Brilliant. So many quotable lines here, but these are my favorite: "In the second future, the networks serve the people who use them. They compete for the hearts and minds of creators and audiences by offering a better social contract... Culture is not just about getting what you want; it is about learning what to want... Culture is nothing less than our personal and shared quest for the meaning of life."
Substack is a culture network of the people, by the people, for the people. Perhaps the most democratic and decentralized media platform ever built. That is WHY we are all here.
America's founding fathers would be proud of this Canadian ;)
It’s well expressed, but this “second future” has been the goal of advertisers since the hunter/gatherer met the agrarian.
i.e. What you have been existing on isn’t good enough, what you really need is…
Eventually, more efficient ideas weren’t enough, modern advertisers had to go after our self esteem; brighter teeth, shinier hair, newer car… Ah but now, now they must identify, analyze, and quantify our every desire, for profit. More importantly are our political opinions, that’s where the power lies.
My solution; critical thinking, independent decision making based on what I know about me, and delayed gratification.
But who has the time for that, right!
Incidentally, wire head dopamine addiction was introduced by sci-fi writer Larry Niven in the ’70s.
Great article for young people. Do young people still read? I mean for more than 7 minutes at a stretch.
Give them a few more years. I didn’t think my daughters were readers either, but after their brains finally stopped developing, around 25, they have devoured books, real paper books!
We don’t have the same taste in books, but I’m glad they read.
Yes, they also use their phones for entertainment. Phones are the new TV, 📺 just pocket sized.
Yep. I get my phone mostly on my phone now too. We don’t get news through our TV service anymore. Probably a good thing in some ways I prefer the Epoch Times anyway. They seem to be less drama or bias even though the founders are conservative Christian’s and at least one is the child of Chinese immigrants. Any way, my daughter is staring at her phone while watching television and she takes in both. I don’t know how as I’m not that talented. She is on the spectrum and VERY ADHD. I also am ADHD but didn’t know until I took her for a psyche eval.
CORRECTION: I meant to say “get my news” on my phone too. I don’t read books like I used to but want to get an iPad to get audible as I can listen while doing mindless chores or sit and read on it. We devoured books as kids. I read to my kids when they were little. One of my magic memories.
My sister and I read every Agatha Christie novel, I liked Ludlum, Stephen King, Khalil Gibran and a huge list of assorted authors as an adult.
I love my Audible. I started listening to audiobooks in the’80s on cassettes. You can also check out audiobooks from your library using the “Libby app” your library card is your username and the last 4 digits are the p/w. It’s free. I still use audible for most of the books I get.
What is great is re-reading the books you read before. I have listened to some books over and over again. Sample first, bc if the narrator is bad, it will ruin the whole story. Good luck 🍀
Here's the problem I have with Substack (and similar subscription-based sites). I can't keep subscribing and paying a yearly fee to everyone I want to read. I worry that it will get out of hand and become too expensive. It is easier for me to adopt the rule of "free only, no subscriptions". This saves time and money. (In contrast, I don't mind paying for subscriptions to a few magazines. That way, I can read multiple authors for one price; just seems more manageable to me.)
I’ve suggested in other comments that Substack need other subscription options, like for $10/month pick 2 or for $20/month pick 3. I know it would take organization and alignment with writers, but it would still provide another income stream and a way for me to also support more of the authors I’m following and reading, most for free.
An option for a la carte essays would be great, so read one article for $1. There's a lot of authors I can't sub to but occasionally I see something of theirs I'd really like to read and would pay for.
Yeah. That might work. It’s just you can’t pay in app so it’s very inconvenient. I’m sure they reasons for setting it up this way but maybe it’s time to review this policy.
You can always use the ‘buy me a coffee’ option that most substacks offer and give a donation occasionally as your budget allows. I do this with a couple I enjoy but don’t read every offering.
But how will Substack (the company providing the ‘service’, and free to change it at will and whim) make as much money that way?
(Let us not forget — starry-eyed expressions of social care aside — that Substack is yet another online profit-seeking startup here to make its inventors into billionaires and to further enrich its investors.)
Yes but billing & subscription service are well established technical services that are available for this type of service. As you said Substack is for profit - this would be profitable. My interest is more to compensate the writers I’m reading and understand that means Substack profits too, that’s expected.
LOL, understand that we are not operating in a world of true Capitalism, and so if you think that our Governments care around the world about the best for people or that Wall Street is Capitalism and Free Enterpriseor that it is rezlly free trading?
To practice real Capitalism, you need to understand what it really is.
