8 Comments

Sad and True, Media for Profit? What could go wrong except Everything ! Good piece today and will reStack ASAP πŸ’―πŸ‘πŸ’™πŸŒŠ

Expand full comment

Thanks Waj. This is sadly so very true and don’t know what the answer is. We are now following independent media (you, Mary Trump Media, etc.) and are much happier. Just can’t handle MSM anymore.

Expand full comment

Preacher to the choir. That's why I and many others arereadings this article

Expand full comment

The most important thing is people have to get up and vote. Democrats have to get up and vote. Independent have to get up and vote. They have to get their asses to the poll and vote.

Expand full comment

So, you are all writing free birds on Substack, but one of the problems with substack is that although many or most are available free, subscriptions cost about $5 to $7 per article. If traditional media charged that way, a newspaper would cost hundreds of dollars. Maybe the way to blend what's good about Substack and what's good about traditional media would be to form up into flocks... pools of substack writers. If Substack would allow ten, twenty, thirty writers to band together and share subscribers, share articles, and share payment at a lower per reader cost but over all higher reader numbers, that would provide something more akin to the collection of viewpoints, voices and topics provided by (for example) NYT but with readership commentary on each providing feedback (I notice traditional media scaling that back to where many articles don't allow comments or or only for a short period). Author effectiveness and appeal could be judged objectively by number of reads and comments, and suggest revisions on who is included and who is not or who no longer benefits from participation or benefits the group by participating, but that wouldn't need to exclusively control inclusion. For example, worthy series or voices the rest of that particular pool of writers wanted to elevate could be carried along on good will alone for however long desired. Writers could still fly solo until their particular group took off - making their single article available for the present cost would pose no competition to a slightly costlier subscription to a group of writers with a larger subscription pool with a pot from which they also draw. Each writer would be their own boss, and the profit structure would correct many of the ills described in the interview. We do need an alternative, but using standard newspaper subscription costs as a point of reference, and noting legacy media includes much material each reader habitually ignores, for a Substack reader to access a reasonable spread of informational material is prohibitively costly if they opt to pay for all of their subscriptions, thus many read for free.

Expand full comment

EXACTLY! they have CHOSEN to be cowards!! I'm FOREVER done with CORPORATE media! They've shown us who they are! We won't forget! Even my favorite anchors.. Nicole Wallace, Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnell... I LOVE & respect these folks but they are working for JUNK w/ZERO ethics! Ronna McDaniel!? πŸ™„πŸ™„πŸ™„

Expand full comment

Thank you, Taylor and Thank you, Waj! It’s an ever evolving space . . .from cartoons and 6 o’clock news when I was young, to sub stacks and YouTube Channels to repost/stack/share . . . .today. Legacy media had better figure this out or they are going the way of β€˜yesterday’ and we won’t even miss them other than the same nostalgia I have for my Sunday Newspaper with coffee.

Expand full comment

I have to say, it saddens me that β€œlegacy media β€œ are unreformable. What about alternatives like Mother Jones and the Texas Observer?

Expand full comment