegiances and a daily guide to modern morality, ie. what to say and think, who to like and who to hate, which sites to click on and which to avoid, if you want to be a member in good standing of the tribe of Good People.
So in the symbolic signalling meant to slip through your cerebrum and score a direct hit on your amygdala, the NYT is a force for Good and a purveyor of the Good, while we freaks on Substack are suspicious, possibly evil, and in need of some good, solid "content moderation."
Great piece.
As a former daily regional newspaper journalist in the UK, the Lavery et al. approach to calling the shots to “write when I feel like it” would have had me fired on Day 1! The NYT journo’s failure to provide balance and context is exactly why I cancelled my subscription. It’s the corporate media wing of the Democrat Party, like CNN. The same people that, rightly, call out Fox News’ slavish pro-Republican coverage choose to ignore their own lazy slavish devotion to the Democrats. Two wrongs never make a right.
This type of lazy reporting from the NYT is why I unsubscribed.
Yup. I was trying to unsubscribe but apparently it requires a phone call, so I put it off. When my credit card number got swiped a month ago, I was like: okay, finally the push I need to stop paying for NYT content.
Now I can pay for three more Substacks! Looking for good value because I really ought to be pinching pennies.
It’s so stupid in particular because, as far as I’ve seen, the reasons why objectionable content creators are something of a problem on Twitter or YouTube don’t apply to Substack. It doesn’t (in my usage) recommend anything to you, and certainly not prominently. It’s quite hard for hateful content to get promoted in replies/comments, since each Substack has at least one real human in a position to moderate comments and be somewhat responsible for them. Restricting comments to paid subscribers is an excellent (if not quite perfect) screen for spammers, fake accounts, and toxic lunatics.
I don’t view it as a replacement for the NYT in terms of basic news reporting, but rather a way to say “I am specifically interested in this particular person’s pet topic of reporting and/or opinions in general”. It’s a threat to Thomas Friedman but not to the front page. And in fact I am an NYT and WP subscriber.
What Substack needs, I think, is some kind of progressive taxation. In other words, the subscription fee should automatically decrease as someone gets more subscribers. I think a lot of subscribers are interested in funding a given reporter at a competitive level, but my limit of even $5/month subscriptions is much lower than the number of journalists or writers I’d like to read, and I have very different feelings about $5/mo to Jesse Singal than to someone with 10x the subscribers.
I spent a few minutes thinking about the purpose of going from Substack to Ghost citing lack of content moderation as a significant part of the rationale. It seems like there are a few things going on here at various levels.
1) I think this is part of the ongoing social censorship movement from the social justice fringe of left politics, academia, and journalism. I say "social censorship" because (typically) they are not attempting to enforce censorship through government, but seek censorship through social pressure. They endeavor to control thought through what is sayable in polite society. Every time they find someone unwilling to apply the social pressure they expect, they leave, and act as if said institution is immoral for failing to apply their brand of social justice to everyone else by fiat. They want an end to live and let live, to the idea of an institution which exercises very mild policies over the content it publishes. In this vein, if Ghost begins to spawn a lot of non-elite social justice popular writers, they'll leave there too. It's not the actual content policies that are a problem; it's allowing those who disagree with the elite social justice advocates to become popular. If Ghost allows this, it will be next in the crosshairs. It's not the policy. It's the result.
2) I think there is a misunderstanding by social justice elites as to what Substack means about abusive content (I'm not sure to what extent this misunderstanding is conscious). Substack says that it maintains the moderation rules as a means to deal with the very worst offenders. The social justice elites look at what Substack may see as offensive or mean content as illegally abusive, equivalent to physically abusive. If Ghost agrees with these social justice elites, and couples mild moderation language with a very expansive definition of what is abusive, the social justice elites have exactly what they want: a platform which pays lip service to free speech while gutting it just as social justice elites do.
Good points - surprised you didn’t also mention the vague accusations of widespread transphobic and ant-vax content with zero examples.
It’s about Google & incentives.
Just a theory but hear me out...
When Jesse published his recent piece about the misleading conclusions reported from a paper on the mental health benefits of affirmative gender medicine I realised that Google is the point.
These NYT writers & their cohort are in a crumbling industry. Competition for readers and competition for good jobs is tougher than it’s ever been.
Getting certain perspectives to rank in Google search is not only the most effective way to mould opinion but to stand out personally. That’s a huge incentive for these writers when they want better deals or a new job.
As a subscription model business the NYT has an incentive not to apply rigorous editorial standards to criticism of a competitor. I currently spend more on Substacks than my old subs to the Guardian & the NYT.
Imagine you know nothing about identity politics or Substack and visit Google to find out a bit. See what dominates search results. I won’t spam the link, but my latest newsletter describes the dynamic better than I’m doing here.
I wish all of you would call out more unhappy "journalists" by name in re: threatened content creators seeking a safe space from macho, far right, conspiratorial, male, gay bashing, anti-semite, hate mongers like you, Weiss, Greenwald et.al. Likewise, a most enjoyable aspect, so far, of Musk's tilt at twitter is watching a similar crowd of self-flagellates soil their armour in anticipation of the horror of free speech being unleashed in their underwear like fire ants at an ill sited picnic. Knowing the names of some of these eloi would also be awesome, as we might follow their tearful self sacrifice as they march off into oblivion as well. One can only hope.
Journalists are assholes.
From context, I'd infer that it means "re-heating," possibly in a quick/shallow manner.
I figured that out, but it took me a while. Hey, editors have a purpose.
OK, I personally didn't find the metaphor that challenging even though I hadn't encountered it before.