I have found that by reading Ayn Rand's book "CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL" or "RETURN of the PRIMITIVE" the expanded edition of "THE NEW LEFT: THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. " or watched some of her most famous interviews or speeches.
This contradiction of a for-profit trying to do good is, in reality, no contradiction; it is just that our perceptions have been manipulated to think it an antagonism.
We call it Social Capitalism for a while, the creation of for profit corporations that impact humanity abd earth positively.
But Capitalism, the real one, will always protect humanity as it is its best proponent for growth and success, better than a more pilarized technologyand personal profit oriented approach to Capitalism.
However, "Marxism and Communist ideas were written to control the masses for the benefit of the few,"
However Ex Communist countries with their strong governments have succeeded where Demicracies have failed. Sadly by creating a zero sum with no direction vast quantities of fake democracies, the net result has been the end of the American Dream.
AYN RAND Forsaw all of this in the 50s. I encourage efforts like Substack but i agree that the subscription model is unsustainable long term. I would say there is a better model. Same for how our countries (worldwide) have been managed. I am hopeful that use properly technology will make a bug difference but we are still in its infency.
I would compare to what Ayn said about religions in the world "Religion is the infancy level for humanity" where Philosophy and a higher thinking without limitations could really help our human societies elevate. I am paraphrasing in Economy and Business our system is in its infancy if what we can achieve.
Capitalism in motion! See, innovation, hard work and patience should be rewarded. That how ppl get motivated. I do think ppl who make obscene amounts of money should be paying more taxes. The ceiling is too low for the number of ppl whose household income exceeds the maximum. Maybe that idea that everyone should pay a percentage seems reasonable. Of course that would take the ease of using loopholes away so it’ll never happen.
yep there’s periodicals like @sixtyoddpoets figtree and starbeck orion. They take some winkling out but once you like one AI will drown you. I’m lucky to have local print media too..but even that spills from town to town. It’s a freebie grabbers’ market
Colin raises an essential issue/problem with the Culture Model. I can’t afford to subscribe and support all the authors I would like to support. I do support two. Somehow we need to find another model, perhaps similar to PBS/NPR. If advertisers can’t be relied on to support this model free from editorial control, then the government must step in to offer support. Our democracy depends on independent journalism and free expression of opinion.
Problem with PBS/NPR model is the government can’t be trusted either. They blow with the whims of votors…and lately they have a horrible track record of pushing the wrong information.
No, my argument is that our government is so big that it is no longer looking out for our “best interest”. It is now in the business of looking out for itself. Get the government back under control…ie..looking out for and being controlled by “the people” and I’ll consider using it to manage issues of the day. Until then….we have no recourse but to “look out for ourselves”.
I read somewhere that every system, whether it be a cycling club or a world government, will always expend it's greatest and primary efforts on preserving and perpetuating itself. It seems to be an immutable rule. In second place come those entities it was set up to serve.
I respectfully disagree. There is no perfect model, but a properly insulated public agency such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, staffed with professional journalists, is far more likely to deliver accurate, vetted news and opinions than any private entity owned by oligarchs who strive for profits and power. And in a public system, the voters in a strong democracy can choose to make changes when needed.
History proved you wrong on that…evidently they are not properly insulated? Given the option, the masses can be talked into voting for just about anything….including enslavement. Personal responsibility includes keeping yourself educated and able to make your “own” decisions….not handed down by some Oligarch controlled government.
So, your argument is that no entity, organized by citizens for the greater good can be relied upon to act for the benefit of society? Therefore, we are all just on our own?
We don’t have to be ‘on our own’ in this unreliable, corrupt system of things For over 60yrs I’ve relied I on jw.org for “spiritual food” because it’s run on the very principles you mention It serves at least 8million people (and growing) who can read everything for free OR contribute voluntarily to further the work if they wish
A valid comment Carl. I feel that one of the many problems we are facing today is that when all of these various systems were set up, there were either no 'checks and controls' or, more likely, these guidelines etc. have been eroded over the decades, by accident or by self-interested parties, perhaps because the sacrosanct nature of their existence has never been appreciated, or more likely, intentionally ignored. Such controls must be enshrined with as much reverence as the system itself.
I don’t know that they go with whims of voters as much as they go with the lobbyists and party stance. I particularly despise both NPR & PBS as they push a very left of center slant and propagate as much propaganda as virtually every/anything else. You’re right in that we need free and independent journalism to keep the govmint in check but we don’t have a democracy and it’s an important distinction. We have a representative republic quite by design. It is a democratic process but purposefully NOT a democracy. I kinda wish more ppl would recognize this. Many kids are not being properly educated as to why our founders set things up as they did. Words matter.
