Speaking of pure as the driven snow, I can't think of a more authentic model for journalism than the readers paying the journalists directly for their output, instead of paying Nike or Ford or Seagrams, who then pay the journalists.
Did you . . . read her piece? She explicitly says she's benefited from this effect, and makes a self-deprecating joke at the end about picking a fight with Glenn Greenwald to move copies of her book.
Her argument is that Substack enables the effect and amps it up to eleven by removing any institutional referees and making the link between conflict and profit more explicit and immediate. You're really misrepresenting her here, which is weird since you linked her piece. I clicked through and found myself confused. Of course it works in traditional media too. She never says otherwise.
This is a strange article coming from Lewis. Her coverage of Jordan Peterson and the resulting fiasco was one of the defining soap operas of the culture wars. It has probably provided 95% of her lifetime views. And now she's back reviewing his books again. But other's are wrong for engaging in much smaller versions of that?
To be fair, Helen Lewis does acknowledge that she's implicated too. The final lines of the article read: "In the meantime, you’ll have to excuse me. My book has just come out in paperback, so I’m off to call Glenn Greenwald a jerk."
I was primed to hate that Andrews piece after the first couple paragraphs, where she asserts “people who are extremely online have Substack.” One graph later she expands: “for a certain subset of the American elite—a group of people who are concentrated in journalism, academia, and related fields; who are likely to be active on Twitter; and who have strong opinions on the 1619 Project and the ACLU’s Chase Strangio—following the lives of these people is what they do instead of watching General Hospital or The Bachelor.”
I work in a fucking restaurant for a living. I worked most of 2020 and the first few months of 2021 on half pay because of what COVID did to that industry. I absolutely watch shitty TV and I am definitely not “extremely online.” I usually only look at Twitter when something long form I’m reading links to it. Sure, maybe I’m not representative of Substack readers, but characterizing them broadly as “the American elite” seems unfair to me. Plus, who exactly does she think reads The Atlantic?
She goes on to make the same mistake nearly all critics of Substack do: that the “controversial” writers on the site are popular because they are edgy or argumentative, and not because *they produce original work that many people value.* I have no doubt, as Freddie has confirmed several times, that journalists shitting on each other drives clicks and subscriptions, but is the argument really that Freddie, Greenwald, Singal, Tracey, etc derive all or most of their readership on Substack from this? That seems asinine to me.
Freddie...I dont agree with all of your work and you are not my only substak subscription but your are honest and your work is well crafted and thought provoking. Let Helen....."Grift" (call back to your earlier article)....I guess. This shouldnt be so complicated. Keep writing great stuff.
I am wondering if Helen Lewis refers to you as “Freddie” instead of by your surname when she is annoyed with you. I’m surprised Lewis wrote this, as a Brit feminist she has supported some controversial views that certainly wouldn’t be allowed in mainstream media, so I’d have thought she’d see the point of a substack. I like Lewis so I’ll read the article. It’s all a soap opera, all around us, no matter if it is a blog or a local newspaper, a substack or the Times.
Speaking of pure as the driven snow, I can't think of a more authentic model for journalism than the readers paying the journalists directly for their output, instead of paying Nike or Ford or Seagrams, who then pay the journalists.
Freddie, stop being so Xenuphobic.
Did you . . . read her piece? She explicitly says she's benefited from this effect, and makes a self-deprecating joke at the end about picking a fight with Glenn Greenwald to move copies of her book.
Her argument is that Substack enables the effect and amps it up to eleven by removing any institutional referees and making the link between conflict and profit more explicit and immediate. You're really misrepresenting her here, which is weird since you linked her piece. I clicked through and found myself confused. Of course it works in traditional media too. She never says otherwise.
This is a strange article coming from Lewis. Her coverage of Jordan Peterson and the resulting fiasco was one of the defining soap operas of the culture wars. It has probably provided 95% of her lifetime views. And now she's back reviewing his books again. But other's are wrong for engaging in much smaller versions of that?
To be fair, Helen Lewis does acknowledge that she's implicated too. The final lines of the article read: "In the meantime, you’ll have to excuse me. My book has just come out in paperback, so I’m off to call Glenn Greenwald a jerk."
I was primed to hate that Andrews piece after the first couple paragraphs, where she asserts “people who are extremely online have Substack.” One graph later she expands: “for a certain subset of the American elite—a group of people who are concentrated in journalism, academia, and related fields; who are likely to be active on Twitter; and who have strong opinions on the 1619 Project and the ACLU’s Chase Strangio—following the lives of these people is what they do instead of watching General Hospital or The Bachelor.”
I work in a fucking restaurant for a living. I worked most of 2020 and the first few months of 2021 on half pay because of what COVID did to that industry. I absolutely watch shitty TV and I am definitely not “extremely online.” I usually only look at Twitter when something long form I’m reading links to it. Sure, maybe I’m not representative of Substack readers, but characterizing them broadly as “the American elite” seems unfair to me. Plus, who exactly does she think reads The Atlantic?
She goes on to make the same mistake nearly all critics of Substack do: that the “controversial” writers on the site are popular because they are edgy or argumentative, and not because *they produce original work that many people value.* I have no doubt, as Freddie has confirmed several times, that journalists shitting on each other drives clicks and subscriptions, but is the argument really that Freddie, Greenwald, Singal, Tracey, etc derive all or most of their readership on Substack from this? That seems asinine to me.
I didn’t focus on the picture at first, but wow! Tip of the hat!
Freddie...I dont agree with all of your work and you are not my only substak subscription but your are honest and your work is well crafted and thought provoking. Let Helen....."Grift" (call back to your earlier article)....I guess. This shouldnt be so complicated. Keep writing great stuff.
I am wondering if Helen Lewis refers to you as “Freddie” instead of by your surname when she is annoyed with you. I’m surprised Lewis wrote this, as a Brit feminist she has supported some controversial views that certainly wouldn’t be allowed in mainstream media, so I’d have thought she’d see the point of a substack. I like Lewis so I’ll read the article. It’s all a soap opera, all around us, no matter if it is a blog or a local newspaper, a substack or the Times.