A Note to My Readers(dish.andrewsullivan.com)
dish.andrewsullivan.com
A Note to My Readers
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2015/01/28/a-note-to-my-readers/
56 comments
Honest and solid aren't reasonably used to characterize Andrew's writing.
One could start with his obsession with whether Sarah Palin's son Trig was Sarah's son or grandson.
Or the McCaughey piece widely believed to have helped tank Clinton's health care reform. An article that later had to be retracted because it was written by a republican operative and wildly deceptive. But hey, mission accomplished: health care reform dead for a generation. And the fact that it was completely incorrect, and contributed to an excess of 45k deaths per year, is just another trophy in Andrew's case.
Andrew is similarly famous for "are blacks genetically inferior? Let's discuss! I bet these nazis over here have some insightful opinions on this question!"
And who can forget the way he treated people opposing the Iraq war -- people far smarter than Andrew, who grudgingly was forced to admit his stupidity. Here's a quote for you:
Finally, read anything Sullivan writes on taxes, and you'll quickly discover he's an innumerate idiot.
edit: I knew I'd seen these arguments all in one place before; read Mark Ames's article here https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/andrew-sullivan/
[1] copied here http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2...
One could start with his obsession with whether Sarah Palin's son Trig was Sarah's son or grandson.
Or the McCaughey piece widely believed to have helped tank Clinton's health care reform. An article that later had to be retracted because it was written by a republican operative and wildly deceptive. But hey, mission accomplished: health care reform dead for a generation. And the fact that it was completely incorrect, and contributed to an excess of 45k deaths per year, is just another trophy in Andrew's case.
Andrew is similarly famous for "are blacks genetically inferior? Let's discuss! I bet these nazis over here have some insightful opinions on this question!"
And who can forget the way he treated people opposing the Iraq war -- people far smarter than Andrew, who grudgingly was forced to admit his stupidity. Here's a quote for you:
"The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is
clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is
not dead — and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column." [1]
Finally, read anything Sullivan writes on taxes, and you'll quickly discover he's an innumerate idiot.
edit: I knew I'd seen these arguments all in one place before; read Mark Ames's article here https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/andrew-sullivan/
[1] copied here http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/2...
> The second is that I am saturated in digital life and I want to return to the actual world again.
A very familiar sentiment shared by myself and many of my peers who are in the technical field. Nostalgic feelings are clearly on the rise, and in fact I think this might be a good thing... and it reinforces my own feeling that "The Internet" might one day be regarded as nothing more than a phase that simply faded in and out of our human evolution.
A very familiar sentiment shared by myself and many of my peers who are in the technical field. Nostalgic feelings are clearly on the rise, and in fact I think this might be a good thing... and it reinforces my own feeling that "The Internet" might one day be regarded as nothing more than a phase that simply faded in and out of our human evolution.
If anything is going to fade, it's this particular form of nostalgia and not the connected culture.
As others have pointed out in the past, I'm old enough to remember how much the days before ubiquitous internet sucked. It was hard to connect with like minded people, hard to find and cross verify information, hard to communicate with the few people that you were close to. Everything was just hard. The internet makes all the things that are important much easier, in ways that are difficult to imagine and easy to take for granted. Nostalgia has always existed and will always exist, and for understandable reasons. I'm sure there were cavemen who said "Things were so much simpler before fire. Now it's always burn this and cook that. Who can keep up?" But it doesn't last, nostalgia gives way to convenience every time. People want to think about the past, but live in the future.
If I had to guess, Sullivan's problem isn't so much with the digital life but with the fact that he makes a living from being a media personality. When you have millions of twitter follows and facebook friends and whatever instragram has, life must be very overwhelming indeed. The PBS special on Edison last night mentioned that the inventor felt overwhelmed receiving a dozen letters per day. Poor Sullivan might get that many communications from strangers every minute. Of course he and others feel like they need to unplug from time to time. But that's the price we pay for the opportunities afforded us by such a powerful medium, especially those of us who choose to profit from a culture of attention and celebrity.
My lack of friends has created a digital Walden Pond of sorts. I don't use facebook, twitter or any software with insta/snap/what in it's name. Don't get a lot of email and few texts. I'm sure that most people are better informed, better connected and generally cooler than I am. But it's quiet here on the pond, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.