I posted this “Note” a year ago. I still think it’s a good idea…
[Substack Fan brainstorm] I want to support the various newsletters I follow, but I can’t afford to give them each the $5 minimum Substack requires. Wouldn’t it be great if Substack would let writers offer a $1/month “moral support” option? I suspect that many of us would do that and it would add up for the writers…
True. Substack needs a ‘buy this author a cup of coffee’ sort of option with a one time payment/tip that Substack gets 10% of. I subscribe to many Substacks for free. It would cost me thousand of dollars to go to payment for all (money I don’t have). I would like to drop a little money to many of them.
I used to have the same problem--then I canceled my NYT and WSJ subscriptions and now I have $1K a year for substack--which has better content, more variety, the same amount of propaganda but accurately presented as such, instead of pretending, and I read far more differing opinions and angles than I ever did before. Just cut the cord on the corrupt legacy media and the money will be there for you.
Yes! A bit of a problem here: if you are a well-known journalist with opinions, contacts and knowledge who leaves a national publication, for example, then it is likely you want to maintain a good income. Your audience is now relatively tiny and so you set subs quite high. So far, so good. However your relevance to the movers and shakers drops somewhat and so appearances on TV and radio etc. become vital to maintain access to the M&S. A complicated marketplace, I imagine.
I think a micropayment or metering system could be employed to allow for greater variety and the exploration of any kind of content. This would allow more creators to have an opportunity to make some income while rewarding the most popular works and authors to generate income based on consumption. Just a thought.
Yes, magazine subscriptions are common sense journalism. I wrote for an online provider in the Nineties, got high pay and benefits. No charge to readers. Ad income was never enough. This obviously crazy business plan went bust ! I, too, won't pay Substak for every piece by any of their exceptional writers, for the same reason as yours.
I think digital journalism businesses have to rethink a new formula to thrive.
Made me think of this iconic quote from Jurassic park - which I’m sure was taken from elsewhere.
Dr. Ian Malcolm If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox.
John Hammond : I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody's ever done before...
Dr. Ian Malcolm : Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
One of the greatest exchanges in the franchise. Not all invention, innovation or progress has been to our benefit or the planet’s. All ppl can amplify their dark side or not. We can choose but we can also course correct at any time.
I've been a participant in the scrolling and dopamine hits of social media and it truly is addicting. I really enjoy Substack and this is an excellent article. (And I don't even need to calm my nervous system after reading it).
Me too. I will admit it's much more difficult for me to read a long article than hundreds of 60 second clips. Maybe I can use Substack as a recovery program 😁
I have and wow, even substack is an addictive venue. Unlike watching “fail army” or funny animal videos, I do get unlimited food for thought. I want to be able to transition to “paid” for some stacks yet it’s made difficult by the platform. I wish it was possible to make that change in app. It’s the biggest flaw I’ve found. I can’t afford to opt in on every stack so it’d be nice to have a clear path that old, less tech savvy ppl can utilize to manage subs.
It is an addiction. First thing in the morning learn what the mainstream have lied to us about. A troupe of alternative reporters are unveiling great info to us who are obsessed with the truth. The rest just go on eating and defecating like animals grazing in the fields.
Yes, but FOX just paid a billion dollar fine(almost) for creating a format based on the deception. I'm no fan of the rest of the infotainment brigade, but Roger Ailes' vision, conceived while he was Communications Director for Nixon, was pure evil.
Not genius. Morally, spiritually, intellectually bankrupt. First, his promise to build a FOX "news network" for Nixon. Which, of course, spawned Trump. GENIUS???!! I don't think so.
You're not wrong about Fox news, what is wrong is your lasering in on on and only on Fox. They're ALL set up as propaganda networks. Fox for the mainstream right but MSNBC functions in exactly the same way for the left. The last 2 editors AND ceo's of NPR are ex spooks and CIA. Do you think that's a coincidence? Dorsey revealed that most of twitter was run by the Feds, Zuckerberg revealed the same about Facebook. 80% of their managers come from the CIA or FBI. Can that high a number be a coincidence? They're all just pumping out propaganda and misinformation according to whoever is in charge. It's probably always been this way, we just didn't realise it pre Internet.
Final word, the point you are missing. FOX was conceived and designed in the final months of the Nixon presidency as a propaganda tool of the Right Wing, John Birch Extremists. It was part of a massive strategy mapped out by Ailes, Nixon and others to destroy the Liberal press. Read a document called the Powell Memoranda, penned by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell at Nixon's behest. A strategy for the Right to grab power.
The corruption at MSNBC, CBS, ABC et al is created by the corporate entities who spend millions in advertising and, as a result wield gravitas in editorial content. Not great, but not FOX.
