Subscription based journalism goes away. I love articles by Matt Taibbi etc. But, I don't want to pay them $80 for a subscription. There are too many good writers that I want to read. Newspapers are the wrong idea, because it is centrally consolidated. Paragraph might be the right idea, because I can pay per article.
But I wouldn't pay until after I read the article. And if I read the article for free why would I then pay?
Reminds me of flying in the era of newspapers. One could always find a newspaper left behind at airport gates. So I read the newspaper for free. I didn't read the free paper and then afterwards feel obliged to pay $1 to the Washington Post.
While I am a sophisticated (both as term of art and based on my professional experience) investor, I am a skeptic on crypto. Happy to sacrifice potential returns b/c I see the space as still in Wild West mode.
Substack is efficient, easy to navigate and yes, comment upon.
My impetus for commenting is partly social (engaging with others) and often driven by my concern for our country and Western civilization, which is being undermined by many that seem ubiquitous on (even) intelligent substacks. I comment to offset some of the nonsense. (btw, rare on your substack, Jeff).
The greatest long term impact of the Trump era will be the realization by the general public that the “experts” were never experts at all. Think tanks lead the way. Real experts with original ideas should be on Substack or a similar platform to monetize their ideas. If a “expert” can’t gain traction on a platform via original thinking and good writing, are they worth following? Most people now question the information they’re fed, and the wisest realize that almost all information is indeed being fed to them. Cui bono rules the day.
With the welcome exit of the boomers off the national stage, belief in the mainstream media will plummet further. Good. I say this as a late Boomer who really has nothing in common with Boomers. I’m surrounded by them here in Retiree Land in NC. Most are not inquisitive, forward looking, or do not question the information they receive. In general, they have just given up, mentally and physically. It’s depressing to be around them.
Interesting take. I question the demographic slice to analyze how people think. I’m a boomer but totally unlike many. My personal character as brain driven, focused on Judeo Christian ethic and (somewhat) unconventional far more relevant to how I operate in the world. My female friends that see things as I do (not many btw, are truly conservative) typically managed groups and had bottom line accountability. Tends to focus the mind on reality, which most Libs/Leftists and AWFLs can’t grasp.
We’ve been off MSM and cut the chord quite a while ago.
I’ve come to see that the written word, as opposed to video based information, is far less susceptible to manipulation. Hence my preference for substacks.
As a 65 year old, I get cheesed when my preferred website posts a video for me to suffer when I'd gladly take 5-7 times as long to READ the same commentary. I prefer to read the content, for myself, it's a much better way to retain the info.
It all started -- this blogging sensation -- with Wordpress.
To make that work, you had to do some study to master the basic software of Wordpress, buy an email distribution network (the Monkey one, Mail Chimp), content distribution/security software such as Cloudfare, picture optimization software, and a handful of widgets/add-ins making it all a modestly techy and expensive proposition.
There was also hosting and domain names to be paid for.
Comes now Substack that incorporates all these provisions in a single, easy bit of wizardry sacrificing only a small amount of formatting such as colored typefaces. It is also wildly inexpensive.
Paragraph goes in the opposite direction. It injects more complexity under the umbrella of Web 3.0 smugness and appeals to a self-congratulatory bunch of creators who like the complexity.
Simplicity will win again because it's all about getting to the words quicker and easier.
Not sure I agree that the internet killed newspapers. Newspapers were consolidating as far back as the 60’s. Better communications killed the newspaper. Telegraph, telephone, television, cable, talk radio and others had their impact long before the internet. Newspapers consolidated and disappeared for decades before the internet.
Newspapers only work well when it’s a monopoly / oligopoly situation. Every new tech that loosened that hold hurt newspapers. A long, slow decline, not due to a single change.
Business and even industries come and go.Successful careers are made by navigating that flow, not ignoring it. Journalists had to learn that.
I recall the JOA (joint operating agreement) between the Detroit News and (at the time, the failing) Detroit Free Press. It ended up having the opposite effect of killing the Detroit News' circulation. The printing operation was years ago moved out to Sterling Heights, a burb 8 miles north of Detroit and now, ironically, both suffering papers are now printed in Ohio.