As others have pointed out in the past, I'm old enough to remember how much the days before ubiquitous internet sucked. It was hard to connect with like minded people, hard to find and cross verify information, hard to communicate with the few people that you were close to. Everything was just hard. The internet makes all the things that are important much easier, in ways that are difficult to imagine and easy to take for granted. Nostalgia has always existed and will always exist, and for understandable reasons. I'm sure there were cavemen who said "Things were so much simpler before fire. Now it's always burn this and cook that. Who can keep up?" But it doesn't last, nostalgia gives way to convenience every time. People want to think about the past, but live in the future.
If I had to guess, Sullivan's problem isn't so much with the digital life but with the fact that he makes a living from being a media personality. When you have millions of twitter follows and facebook friends and whatever instragram has, life must be very overwhelming indeed. The PBS special on Edison last night mentioned that the inventor felt overwhelmed receiving a dozen letters per day. Poor Sullivan might get that many communications from strangers every minute. Of course he and others feel like they need to unplug from time to time. But that's the price we pay for the opportunities afforded us by such a powerful medium, especially those of us who choose to profit from a culture of attention and celebrity.
My lack of friends has created a digital Walden Pond of sorts. I don't use facebook, twitter or any software with insta/snap/what in it's name. Don't get a lot of email and few texts. I'm sure that most people are better informed, better connected and generally cooler than I am. But it's quiet here on the pond, and I wouldn't trade it for anything.
> If anything is going to fade, it's this particular form of nostalgia and not the connected culture.
I agree, and would like to add I find it odd to differentiate between a digital world, and a somehow more real world, as if the digital world isn't real. The people we interact with are real, the words that form in my head as I type them are real, and the social interactions are very much real.
Unfortunately I can't remember where I heard it first, but someone said that people on their phones all the time are not anti social, but hyper social.
I agree, and would like to add I find it odd to differentiate between a digital world, and a somehow more real world, as if the digital world isn't real. The people we interact with are real, the words that form in my head as I type them are real, and the social interactions are very much real.
Unfortunately I can't remember where I heard it first, but someone said that people on their phones all the time are not anti social, but hyper social.
> it reinforces my own feeling that "The Internet" might one day be regarded as nothing more than a phase that simply faded in and out of our human evolution.
Ah, yes, much like industrialization faded after the transcendentalists. /s
Ah, yes, much like industrialization faded after the transcendentalists. /s
Haha! Well, okay, alright. Perhaps I should have used the word "integrated", or "succeeded" even, rather than "faded". I meant that we'd have moved on, not back. Thanks for the laugh; here's an upvote. ^
My suspicion is that, over time, our computers will become something more like the neo-Victorians' from The Diamond Age. If the Internet is as ubiquitous as electricity, it stands to reason it'd become less obtrusive; a future smart watch would be no more obviously digital than my wristwatch is obviously powered by electricity, and probably (hopefully!) no less bothersome.
As someone who has been on the net since the 1980s, I (still) love the Internet and technology as a whole.
On the other hand I absolutely loathe the still-spreading BuzzFeedification of virtually everything online.
It is really starting to drive me nuts. If only I knew one weird trick to filter all this shit out from the rest of what I use the Internet for, but even when you try to avoid it it tends to seep in through all of the social connections from other uses of the net.
On the other hand I absolutely loathe the still-spreading BuzzFeedification of virtually everything online.
It is really starting to drive me nuts. If only I knew one weird trick to filter all this shit out from the rest of what I use the Internet for, but even when you try to avoid it it tends to seep in through all of the social connections from other uses of the net.
>> On the other hand I absolutely loathe the still-spreading BuzzFeedification of virtually everything online.
Agreed.
The analogy I use with my friends is to think of TV and for that matter Cable TV before reality tv and where TV is at this point - 95% reality tv, with little or no substance or redeeming qualities.
This is where I feel the internet is right now, but also take the view, the good stuff is out there, you just have to dig a little to find it.
I started taking this viewpoint after hearing Henry Rollins spoken word tour where he really thought punk rock was dead. He then related an experience where he had a friend of his in Chicago take him to a hole in the wall club where 3 punk bands he had never heard of were playing. He said it was amazing. People smelled, the club was dark, the lightening was terrible, and the sound system was sketchy. But the bands played their guts out and blew him away.
