I read and article about how only freaks and weirdos leave comments because 99% of users lurk (I can’t remember where) so I wanted to pop in and leave a Substack comment as a normal person. That comment is I liked this piece!
I’ve defended the NYT even when a lot of people have complained about the topics they choose to cover (trans issues, the Tom Cotton op-ed), but this podcast really tested my patience in a way those things did not. It just shows so little self-awareness to have people like Hasan Piker and Jia Tolentino (who by all accounts are extremely privileged) encourage anti-social behavior for… what? The lulz? Spiegelman also didn’t do herself any favors by not really pushing back and laughing along as if she was so excited to be at the cool kids’ table.
To use a line from Succession, they are not “serious people.”
It's really a shame that the WaPo self immolated because I basically have to eat this if I want access to any decent investigative journalism whatsoever.
The only alternative I can think of is microlooting articles with archive.is
I have a middle ground view between yours and "they don't have a choice". I think they do have to play the content game, because that is precisely how they get the attention that drives subscriptions and that can subsidize the more serious coverage. And when you look at the "most shared" list it's often not the most serious and high-minded stuff.
That said, that doesn't mean they have no agency, and I do think this particular podcast episode was over the line. They could have just posted another article about a middle aged woman divorcing her husband and hooking up a bunch instead. They can still draw some lines even if the gatekeeping of old is no longer possible.
Wasn't the fact that the rich and powerful don’t feel any obligation to the rest of us the whole premise behind the ‘is stealing ok?’ question? Seems a bit odd to circle back to it as a conclusion.
I think what irks me is, while those media types seem to lose the sense of moral obligation, they still yarn for (or maybe more so than the past) for adulation - and I feel like this type of attitude is prevalent everywhere.
Marc Andressen etc are like other examples of it - they not only tossed out morality to seek the money (bad) but they demand ppl to give them adulation (worse imo).
I'll cause a "Beetlejuice" and highlight how it's similar to your observations of Taylor Lorenz. There might be a desire here *to be the influencer* that has the adoration of millions. Even though being part of the selection process on who to platform is extremely influential! But it's not the "+2" or ♥️ confirmations that people crave now, so they ignore it, even though the institutional pride and respect for your work is more meaningful in the long run.
Too many people are short-sighted. Our moment to moment attention spans are garbage but people also can't think beyond 1 month when making longer-term decisions.
I read and article about how only freaks and weirdos leave comments because 99% of users lurk (I can’t remember where) so I wanted to pop in and leave a Substack comment as a normal person. That comment is I liked this piece!
sounds like a smart article, whoever wrote that
I’ve defended the NYT even when a lot of people have complained about the topics they choose to cover (trans issues, the Tom Cotton op-ed), but this podcast really tested my patience in a way those things did not. It just shows so little self-awareness to have people like Hasan Piker and Jia Tolentino (who by all accounts are extremely privileged) encourage anti-social behavior for… what? The lulz? Spiegelman also didn’t do herself any favors by not really pushing back and laughing along as if she was so excited to be at the cool kids’ table.
To use a line from Succession, they are not “serious people.”
So in other words, you defended the NYT when they did more right coded things, but your patience is tested when they did left coded things.
It's really a shame that the WaPo self immolated because I basically have to eat this if I want access to any decent investigative journalism whatsoever.
The only alternative I can think of is microlooting articles with archive.is
I have a middle ground view between yours and "they don't have a choice". I think they do have to play the content game, because that is precisely how they get the attention that drives subscriptions and that can subsidize the more serious coverage. And when you look at the "most shared" list it's often not the most serious and high-minded stuff.
That said, that doesn't mean they have no agency, and I do think this particular podcast episode was over the line. They could have just posted another article about a middle aged woman divorcing her husband and hooking up a bunch instead. They can still draw some lines even if the gatekeeping of old is no longer possible.
Wasn't the fact that the rich and powerful don’t feel any obligation to the rest of us the whole premise behind the ‘is stealing ok?’ question? Seems a bit odd to circle back to it as a conclusion.
I think what irks me is, while those media types seem to lose the sense of moral obligation, they still yarn for (or maybe more so than the past) for adulation - and I feel like this type of attitude is prevalent everywhere.
Marc Andressen etc are like other examples of it - they not only tossed out morality to seek the money (bad) but they demand ppl to give them adulation (worse imo).
Like you can’t have a cake and eat it imo
I'll cause a "Beetlejuice" and highlight how it's similar to your observations of Taylor Lorenz. There might be a desire here *to be the influencer* that has the adoration of millions. Even though being part of the selection process on who to platform is extremely influential! But it's not the "+2" or ♥️ confirmations that people crave now, so they ignore it, even though the institutional pride and respect for your work is more meaningful in the long run.
Too many people are short-sighted. Our moment to moment attention spans are garbage but people also can't think beyond 1 month when making longer-term decisions.