Why Substack?(seymourhersh.substack.com)

16 pointsby throwaway4goodvor 3 Jahren12 comments

seymourhersh.substack.com

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/why-substack

12 comments

Whenever I see a Substack URL, I usually just scroll past it. I've seen a lot of questionable content on there, for better or worse.

Speaking of questionable content, it looks like the facts are being disputed on the other article on this Substack: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/white-house-says-blog-post-...

yuckyvor 3 Jahren

Whenever I read something like this about Substack I'm reminded of how our most esteemed media outlets pushed completely fabricated stories about Trump[1]. What made that most absurd is that he wasn't even a good President so there was more than enough material for legitimate criticism, and yet..

[1] - https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-p...

room505vor 3 Jahren

There are many legitimate journalists on the platform. Painting a broad-brush does a disservice to those that put a lot of effort into their reporting.

Edit: Check these out.

https://noahpinion.substack.com/

https://petestrzok.substack.com/

https://www.thebulwark.com/

https://damonlinker.substack.com/

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/

https://joycevance.substack.com/

https://thedispatch.com/ (No longer on Substack. They became so popular that they decided to manage their own platform)

drewrvvor 3 Jahren

I agree about "questionable content". Can editors kill or downplay stories, or introduce bias? Sure, of course. Editors can also scrutinize reporting, double check sources, or try to counteract bias.

The problem with Substack is that it tends to attract journalists who need an editor. Anyone who is having trouble publishing a story in a reputable outlet can simply throw it up on Substack. And if they can cause drama about how they were being "censored", all the better to drive traffic.

stranded22vor 3 Jahren

I have a similar issue with medium - I’ve subscribed a couple of times and then cancel. The quality of writing / ‘know your sources’ is just poor.

I forget, sign up for a month and then cancel within a day

rpgbrvor 3 Jahren

Substack is just a platform, like Blogger in the past or YouTube today. Which means there are a lot of mediocre writers and a few really good ones, and it's unfair to throw them all in the same bag.

Seymour Hersh, for instance, is a hell of a reporter. His memoir book is awesome. Instant subscription, and glad to know he's moved to Substack.

sonecavor 3 Jahren

Substack doesn’t curate their content. Any blog platform will have questionable content, but I don’t see that as a reason to ignore all content ever published on that platform by anyone.

amanzivor 3 Jahren

I agree about the questionable content on Substack. It has become a safe haven for all sorts of conspiracy theories and questionable reporting, and so I treat any new Substack I come across with an extra dose of scepticism.

However, I do subscribe (and pay for) a couple of newsletters on Substack, so it's not all bad.

kaffeevor 3 Jahren

Essential context: Seymour Hersh is a big deal.

"Hersh first gained recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. During the 1970s, Hersh covered the Watergate scandal for The New York Times and revealed the clandestine bombing of Cambodia. In 2004, he reported on the U.S. military's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

timeonvor 3 Jahren

That attempt to downplay Skripal poisoning left bad taste.

drewcoovor 3 Jahren

If "downplay" means question the official story, then actual journalism must all have a bitter taste.

Better to stick to overt propaganda. Luckily that's all of mass media today. Yum!

ubermonkeyvor 3 Jahren

I wrote off Substack when they exposed thousands of email addresses in a CC line:

https://gizmodo.com/substack-just-accidentally-revealed-emai...

Their response was just absurdly blase. "Oops."