He concluded this had become a theme in his life. A lot of things, like Punk music isn't dead, you just have to dig a little deeper these days to find the good stuff buried underneath all the BS and garbage we get feed everyday.
Agreed.
The analogy I use with my friends is to think of TV and for that matter Cable TV before reality tv and where TV is at this point - 95% reality tv, with little or no substance or redeeming qualities.
This is where I feel the internet is right now, but also take the view, the good stuff is out there, you just have to dig a little to find it.
I started taking this viewpoint after hearing Henry Rollins spoken word tour where he really thought punk rock was dead. He then related an experience where he had a friend of his in Chicago take him to a hole in the wall club where 3 punk bands he had never heard of were playing. He said it was amazing. People smelled, the club was dark, the lightening was terrible, and the sound system was sketchy. But the bands played their guts out and blew him away.
He concluded this had become a theme in his life. A lot of things, like Punk music isn't dead, you just have to dig a little deeper these days to find the good stuff buried underneath all the BS and garbage we get feed everyday.
There is always an underground. When subcultures are appropriated by the mainstream, there will be people who continue to operate in opposition to that state of affairs.
BuzzFeed is basically a supermarket checkout line magazine for the Internet. (So is Huffington Post.) It's less part of the Internet and more something the mundanes brought over from print.
To be clear, I wasn't attacking BuzzFeed itself. If it existed in a vacuum it would be harmless (and I guess even entertaining to people who like that model) and easy to avoid. The problem is all of the other websites that have seen its success and attempted to emulate it. The model it uses has become incredibly pervasive with what I consider to be a lot of negative consequences.
Again, this is part of the general popularity of the Internet; it looks more and more like popular entertainment pre-Internet than it looks like the thoughtful, intelligent place the Internet briefly was when only a smaller group of enthusiasts wrote online. Instead of the Internet itself being an intelligent niche, it looks more and more like TV and one has to seek out intelligent niches within.
And yet ... http://www.buzzfeed.com/news
They also produce actually good quality news from solid reporters.
They also produce actually good quality news from solid reporters.
global computer network is a technology development as impactful (or more so!) as any other development in communications technology in the entire history of humanity. what we've created in the last 30 years is as historically meaningful as the invention of alphabets and writing. nothing will be the same afterwards. it literally divides cultures into distinct eras. things were simply different pre-network than they are post-network.
maybe you're just referring to a certain aspect of culture on the web when you refer to "The Internet". the culture of blogging, gossiping, and elevating online personas above other aspects of personality. that might certainly be a phase that fades away. however, there is nothing transitory about the cultural, political, and economic transformation that the global computer network creates.
maybe you're just referring to a certain aspect of culture on the web when you refer to "The Internet". the culture of blogging, gossiping, and elevating online personas above other aspects of personality. that might certainly be a phase that fades away. however, there is nothing transitory about the cultural, political, and economic transformation that the global computer network creates.
I think it's a continual and repeated mistake to equate continuously blogging/facebooking/newsreading/messaging as "the internet".
The digital world is just another tool in the human toolbox, how you use it is what defines you.
edit - I should have said something closer to "the digital world offers a very large _selection_ of tools added to the human toolbox" my sentence was guilty of the same problem that I was warning against :)
The digital world is just another tool in the human toolbox, how you use it is what defines you.
edit - I should have said something closer to "the digital world offers a very large _selection_ of tools added to the human toolbox" my sentence was guilty of the same problem that I was warning against :)
For a counterpoint to the notion of "just another tool", see Marshall McLuhan. Forms of media have immense impact on human psychology.
See "The Agenbite of Outwit," a short essay of his that I think is a good introduction.
http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/mcluhan-studies/v1_iss2/1_...
See "The Agenbite of Outwit," a short essay of his that I think is a good introduction.
http://projects.chass.utoronto.ca/mcluhan-studies/v1_iss2/1_...
I actually agree fully (thanks for the link) and that doesn't remove your agency in picking the tools and when and how you use them.
People need to be more aware of the cognitive results of using their particular selection of tools.