CNN and msnbc and the BBC etc are all just as bad. All you are identifying here is your bias and hand waving away any propaganda that exists within the media landscape that you consume.
But you and others are only talking about "Republicans bad, Democrats good". You're all idiots and behaving like cult members were you think only the other side are biased and spreading misinformation or corrupt. Just like Jeff below who is stuck like a record repeating over and over "Only FOX is biased and corrupt but CNN etc are wholly good and incorruptiblly good". It's idiotic.
It was devised that way many years ago. They realized the only way to victory was divide and conquer We have lost the wisdom, "Come, let us reason together."
Chris, thanks for this remarkable piece! I’ve chosen Substack over my previous forms of media - I dumped them all. Your network is serving the person using it - me! Some I pay for, some I take advantage of their limited free offer. I’ll never go back to the old dark ways.
Technology is a tool. In whose hands and for what purpose? Answer both of those questions and then you get to choose whether or not to use according to your purpose. It was Peter Drucker who said "Culture eats strategy for breakfast." Make of that what you will.
As in any industry. Leaders within it restrain evil or join in the promotion of it. Our battle is spiritual in nature and media simply reflects the organization’s priorities (hearts) and the readers “demand”
So true yet there are a good many leftist goons that have stacks and an audience. I believe strongly that every/any one should have their right to a soap box in the village square. Freedom of speech is the only means to counter thought control and keep the liars in check.
Even God gives us the freedom to choose our own path.
Very interesting view. Actually, in France for instance, social media was probably perceived as more "social" than media. Bringing back the essence of why people do connect is essential. And yes, an healthier ecosystem in which we - the readers - become mini shareholders of a platform can only be the way.
A thought-provoking exploration of media's future! It's inspiring to see a vision where creators and audiences are empowered, fostering genuine connections and enriching our cultural landscape. Kudos to Substack for championing this culture-driven approach.
Chris - agree with much of what you said but have to reject your notion that technology is neutral. My fellow Canuck, McCluhan was one of many who showed and highlighted that it isn't. That a technology and a media come with their own biases, threats, agendas, affordances and inertia. I think too much of the "its not the technology but how you use technology" people out there use that gee shucks shrug of neutrality to pursue their own agendas of technology being unimportant. It is, the medium is a massage. Choose your type of massage well. Substack knows that very well - its who premise is built on the technologies it has chose to use over so many others.
So well said. The people who love to point out that people have their own biases rarely see their own. It’s not possible to determine algorithms with out some coherence. Every app has one in order to function. Whoever sets them gets to set their course.
Brilliant. So many quotable lines here, but these are my favorite: "In the second future, the networks serve the people who use them. They compete for the hearts and minds of creators and audiences by offering a better social contract... Culture is not just about getting what you want; it is about learning what to want... Culture is nothing less than our personal and shared quest for the meaning of life."
Substack is a culture network of the people, by the people, for the people. Perhaps the most democratic and decentralized media platform ever built. That is WHY we are all here.
America's founding fathers would be proud of this Canadian ;)
It’s well expressed, but this “second future” has been the goal of advertisers since the hunter/gatherer met the agrarian.
i.e. What you have been existing on isn’t good enough, what you really need is…
Eventually, more efficient ideas weren’t enough, modern advertisers had to go after our self esteem; brighter teeth, shinier hair, newer car… Ah but now, now they must identify, analyze, and quantify our every desire, for profit. More importantly are our political opinions, that’s where the power lies.
My solution; critical thinking, independent decision making based on what I know about me, and delayed gratification.
But who has the time for that, right!
Incidentally, wire head dopamine addiction was introduced by sci-fi writer Larry Niven in the ’70s.
Great article for young people. Do young people still read? I mean for more than 7 minutes at a stretch.
No. Not my young’uns.
Maybe a couple 10-20 min reads but of course it’s all on line.
Give them a few more years. I didn’t think my daughters were readers either, but after their brains finally stopped developing, around 25, they have devoured books, real paper books!
We don’t have the same taste in books, but I’m glad they read.
Yes, they also use their phones for entertainment. Phones are the new TV, 📺 just pocket sized.
Yep. I get my phone mostly on my phone now too. We don’t get news through our TV service anymore. Probably a good thing in some ways I prefer the Epoch Times anyway. They seem to be less drama or bias even though the founders are conservative Christian’s and at least one is the child of Chinese immigrants. Any way, my daughter is staring at her phone while watching television and she takes in both. I don’t know how as I’m not that talented. She is on the spectrum and VERY ADHD. I also am ADHD but didn’t know until I took her for a psyche eval.