Maybe this means something for producers but as a consumer, I don't get it.
On a tangent, in the TV world there is growing awareness / complaint that as it concerns TV sports, streaming is worse than cable.
What I see happening is streaming pushed out to consumers the burden of deciding what subscriptions to buy. Consumers are frustrated because they directly see the costs and the tradeoffs of these decisions.
In the cable world, the producers negotiated with distributors and the consumer was offered a package of games at a set price. And if a game wasn't in that package the consumer could complain but did not feel compelled to pay more because paying more wasn't an option!
The world of on demand, fully personalized, completely fragmented media has desirable attributes. But it is still flawed. For me, I budget $200 a year for Substack subscriptions. This means I don't have access to 99.9% of Substack content! Is this what publishers want? But what is the alternative?
What broke the journalism industry was when they crossed over from sensationalism to outright embellishment, which is a euphemism for outright lying. They were on the downswing, but they probably could have survived another decade or so had they maintained integrity and character. Their absurd justifications and rationalizations, so often driven by pushing a political agenda driven by feigned moral outrage and self-proclaimed self-righteous indignation, was utterly ridiculous and the majority of people eventually saw through it. Yes, the internet had a lot to do with it, but it was a combination of the ease of use and accessibility of the internet combined with feeling like you're being lied to by legacy Media that caused them to self-destruct. They have only themselves to blame.
Largely because they failed to adjust to the tech and the desktop publishing-blogging world where "pajama wearing people in their basements" turned into boots on the ground as major media just cribbed each others' reporting. TV and cable news have also lost their fight with independent media. Big media's resistance to being at least acquainted with the story in question hurt a bit, and now, its all at once they are crashing. We'll see what happens with CBS' news division. Popcorn or some good kettle potato chips.
Subscription based journalism goes away. I love articles by Matt Taibbi etc. But, I don't want to pay them $80 for a subscription. There are too many good writers that I want to read. Newspapers are the wrong idea, because it is centrally consolidated. Paragraph might be the right idea, because I can pay per article.
But I wouldn't pay until after I read the article. And if I read the article for free why would I then pay?
Reminds me of flying in the era of newspapers. One could always find a newspaper left behind at airport gates. So I read the newspaper for free. I didn't read the free paper and then afterwards feel obliged to pay $1 to the Washington Post.
good point.
I read your piece on Paragraph.
While I am a sophisticated (both as term of art and based on my professional experience) investor, I am a skeptic on crypto. Happy to sacrifice potential returns b/c I see the space as still in Wild West mode.
Substack is efficient, easy to navigate and yes, comment upon.
My impetus for commenting is partly social (engaging with others) and often driven by my concern for our country and Western civilization, which is being undermined by many that seem ubiquitous on (even) intelligent substacks. I comment to offset some of the nonsense. (btw, rare on your substack, Jeff).
I think that Think Tanks will become a thing of the past for the most part.
The greatest long term impact of the Trump era will be the realization by the general public that the “experts” were never experts at all. Think tanks lead the way. Real experts with original ideas should be on Substack or a similar platform to monetize their ideas. If a “expert” can’t gain traction on a platform via original thinking and good writing, are they worth following? Most people now question the information they’re fed, and the wisest realize that almost all information is indeed being fed to them. Cui bono rules the day.
With the welcome exit of the boomers off the national stage, belief in the mainstream media will plummet further. Good. I say this as a late Boomer who really has nothing in common with Boomers. I’m surrounded by them here in Retiree Land in NC. Most are not inquisitive, forward looking, or do not question the information they receive. In general, they have just given up, mentally and physically. It’s depressing to be around them.
Interesting take. I question the demographic slice to analyze how people think. I’m a boomer but totally unlike many. My personal character as brain driven, focused on Judeo Christian ethic and (somewhat) unconventional far more relevant to how I operate in the world. My female friends that see things as I do (not many btw, are truly conservative) typically managed groups and had bottom line accountability. Tends to focus the mind on reality, which most Libs/Leftists and AWFLs can’t grasp.