People need to be more aware of the cognitive results of using their particular selection of tools.
Absolutely.
I spend 12 hours a day before screens. I'm sick of it. I want to work in the sun and be around people again. But this Tyranny of Screens is hard to escape.
Just to continue on this riff:
Outside, with other people building some tangible thing together. Something that years later we can point to and say yep, it was tough, but we did that.
Not only are we stuck with our heads stuck up computers, in 50 years everything we've done will be superceded by something vastly more cool and interesting. Within 100 years it'll all be gone.
There was an article on HN recently about video game addiction. You don't have to be addicted to video games to spend your entire life in front of a screen, being a slave to IM and email, and miss out on all of the important things.
ADD: Instead of 50 and 100 years, make that 20 and 40 years. We'll still be here when it all vanishes.
Outside, with other people building some tangible thing together. Something that years later we can point to and say yep, it was tough, but we did that.
Not only are we stuck with our heads stuck up computers, in 50 years everything we've done will be superceded by something vastly more cool and interesting. Within 100 years it'll all be gone.
There was an article on HN recently about video game addiction. You don't have to be addicted to video games to spend your entire life in front of a screen, being a slave to IM and email, and miss out on all of the important things.
ADD: Instead of 50 and 100 years, make that 20 and 40 years. We'll still be here when it all vanishes.
> 50 years everything we've done will be superceded by something vastly more cool and interesting. Within 100 years it'll all be gone.
Which professions don't have that property? Not many. Science and writing/art give you a chance for that kind of longevity, I suppose -- although even then, doing something that has any real impact 50+ years later is difficult and very rare.
Which professions don't have that property? Not many. Science and writing/art give you a chance for that kind of longevity, I suppose -- although even then, doing something that has any real impact 50+ years later is difficult and very rare.
Architecture and Civil Ingeniery. Try to stick to cathedrals and transoceanic channels (like the Panama channel). They tend to last for centuries and get well maintained. Just try to avoid the places where a big war is likely.
If you choose for example math, if you are very lucky you will get your own course in a math degree, like Fourier or Galois. The problem is that "your" course will cover not only your work but also the improvements of the next generations, and your exact work will be only a small part. Another problem is that there are only about 10 places for a full math course with a mathematician name, so it's a very difficult to enter this club. (It's easier than building a transoceanic channel, but much difficult than building a cathedral.)
If you choose for example math, if you are very lucky you will get your own course in a math degree, like Fourier or Galois. The problem is that "your" course will cover not only your work but also the improvements of the next generations, and your exact work will be only a small part. Another problem is that there are only about 10 places for a full math course with a mathematician name, so it's a very difficult to enter this club. (It's easier than building a transoceanic channel, but much difficult than building a cathedral.)
[deleted]
What's funny is that "the important things" can happen in front of a screen. This sounds a lot like the reverse side of the usual troll's refrain "It's just the internet, don't take it so seriously".
Relationships are created, prolonged, and destroyed every single day online. Business deals, friendships, everything, and that integration is only going to get tighter as time goes on.
The idea that no "important things" are happening in front of a screen, in 2015, doesn't even pass the laugh test.
Relationships are created, prolonged, and destroyed every single day online. Business deals, friendships, everything, and that integration is only going to get tighter as time goes on.
The idea that no "important things" are happening in front of a screen, in 2015, doesn't even pass the laugh test.
If it's only worth doing things that last decades, why do people care about fine dining?
Yeah, I can understand that.
When I was in journalism school, I had several classes that were basically "do reporting." Deadline was 5pm and we had to produce radio, TV or newspaper stories by then—whatever the news of the day happened to be. During those semesters I was stupendously well-informed. I'd be monitoring the news wires all day, updating or reshuffling stories to keep up with events, writing and rewriting stories on the stuff that I thought was most important. Sure, we were just students, but I got a taste of the whole "fast-paced newsroom" thing.
Right after graduation, I completely unplugged and went on a 3-month bicycle trip. I rode all day and camped near the road each night. Sometimes I'd make detours to go hiking or canoeing at a particular spot. That summer I hardly spent any time indoors, let alone looking at screens or connected to the internet.