Anyway, peace and all good things to you.
CORRECTION: I meant to say “get my news” on my phone too. I don’t read books like I used to but want to get an iPad to get audible as I can listen while doing mindless chores or sit and read on it. We devoured books as kids. I read to my kids when they were little. One of my magic memories.
My sister and I read every Agatha Christie novel, I liked Ludlum, Stephen King, Khalil Gibran and a huge list of assorted authors as an adult.
I love my Audible. I started listening to audiobooks in the’80s on cassettes. You can also check out audiobooks from your library using the “Libby app” your library card is your username and the last 4 digits are the p/w. It’s free. I still use audible for most of the books I get.
What is great is re-reading the books you read before. I have listened to some books over and over again. Sample first, bc if the narrator is bad, it will ruin the whole story. Good luck 🍀
😂👍
dope/human endeavour/youth. …
"....proud of this Canadian" ...what!? Is this a self-reference? A typo? What?
But never mind that.
I ask you, Substak is what it is, but what stops content therein from being malignant, no matter who created or who paid?
hah. snap
Here's the problem I have with Substack (and similar subscription-based sites). I can't keep subscribing and paying a yearly fee to everyone I want to read. I worry that it will get out of hand and become too expensive. It is easier for me to adopt the rule of "free only, no subscriptions". This saves time and money. (In contrast, I don't mind paying for subscriptions to a few magazines. That way, I can read multiple authors for one price; just seems more manageable to me.)
I’ve suggested in other comments that Substack need other subscription options, like for $10/month pick 2 or for $20/month pick 3. I know it would take organization and alignment with writers, but it would still provide another income stream and a way for me to also support more of the authors I’m following and reading, most for free.
An option for a la carte essays would be great, so read one article for $1. There's a lot of authors I can't sub to but occasionally I see something of theirs I'd really like to read and would pay for.
One bad thing about this idea though: it would incentivize authors to write and promote more clickbaity articles.
Like a tip.
Right -- like you could buy a single issue of a magazine or newspaper, and then pass it on to whomever else might want to read it.
Yeah. That might work. It’s just you can’t pay in app so it’s very inconvenient. I’m sure they reasons for setting it up this way but maybe it’s time to review this policy.
You can always use the ‘buy me a coffee’ option that most substacks offer and give a donation occasionally as your budget allows. I do this with a couple I enjoy but don’t read every offering.
Great thought.
But how will Substack (the company providing the ‘service’, and free to change it at will and whim) make as much money that way?
(Let us not forget — starry-eyed expressions of social care aside — that Substack is yet another online profit-seeking startup here to make its inventors into billionaires and to further enrich its investors.)
Yes but billing & subscription service are well established technical services that are available for this type of service. As you said Substack is for profit - this would be profitable. My interest is more to compensate the writers I’m reading and understand that means Substack profits too, that’s expected.
LOL, understand that we are not operating in a world of true Capitalism, and so if you think that our Governments care around the world about the best for people or that Wall Street is Capitalism and Free Enterpriseor that it is rezlly free trading?
To practice real Capitalism, you need to understand what it really is.
I have found that by reading Ayn Rand's book "CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL" or "RETURN of the PRIMITIVE" the expanded edition of "THE NEW LEFT: THE ANTI-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. " or watched some of her most famous interviews or speeches.
This contradiction of a for-profit trying to do good is, in reality, no contradiction; it is just that our perceptions have been manipulated to think it an antagonism.
We call it Social Capitalism for a while, the creation of for profit corporations that impact humanity abd earth positively.
But Capitalism, the real one, will always protect humanity as it is its best proponent for growth and success, better than a more pilarized technologyand personal profit oriented approach to Capitalism.
However, "Marxism and Communist ideas were written to control the masses for the benefit of the few,"
However Ex Communist countries with their strong governments have succeeded where Demicracies have failed. Sadly by creating a zero sum with no direction vast quantities of fake democracies, the net result has been the end of the American Dream.
AYN RAND Forsaw all of this in the 50s. I encourage efforts like Substack but i agree that the subscription model is unsustainable long term. I would say there is a better model. Same for how our countries (worldwide) have been managed. I am hopeful that use properly technology will make a bug difference but we are still in its infency.
I would compare to what Ayn said about religions in the world "Religion is the infancy level for humanity" where Philosophy and a higher thinking without limitations could really help our human societies elevate. I am paraphrasing in Economy and Business our system is in its infancy if what we can achieve.