We’ve been off MSM and cut the chord quite a while ago.
I’ve come to see that the written word, as opposed to video based information, is far less susceptible to manipulation. Hence my preference for substacks.
Spot on!
As a 65 year old, I get cheesed when my preferred website posts a video for me to suffer when I'd gladly take 5-7 times as long to READ the same commentary. I prefer to read the content, for myself, it's a much better way to retain the info.
I often find it takes me less time to read—people talk slowly (LOL)
It all started -- this blogging sensation -- with Wordpress.
To make that work, you had to do some study to master the basic software of Wordpress, buy an email distribution network (the Monkey one, Mail Chimp), content distribution/security software such as Cloudfare, picture optimization software, and a handful of widgets/add-ins making it all a modestly techy and expensive proposition.
There was also hosting and domain names to be paid for.
Comes now Substack that incorporates all these provisions in a single, easy bit of wizardry sacrificing only a small amount of formatting such as colored typefaces. It is also wildly inexpensive.
Paragraph goes in the opposite direction. It injects more complexity under the umbrella of Web 3.0 smugness and appeals to a self-congratulatory bunch of creators who like the complexity.
Simplicity will win again because it's all about getting to the words quicker and easier.
Merry Christmas
JLM
Good point.
Not sure I agree that the internet killed newspapers. Newspapers were consolidating as far back as the 60’s. Better communications killed the newspaper. Telegraph, telephone, television, cable, talk radio and others had their impact long before the internet. Newspapers consolidated and disappeared for decades before the internet.
Newspapers only work well when it’s a monopoly / oligopoly situation. Every new tech that loosened that hold hurt newspapers. A long, slow decline, not due to a single change.
Business and even industries come and go.Successful careers are made by navigating that flow, not ignoring it. Journalists had to learn that.
Yes. Resilience is a forgotten asset. Needful for all of us.
I recall the JOA (joint operating agreement) between the Detroit News and (at the time, the failing) Detroit Free Press. It ended up having the opposite effect of killing the Detroit News' circulation. The printing operation was years ago moved out to Sterling Heights, a burb 8 miles north of Detroit and now, ironically, both suffering papers are now printed in Ohio.
Maybe this means something for producers but as a consumer, I don't get it.
On a tangent, in the TV world there is growing awareness / complaint that as it concerns TV sports, streaming is worse than cable.
What I see happening is streaming pushed out to consumers the burden of deciding what subscriptions to buy. Consumers are frustrated because they directly see the costs and the tradeoffs of these decisions.
In the cable world, the producers negotiated with distributors and the consumer was offered a package of games at a set price. And if a game wasn't in that package the consumer could complain but did not feel compelled to pay more because paying more wasn't an option!
The world of on demand, fully personalized, completely fragmented media has desirable attributes. But it is still flawed. For me, I budget $200 a year for Substack subscriptions. This means I don't have access to 99.9% of Substack content! Is this what publishers want? But what is the alternative?
I bookmarked it. For me, the more Substack feels like Facebook or LinkedIn, the more attractive something like Paragraph becomes.
We'll see.
I don't know how much I will mess around there but it might be not a lot, or a lot!
What broke the journalism industry was when they crossed over from sensationalism to outright embellishment, which is a euphemism for outright lying. They were on the downswing, but they probably could have survived another decade or so had they maintained integrity and character. Their absurd justifications and rationalizations, so often driven by pushing a political agenda driven by feigned moral outrage and self-proclaimed self-righteous indignation, was utterly ridiculous and the majority of people eventually saw through it. Yes, the internet had a lot to do with it, but it was a combination of the ease of use and accessibility of the internet combined with feeling like you're being lied to by legacy Media that caused them to self-destruct. They have only themselves to blame.
Largely because they failed to adjust to the tech and the desktop publishing-blogging world where "pajama wearing people in their basements" turned into boots on the ground as major media just cribbed each others' reporting. TV and cable news have also lost their fight with independent media. Big media's resistance to being at least acquainted with the story in question hurt a bit, and now, its all at once they are crashing. We'll see what happens with CBS' news division. Popcorn or some good kettle potato chips.