The effect on my mind was stunning. I had a completely different perception of time, distance, the weather, food, my own body, other people... everything! Afterwards I joined an internet startup, and went back to the connected lifestyle, but wow, I'll never forget it.
So go for it. There are ways to escape the screens, for a summer or a lifetime, if you want.
When I was in journalism school, I had several classes that were basically "do reporting." Deadline was 5pm and we had to produce radio, TV or newspaper stories by then—whatever the news of the day happened to be. During those semesters I was stupendously well-informed. I'd be monitoring the news wires all day, updating or reshuffling stories to keep up with events, writing and rewriting stories on the stuff that I thought was most important. Sure, we were just students, but I got a taste of the whole "fast-paced newsroom" thing.
Right after graduation, I completely unplugged and went on a 3-month bicycle trip. I rode all day and camped near the road each night. Sometimes I'd make detours to go hiking or canoeing at a particular spot. That summer I hardly spent any time indoors, let alone looking at screens or connected to the internet.
The effect on my mind was stunning. I had a completely different perception of time, distance, the weather, food, my own body, other people... everything! Afterwards I joined an internet startup, and went back to the connected lifestyle, but wow, I'll never forget it.
So go for it. There are ways to escape the screens, for a summer or a lifetime, if you want.
Tyranny? Why not become a tradesman? Those are still a thing.
I believe you're sick of your job, but I don't believe for a second that you'd rather be roofing or doing landscaping.
I think it's more likely that the internet will change to serve those needs better, and we'll get better at using it.
This is my assumption as well. Not too long ago I had to use a text-based email reader on a computer that used dialup for a shell account.
Now I just whisper commands into my smartwatch or wait for it to send me notifications. If anything, the mobile revolution has softened the tired hand wringing of "but but I'm on the computer so much." Yeah, if you are, then that's your lack of discipline and ability to find better solutions to your problems. Everything has been dumbed down and simple. Its actually quite pleasant unless you purposely make yourself a fb, twitter, and instagram addict.
There's probably a larger conversation here about what it means to have a good life and what it means to have the discipline to make it happen. So many people fall into the traps of outrage politics, low information buzzfeed-like articles, mindless skinner boxes posing as games, etc and blame the technology. Sorry hun, the technology isn't the problem - you are. Funny how when we finally get choice, we show the world how little class we actually have.
For those of us with a little self-control, the connected world is beyond amazing. I wish it got more appreciation. I'm so getting tired of the narrative that everything sucks in life. I don't think we really appreciate the wonders at our disposal.
Now I just whisper commands into my smartwatch or wait for it to send me notifications. If anything, the mobile revolution has softened the tired hand wringing of "but but I'm on the computer so much." Yeah, if you are, then that's your lack of discipline and ability to find better solutions to your problems. Everything has been dumbed down and simple. Its actually quite pleasant unless you purposely make yourself a fb, twitter, and instagram addict.
There's probably a larger conversation here about what it means to have a good life and what it means to have the discipline to make it happen. So many people fall into the traps of outrage politics, low information buzzfeed-like articles, mindless skinner boxes posing as games, etc and blame the technology. Sorry hun, the technology isn't the problem - you are. Funny how when we finally get choice, we show the world how little class we actually have.
For those of us with a little self-control, the connected world is beyond amazing. I wish it got more appreciation. I'm so getting tired of the narrative that everything sucks in life. I don't think we really appreciate the wonders at our disposal.
Yes exactly. I'm not at all saying (as someone else suggested) that we will return to a pre-internet "amish" lifestyle. I'm saying that I notice how many people (in the tech field) are yearning for a much less mechanical, pressured, and "hype-obsessed" technical world. Where we are not slaves of technology, but where tech is understood as something that serves people.
There are my idle thoughts on the matter:
I have also caught the nostalgia bug, but I suspect that in the future we will come to see this as a bug in people, not in technology. And, eventually, I suspect that we will "fix" that bug, for better or worse, by more tightly integrating our consciousness with the hyper-reality which we have created.
In the end, we won't have evolved beyond the online world -- we will have evolved beyond the "actual" world, or put another way, we will have evolved beyond the human sentimentality that values reality over hyper-reality.