Capitalism in motion! See, innovation, hard work and patience should be rewarded. That how ppl get motivated. I do think ppl who make obscene amounts of money should be paying more taxes. The ceiling is too low for the number of ppl whose household income exceeds the maximum. Maybe that idea that everyone should pay a percentage seems reasonable. Of course that would take the ease of using loopholes away so it’ll never happen.
That's an excellent thought.
Are there any "magazines" on Substack? Where one subscription nets you a number of different conributors? BARI weiss's Free Press cones to mind.
yep there’s periodicals like @sixtyoddpoets figtree and starbeck orion. They take some winkling out but once you like one AI will drown you. I’m lucky to have local print media too..but even that spills from town to town. It’s a freebie grabbers’ market
There’s also Bette Dangerous — though it does orbit around a particular set of themes.
on substack? not coming up in my search...
So I guess you’re the real McCoy.
Sorry, couldn’t resist. We met the last living Hatfield in W Va a while back.
“No brag, just fact!” Eh?
Colin raises an essential issue/problem with the Culture Model. I can’t afford to subscribe and support all the authors I would like to support. I do support two. Somehow we need to find another model, perhaps similar to PBS/NPR. If advertisers can’t be relied on to support this model free from editorial control, then the government must step in to offer support. Our democracy depends on independent journalism and free expression of opinion.
Problem with PBS/NPR model is the government can’t be trusted either. They blow with the whims of votors…and lately they have a horrible track record of pushing the wrong information.
No, my argument is that our government is so big that it is no longer looking out for our “best interest”. It is now in the business of looking out for itself. Get the government back under control…ie..looking out for and being controlled by “the people” and I’ll consider using it to manage issues of the day. Until then….we have no recourse but to “look out for ourselves”.
No, government is actually looking out for the interests of big business, and with a few pertinent exceptions, always has.
I read somewhere that every system, whether it be a cycling club or a world government, will always expend it's greatest and primary efforts on preserving and perpetuating itself. It seems to be an immutable rule. In second place come those entities it was set up to serve.
Jobs in Order of Importance…
Job 1: to perpetuate itself.
Job 2: to grow.
Job 3: to make it as easy as possible for the people running it — especially those at the top.
Job 4: and, oh yes, also, to do the thing the entity or organization was created for.
Haha! So true.
I respectfully disagree. There is no perfect model, but a properly insulated public agency such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, staffed with professional journalists, is far more likely to deliver accurate, vetted news and opinions than any private entity owned by oligarchs who strive for profits and power. And in a public system, the voters in a strong democracy can choose to make changes when needed.
History proved you wrong on that…evidently they are not properly insulated? Given the option, the masses can be talked into voting for just about anything….including enslavement. Personal responsibility includes keeping yourself educated and able to make your “own” decisions….not handed down by some Oligarch controlled government.
So, your argument is that no entity, organized by citizens for the greater good can be relied upon to act for the benefit of society? Therefore, we are all just on our own?
We don’t have to be ‘on our own’ in this unreliable, corrupt system of things For over 60yrs I’ve relied I on jw.org for “spiritual food” because it’s run on the very principles you mention It serves at least 8million people (and growing) who can read everything for free OR contribute voluntarily to further the work if they wish
A valid comment Carl. I feel that one of the many problems we are facing today is that when all of these various systems were set up, there were either no 'checks and controls' or, more likely, these guidelines etc. have been eroded over the decades, by accident or by self-interested parties, perhaps because the sacrosanct nature of their existence has never been appreciated, or more likely, intentionally ignored. Such controls must be enshrined with as much reverence as the system itself.
“…voters in a strong democracy…”
Har, Har, Har.
You’re pretty funny!
Hurtful?
Or at least withholding the stories they find 'hurtful.'
I don’t know that they go with whims of voters as much as they go with the lobbyists and party stance. I particularly despise both NPR & PBS as they push a very left of center slant and propagate as much propaganda as virtually every/anything else. You’re right in that we need free and independent journalism to keep the govmint in check but we don’t have a democracy and it’s an important distinction. We have a representative republic quite by design. It is a democratic process but purposefully NOT a democracy. I kinda wish more ppl would recognize this. Many kids are not being properly educated as to why our founders set things up as they did. Words matter.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I support four, and on my budget, that’s already too many, and I’m going to have to cut back.
(Some of us ‘creative’ types aren’t making it big out here.)
I posted this “Note” a year ago. I still think it’s a good idea…
[Substack Fan brainstorm] I want to support the various newsletters I follow, but I can’t afford to give them each the $5 minimum Substack requires. Wouldn’t it be great if Substack would let writers offer a $1/month “moral support” option? I suspect that many of us would do that and it would add up for the writers…
I’d like to see this, too, though it’s not likely.
