This reminds me a lot of college where a bunch of people read Chomsky and decided. “I will only get my news from Daily Kos and Howard Zinn. They’re not biased like the corporate media.” Which is both a misreading of Chomsky and some real motivated reasoning.
"Most of what Krystal and Saagar do is spit venom at their enemies." I beg to differ. They do journalism, they do commentary, they advocate for the multi-racial working class, and they practice honest populism. You don't find their perspective on either Fox or MSNBC. They are necessary. Why rain on their parade? Give them a fair shot Jeff.
One of my biggest eyeroll triggers back in the day was the whole "This big thing just happened, and the Mainstream Media isn't telling you about it." Drove me up the wall. In each and every case a simple online search showed that that big that happened was always covered by all the media. The other thing is, if nobody reported it, then how do YOU, Eric who lives in midsized American city suburb and works some midlevel white collar job, happen to personally know about it? Where do you think you got that information from in the first place? That 'alt-media' thing you're looking at is just reposting it from.... the mainstream media.
I'm with caber toss. If you've ever seen it done, it looks fucking difficult. A red-headed dude in a skirt throwing a 1000 pound log. Now that takes a real man. (I'm of Scottish decent, so maybe a bit biased.)
I cringed a bit at the "objectivity is racist now" zinger; it's mildly funny but a tendentious gloss of Lowery's piece.
Still, the primary point is sound: independent media aren't a panacea when it comes to media bias, and that includes Substack.
At the risk of repeating an earlier comment (https://imightbewrong.substack.com/p/misinformation-about-drone-strikes/comment/2885649), I just don't see a ready solution, because the core problem is that information is costly to gather and publish, so reporters and news-gathering organizations tend to expect something from their readers that compensates for their costs, whether it's money from readers, money from advertisers, or influence.
Subscription-based platforms like Substack might arguably be an improvement in that they enhance accountability to readers, by cutting out the advertiser middleman and shortening the link between readers and writers. But as the OP says, accountability to readers doesn't solve everything. Note also that a lot of Substack content is commentary on others' reporting rather than original reporting (though some people do try to do actual spadework on here, like Stephen Semler, to pick a name). Someone still has to go out and do the costly reporting that's the foundation for the commentary.
<<Even in the early 2000s, the Washington Post cost a quarter. A QUARTER! Which sounds like something straight out of Newsies. >>
Does that seem too cheap? It's about what it costs now to read online. I pay $100/year for a digital subscription. If I paid 25 cents every day for 365 days that would be $91. But actually the big Sunday paper always used to cost more (probably about a dollar when the daily was a quarter). That would mean $2.50/week to get the paper every day, or $130/year.
I vote caber toss, yogurt, and anti-itch vaginal cream. You can’t go wrong with supplements either: I Might Be Wrong Erectile Function Enhancer with Immune Boost. 300% DV.
Definitely LOLed multiple times at the first paragraph.
This reminds me a lot of college where a bunch of people read Chomsky and decided. “I will only get my news from Daily Kos and Howard Zinn. They’re not biased like the corporate media.” Which is both a misreading of Chomsky and some real motivated reasoning.
"Most of what Krystal and Saagar do is spit venom at their enemies." I beg to differ. They do journalism, they do commentary, they advocate for the multi-racial working class, and they practice honest populism. You don't find their perspective on either Fox or MSNBC. They are necessary. Why rain on their parade? Give them a fair shot Jeff.
One of my biggest eyeroll triggers back in the day was the whole "This big thing just happened, and the Mainstream Media isn't telling you about it." Drove me up the wall. In each and every case a simple online search showed that that big that happened was always covered by all the media. The other thing is, if nobody reported it, then how do YOU, Eric who lives in midsized American city suburb and works some midlevel white collar job, happen to personally know about it? Where do you think you got that information from in the first place? That 'alt-media' thing you're looking at is just reposting it from.... the mainstream media.
I'm with caber toss. If you've ever seen it done, it looks fucking difficult. A red-headed dude in a skirt throwing a 1000 pound log. Now that takes a real man. (I'm of Scottish decent, so maybe a bit biased.)
I cringed a bit at the "objectivity is racist now" zinger; it's mildly funny but a tendentious gloss of Lowery's piece.
Still, the primary point is sound: independent media aren't a panacea when it comes to media bias, and that includes Substack.
At the risk of repeating an earlier comment (https://imightbewrong.substack.com/p/misinformation-about-drone-strikes/comment/2885649), I just don't see a ready solution, because the core problem is that information is costly to gather and publish, so reporters and news-gathering organizations tend to expect something from their readers that compensates for their costs, whether it's money from readers, money from advertisers, or influence.
Subscription-based platforms like Substack might arguably be an improvement in that they enhance accountability to readers, by cutting out the advertiser middleman and shortening the link between readers and writers. But as the OP says, accountability to readers doesn't solve everything. Note also that a lot of Substack content is commentary on others' reporting rather than original reporting (though some people do try to do actual spadework on here, like Stephen Semler, to pick a name). Someone still has to go out and do the costly reporting that's the foundation for the commentary.
<<Even in the early 2000s, the Washington Post cost a quarter. A QUARTER! Which sounds like something straight out of Newsies. >>
Does that seem too cheap? It's about what it costs now to read online. I pay $100/year for a digital subscription. If I paid 25 cents every day for 365 days that would be $91. But actually the big Sunday paper always used to cost more (probably about a dollar when the daily was a quarter). That would mean $2.50/week to get the paper every day, or $130/year.
I vote caber toss, yogurt, and anti-itch vaginal cream. You can’t go wrong with supplements either: I Might Be Wrong Erectile Function Enhancer with Immune Boost. 300% DV.