Greenwald, Sullivan and Yglesias got so big by starting blogs that they could sell to traditional publications. They are not monetizing an audience they acquired through larger institutions, but reclaiming one they created themselves. pllqt.it/lJGvqe
Maybe being a white dude advantages you in blogging, though I did all right. But my observation as someone who did it is that the qualities that make you a great blogger are much, much more specific.
Basically, absolutely voracious information consumption, very fast reaction time, the ability to write quickly and coherently, the ability to cover a broad range of topics, and the ability to keep it up over weeks, months, years. Most people--even most writers--just can't do it.
It wouldn't surprise me if that kind of very obsessive personality skews male, for example, though again, I did all right.
And that's what you need to be a good one (wo)man show. Though frankly, we were all overclocking and had to pull back eventually--by the time I moved to Bloomberg, I was in bad mental shape from years of 60-80 hour weeks without ever feeling like I could turn it off for 20 min.
Finally, and obviously, one major characteristic of the successful one (wo)man show is the ability to swim against a crowd.
Given that, it seems almost obvious that Substack would select on people who are not in tune with the dominant views of the establishment media.
And that the biggest audience numbers will come from folks who are not in tune with the establishment media in the ways most commonly found among infovores with disposable income for subscriptions.
(Okay, so I guess this wasn't obvious to everyone? If you're just saying stuff other folks are already saying, readers can get it elsewhere, and better edited)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So I'm advising people to skip the big Thanksgiving, even though yes, most people who go to a big family Thanksgiving dinner will not die! washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-no…
I think it's worth talking about how I came to that conclusion, even though I understand that turkey day is super important to a whole lot of people.
Basically, it boiled down to: when I described a "safe" dinner, everyone asked "But then, what's the point?"
People don't want to wave at their relatives from a comfortably distanced chair on the driveway while eating the food they brought in their own cooler.
In 2004, when I was living in London, I watched, with increasing hilarity, a news panel spend *20 minutes* discussing whether a non-Christian could be elected to higher office in the United States.
My companions didn't get the joke, and answering it made me laugh harder, until finally I was able to wipe the tears away and say "I don't know, perhaps we could ask Senator Lieberman for his thoughts."
It is weird to see common english words in quotes, or used as if they were a specific kind of the thing, instead of a general equivalent to that word in French or Spanish.
Well said. Novel crises end up with suboptimal responses because while custom is usually better than government, "Unfamiliar problem with large spillover effects" is one of the few areas where government will, on average, be more flexible than the average citizen's intuitions.
Like I'm super sympathetic to the folks arguing we shouldn't give government new powers just because there is a temporary crisis only 99.9999% of those folks also get really mad when you suggest using peer pressure to induce desirable reductions in spread.
In fact, what a large number of them seem to want--I'm tempted to say a majority--is that we use peer pressure to coerce everyone into ignoring the virus unless they're, like, 80. I mean, these people seem genuinely mad that I am not fulfilling my moral obligation to dine out.
Okay, all of you folks yelling IF YOU THINK ISOLATED CASES OF FRAUD OCCUR, WHY ARE YOU SO SANGUINE? HOW ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH FRAUD?
I need to tell you guys a story. About ballpoint pens.
Readers of my columns have heard this one before. Sorry. Bear with me.
So when I was just a young slip of a girl, making my way in the Big City by doing temp work, I got a multi-week gig at a moderately sized office that was, I infer, having some financial problems.
Conservatives often complain that the left believes that biological realities will go away if you just win enough Twitter arguments.
But how would you describe someone who responds to the observation that US hospitals in some areas are already at capacity with "But Sweden"?
Like, even if you won this argument, or at least made your interlocutor too tired to continue it, the virus is not going to scream "Aiieeeeee, Sweden, I am slain!" and stop ripping through hospitals.
We need to spend more time addressing the physical reality of a virus that cannot read and therefore does not know or care about anything except infecting us. And way less time litigating past policy grievances, or demanding a hall pass from biology for our very special cause.
1) Cities tend to be monolithically left, and monolithic groups become more extreme, so that urban discourse is significantly to the left of the American center, or indeed, the modal Democrat.
2) "Mainstream" media and academia are even more extremely left-skewed, which removes a natural check on the tendency to talk left. (This problem is becoming more apparent on the right as they disengage from mainstream media)
3) Primaries make it costlier to "talk right", especially as symbolic cultural politics dominate more and more of this intra-institutional jockeying for power.