Again, as I noted elsewhere, what’s aggressively profit-seeking Substack’s gain in doing this?
Let’s not forget we’re trapped inside a digital business intended to create some new billionaires.
True. Substack needs a ‘buy this author a cup of coffee’ sort of option with a one time payment/tip that Substack gets 10% of. I subscribe to many Substacks for free. It would cost me thousand of dollars to go to payment for all (money I don’t have). I would like to drop a little money to many of them.
I agree...I pay out more in subscriptions than I earn. Apart from highly popular authors, it is more of a money drain than a help.
Still, I do value free access to many of the articles...
I used to have the same problem--then I canceled my NYT and WSJ subscriptions and now I have $1K a year for substack--which has better content, more variety, the same amount of propaganda but accurately presented as such, instead of pretending, and I read far more differing opinions and angles than I ever did before. Just cut the cord on the corrupt legacy media and the money will be there for you.
Yes! A bit of a problem here: if you are a well-known journalist with opinions, contacts and knowledge who leaves a national publication, for example, then it is likely you want to maintain a good income. Your audience is now relatively tiny and so you set subs quite high. So far, so good. However your relevance to the movers and shakers drops somewhat and so appearances on TV and radio etc. become vital to maintain access to the M&S. A complicated marketplace, I imagine.
I agree. How about some "package deals" to subscribe to multiple authors?
I think a micropayment or metering system could be employed to allow for greater variety and the exploration of any kind of content. This would allow more creators to have an opportunity to make some income while rewarding the most popular works and authors to generate income based on consumption. Just a thought.
Yes, magazine subscriptions are common sense journalism. I wrote for an online provider in the Nineties, got high pay and benefits. No charge to readers. Ad income was never enough. This obviously crazy business plan went bust ! I, too, won't pay Substak for every piece by any of their exceptional writers, for the same reason as yours.
I think digital journalism businesses have to rethink a new formula to thrive.
Made me think of this iconic quote from Jurassic park - which I’m sure was taken from elsewhere.
Dr. Ian Malcolm If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox.
John Hammond : I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody's ever done before...
Dr. Ian Malcolm : Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
One of the greatest exchanges in the franchise. Not all invention, innovation or progress has been to our benefit or the planet’s. All ppl can amplify their dark side or not. We can choose but we can also course correct at any time.
oh absolutely. Feels like it mirrors reality and all these advancements so well.
Ooooohhhh! That is a perfect thing to share
Thank you, felt it was very relevant.
Nice job Tim and right on target.
Thanks John :)
I've been a participant in the scrolling and dopamine hits of social media and it truly is addicting. I really enjoy Substack and this is an excellent article. (And I don't even need to calm my nervous system after reading it).
Me too. I will admit it's much more difficult for me to read a long article than hundreds of 60 second clips. Maybe I can use Substack as a recovery program 😁
I have and wow, even substack is an addictive venue. Unlike watching “fail army” or funny animal videos, I do get unlimited food for thought. I want to be able to transition to “paid” for some stacks yet it’s made difficult by the platform. I wish it was possible to make that change in app. It’s the biggest flaw I’ve found. I can’t afford to opt in on every stack so it’d be nice to have a clear path that old, less tech savvy ppl can utilize to manage subs.
Yea. The notes feature is the "reels" or "shorts" version of YouTube
It is an addiction. First thing in the morning learn what the mainstream have lied to us about. A troupe of alternative reporters are unveiling great info to us who are obsessed with the truth. The rest just go on eating and defecating like animals grazing in the fields.
Haha! Great, amusing and very accurate response.
Very well said. I’d tip my hat but alas, I never wear one.
You must have good looking hair, not bold like me:-)
"The medium is the message." -Marshall McCluhan
What a prophecy.
That is spot on.
Unfortunately. FOX News has created an entire propaganda machine based on the fact that they are on television.
In my humble opinion, all mainstream media are captured.
That’s partly why I like the Epoch Times. They take no $ from industry or govt subsidy.
Epoch Times, and a few others are definitely excellent sources. And growing it seems. That alone gives me hope for the future.
Be careful, my friend, there are real journalists out there. You just have to find them and develop a keen ear for bullshit.
They have company in CNN, MSNBC and NPR. Like most media outlets, their base has a trajectory.
How you view that trajectory is your own propaganda preference.
Yes, but FOX just paid a billion dollar fine(almost) for creating a format based on the deception. I'm no fan of the rest of the infotainment brigade, but Roger Ailes' vision, conceived while he was Communications Director for Nixon, was pure evil.