I have also caught the nostalgia bug, but I suspect that in the future we will come to see this as a bug in people, not in technology. And, eventually, I suspect that we will "fix" that bug, for better or worse, by more tightly integrating our consciousness with the hyper-reality which we have created.
In the end, we won't have evolved beyond the online world -- we will have evolved beyond the "actual" world, or put another way, we will have evolved beyond the human sentimentality that values reality over hyper-reality.
I suspect that "bug" will be "fixed" by upcoming and future generations that haven't experienced a world without these things. (Which I suppose could arguably be alternatively phrased as "by more tightly integrating our consciousness with the hyper-reality which we have created.")
While that may begin the process, I think (obviously, I have no proof) that this nostalgic sentiment is "hard-wired" into humanity, because it seems like throughout history mankind has always looked at the past and felt longing for the simpler times. Therefore, I believe this sentiment will only be completely overcome once we begin to literally change the nature of humanity, for example using cybernetics or biological modification.
Not knowing a world without these things might just as well be a reason for upcoming youngsters to view our current mentality as "old-fashioned". And we all know how much youngsters hate old fashioned stuff. They might not want to step into our shoes; maybe they will be more conscientious about things we are currently not at all interested in.
Yeah, the Internet is just a fad. Because people yearn for a simpler time. We will shortly revert to pre-industrial Amish lifestyle. :)
People have always been nostalgic for a simpler time.
People have always been nostalgic for a simpler time.
My point is not about early pre-industrial lifestyles. It's about transitioning away from the current phone/screen/"stare into the blue hue" mentality. But, then again, I'm infamous for my optimism.
You've probably just gotten bored of the screen because it doesn't show you anything interesting anymore. It is too predictably laden with poor content. That is a fixable problem, though.
Oh this makes me sad. There are very few modern American voices on politics that usually make as much sense and are as well thought out as Andrew Sullivan's. It will be a loss not to hear his opinion everyday. His reasons for leaving are, of course, understandable.
I feel like Ta-Nehisi Coates Matthew Yglesias, and Johnathan Chait are the only other voices that come close.
I feel like Ta-Nehisi Coates Matthew Yglesias, and Johnathan Chait are the only other voices that come close.
He lost me a while back with his take on the Bell Curve.
Matt Taibbi comes to mind.
Matt Taibbi is fun to read, but also shrill, predictable, and at times pretty clearly underinformed. I really like his political writing, though I don't always agree with his conclusions, but his writing on finance has often been just one or two notches more credible than ZeroHedge.
I generally always feel like Taibbi is deliberately writing to get a rise out of people. I didn't particularly like Sullivan --- my opinions of him hardened during the first term of Bush II --- but I did feel like he was trying to be careful.
I dispute the idea that it's hard to find similarly careful journalists today. What's perhaps hard is to find blogospheric gravity wells like Sullivan. This thread compared him to Ta-Nahisi Coates and Matt Yglesias, but neither perfectly fit Sullivan's mold. Coates doesn't cover politics, and Yglesias is an econ reporter. You have to assemble a Sullivan out of parts now, but I think those parts are of higher quality than Sullivan's (say) 2005 competition.
I generally always feel like Taibbi is deliberately writing to get a rise out of people. I didn't particularly like Sullivan --- my opinions of him hardened during the first term of Bush II --- but I did feel like he was trying to be careful.
I dispute the idea that it's hard to find similarly careful journalists today. What's perhaps hard is to find blogospheric gravity wells like Sullivan. This thread compared him to Ta-Nahisi Coates and Matt Yglesias, but neither perfectly fit Sullivan's mold. Coates doesn't cover politics, and Yglesias is an econ reporter. You have to assemble a Sullivan out of parts now, but I think those parts are of higher quality than Sullivan's (say) 2005 competition.
I've seen several other journalists/bloggers/media-people react to this news as if Andrew's decision was clearly driven by structural economic factors rather than a more benign desire to step away from blogging as his primary form of writing. Ben Smith--of, yes, Buzzfeed--seemed to interpret this as the death knell of independent internet commentary.
What's going on here? I think we can agree we're all sad Andrew Sullivan is quitting The Dish, but are we symbolically sad over what that blog represented which will now never exist again, or are we just sad that a pretty great blogger won't be blogging any more?
