1/ This is a truly bizarre, down is up, up is down, thread. Obviously I'm a biased Substack writer, but it's not a "threat" to traditional news media. It's a compliment. It works with it, and it's a strong addition to the landscape. Calling it a "threat to journalism" is absurd.
https://twitter.com/ubiquity75/status/1366115953419804677
2/ Most obvious is the fact that many "traditional" media outlets are incentivized in all the wrong ways: traffic, ad revenue, clicks, and corporate sponsors. Being supported by subscribers is not a cloak - it's actual freedom.
3/ Also, imagine in this moment for media actually tweeting this:
https://twitter.com/ubiquity75/status/1366115993861300225
4/ AYFKM? Thousands of journalists have been laid off in the last 5 years because people refuse to pay for quality content and because Facebook, Google and other big tech platforms have shafted newsrooms out of cash. Calling to *not pay writers* for their work right is bonkers.
5/ Regardless: Dr. Roberts appears to actually have little understanding of Substack. First, plenty of Substack writers/newsrooms have editors and similar set-ups that a traditional newsroom does.
6/ Second is that plenty of Substack writers are obviously there because they believe their traditional newsrooms failed to protect the integrity of their work. I understand people's skepticism ab some of these big names -- I share some of it. But to reject all of them?
7/ To believe every prominent writer who has moved to Substack for the stated reason of having their true work stifled or ignored or downgraded by their newsroom is lying about that? That takes actual delusion.
8/ Substack is not trying to destroy or takedown traditional media. Again, if Roberts had been paying attention she may have seen that in the writings of its founders, who have talked about it explicitly: blog.substack.com/p/a-proposed-c…
9/ Substack gives writers, journalists, thinkers, and creatives a direct line to their consumers in the format they want. That can include editors and a traditional newsroom structure. It can also not. More voices in the public square is a good thing - especially independent ones
10/ Miraculously, the model to help reporters and writers feed themselves actually appears to be working. Some are supplementing their poor salaries with a Substack. Others are working full-time. At a moment when media's business model is in crisis, Substack is working
11/ This thread basically amounts to vague threats about what happens when a writer doesn't have an editor, and then a call to literally not pay for or participate in a sustainable news model for journalists. It's actually a bit offensive, given the moment we're in!
END/ Anyway. Substack is not dangerous. Pick who you want to read. Keep supporting local newsrooms. Pay for news if you can. Enjoy having independent voices challenging the space. My Substack is the best. Go read Tangle readtangle.com/about
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