"People don't want to be informed. They want to feel informed," observed Ailes. Evil, yes, but evil genius.
Not genius. Morally, spiritually, intellectually bankrupt. First, his promise to build a FOX "news network" for Nixon. Which, of course, spawned Trump. GENIUS???!! I don't think so.
Nailed it.
You're not wrong about Fox news, what is wrong is your lasering in on on and only on Fox. They're ALL set up as propaganda networks. Fox for the mainstream right but MSNBC functions in exactly the same way for the left. The last 2 editors AND ceo's of NPR are ex spooks and CIA. Do you think that's a coincidence? Dorsey revealed that most of twitter was run by the Feds, Zuckerberg revealed the same about Facebook. 80% of their managers come from the CIA or FBI. Can that high a number be a coincidence? They're all just pumping out propaganda and misinformation according to whoever is in charge. It's probably always been this way, we just didn't realise it pre Internet.
Final word, the point you are missing. FOX was conceived and designed in the final months of the Nixon presidency as a propaganda tool of the Right Wing, John Birch Extremists. It was part of a massive strategy mapped out by Ailes, Nixon and others to destroy the Liberal press. Read a document called the Powell Memoranda, penned by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell at Nixon's behest. A strategy for the Right to grab power.
The corruption at MSNBC, CBS, ABC et al is created by the corporate entities who spend millions in advertising and, as a result wield gravitas in editorial content. Not great, but not FOX.
They all do this. You're not paying attention.
FOX News was conceived, planned and built as a propaganda machine. It was premeditated.
CNN and msnbc and the BBC etc are all just as bad. All you are identifying here is your bias and hand waving away any propaganda that exists within the media landscape that you consume.
All my stupid republican friends are only talking about Democrat bad, Republicans good.
But you and others are only talking about "Republicans bad, Democrats good". You're all idiots and behaving like cult members were you think only the other side are biased and spreading misinformation or corrupt. Just like Jeff below who is stuck like a record repeating over and over "Only FOX is biased and corrupt but CNN etc are wholly good and incorruptiblly good". It's idiotic.
It was devised that way many years ago. They realized the only way to victory was divide and conquer We have lost the wisdom, "Come, let us reason together."
He was right, repeatedly proven to be true. Alas, I think most people don't understand what he meant. He's still relevant, perhaps more now than ever.
Chris, thanks for this remarkable piece! I’ve chosen Substack over my previous forms of media - I dumped them all. Your network is serving the person using it - me! Some I pay for, some I take advantage of their limited free offer. I’ll never go back to the old dark ways.
"choose your own heroes" -- this needs to be on a t-shirt
Technology is a tool. In whose hands and for what purpose? Answer both of those questions and then you get to choose whether or not to use according to your purpose. It was Peter Drucker who said "Culture eats strategy for breakfast." Make of that what you will.
Excellent article. Well thought through. //
As in any industry. Leaders within it restrain evil or join in the promotion of it. Our battle is spiritual in nature and media simply reflects the organization’s priorities (hearts) and the readers “demand”
So true yet there are a good many leftist goons that have stacks and an audience. I believe strongly that every/any one should have their right to a soap box in the village square. Freedom of speech is the only means to counter thought control and keep the liars in check.
Even God gives us the freedom to choose our own path.
Agree!! We won’t find conservatives overtly or covertly working to stifle free speech. That’s a characteristic of the communist left/MSM.
Just excellent Chris. So enjoyed your piece.
Very interesting view. Actually, in France for instance, social media was probably perceived as more "social" than media. Bringing back the essence of why people do connect is essential. And yes, an healthier ecosystem in which we - the readers - become mini shareholders of a platform can only be the way.
A thought-provoking exploration of media's future! It's inspiring to see a vision where creators and audiences are empowered, fostering genuine connections and enriching our cultural landscape. Kudos to Substack for championing this culture-driven approach.
Chris - agree with much of what you said but have to reject your notion that technology is neutral. My fellow Canuck, McCluhan was one of many who showed and highlighted that it isn't. That a technology and a media come with their own biases, threats, agendas, affordances and inertia. I think too much of the "its not the technology but how you use technology" people out there use that gee shucks shrug of neutrality to pursue their own agendas of technology being unimportant. It is, the medium is a massage. Choose your type of massage well. Substack knows that very well - its who premise is built on the technologies it has chose to use over so many others.
So well said. The people who love to point out that people have their own biases rarely see their own. It’s not possible to determine algorithms with out some coherence. Every app has one in order to function. Whoever sets them gets to set their course.
Hear, hear for the culture future!
I definitely prefer the 2nd future!
Beautiful post Chris