What's going on here? I think we can agree we're all sad Andrew Sullivan is quitting The Dish, but are we symbolically sad over what that blog represented which will now never exist again, or are we just sad that a pretty great blogger won't be blogging any more?
The latter. I think we can take him at his word that this is about his health and sanity and he just needs to chill out for a while. It's not a failure of the business model or abandonment of his aims as an independent commentator.
I think twitter shows us that independent internet commentary is fine and well.
Long-form blogs are perhaps less suited to the mobile era, but who can say for sure?
Long-form blogs are perhaps less suited to the mobile era, but who can say for sure?
People read entire books on their phone - I don't think the "mobile era" means the death of long-form blogs.
I've been a reader of the Dish for 15 years. I've always been astounded at both the quality and quantity of writing Andrew produces. I wouldn't be surprised if wrote more than any other blogger (among those who are actually read).
One thing I've admired him for was he was one of the few high profile supporters of the Iraq war who changed his mind and publicly announced it.
I can't say I'm surprised, his announcement is perfectly understandable!
One thing I've admired him for was he was one of the few high profile supporters of the Iraq war who changed his mind and publicly announced it.
I can't say I'm surprised, his announcement is perfectly understandable!
One of the biggest values I got from the Dish was as a news aggregation service that I trust, and that is the thing that might put me in the wind looking for a replacement for some time.
Andrew identifies as a conservative of some flavor, which I certainly am not. As a result, on the days that I only have 20 minutes to spend on current events, getting the news from his site made me feel like I am doing something right.
What other comparable resources exist?
Andrew identifies as a conservative of some flavor, which I certainly am not. As a result, on the days that I only have 20 minutes to spend on current events, getting the news from his site made me feel like I am doing something right.
What other comparable resources exist?
Man, this sucks. I'm hoping, out of loyalty to his staff and readers, he'll keep the thing going but maybe take a back seat. When he took a month off a while back, his guest bloggers did a pretty good job and his full-time staff does a great job of finding interesting content. This is a model of journalism that I can really get behind and it would be such a waste to let the whole thing just fade away.
"... I am saturated in digital life and I want to return to the actual world again. ..."
Is this an increasing trend?
Is this an increasing trend?
No. It's something people do as they get old, so when you look at your own peer group it looks like an increasing trend, because your friends are getting older.
Without any hard data to back the statement, I can say that I feel it's a trend. But it might just be a trend within our always connected tech subculture. It should also be a sign to people to learn how to discipline themselves better to avoid burnout or loss of appreciation for taking it slow. I nearly hit that point 3 years ago and instead of going cold turkey on the web, I just slowed it down.
After about 3 months, I realised I didn't need to ALWAYS be on twitter to be updated about the latest piece of tech news. I didn't need to ALWAYS be on my RSS feeds for every possible update in my other fields of interest.
As a result I have occasionally missed out on updates of new programming language features, and some security updates. But none of it has ever affected me in a way that made me wish I was on to things sooner. (except for effing shellshock. I just backed up, wiped, and switched off both my servers till it became safe)
After about 3 months, I realised I didn't need to ALWAYS be on twitter to be updated about the latest piece of tech news. I didn't need to ALWAYS be on my RSS feeds for every possible update in my other fields of interest.
As a result I have occasionally missed out on updates of new programming language features, and some security updates. But none of it has ever affected me in a way that made me wish I was on to things sooner. (except for effing shellshock. I just backed up, wiped, and switched off both my servers till it became safe)
Knowing nothing about this person I thought It was a woman:
"I want to spend some real time with my parents, while I still have them, with my husband ...".
He/She wants to write a book and has time for his family and take care of his health.
The writer seems to be very good: A world of mass intimacy with their reader, he loves them, he cares and that is the reason I find so hard to go away.
He/She wants to write a book and has time for his family and take care of his health.
The writer seems to be very good: A world of mass intimacy with their reader, he loves them, he cares and that is the reason I find so hard to go away.
Could we get a more informative title?
When I didn't agree with his perspective I always found it extremely useful to read an honest and solid argument against my own position. I think you can ask no more from a writer than to challenge your assumptions, improve your reasoning skills and help foster empathy for those with whom you disagree.