Thread by @ggreenwald

Very good analysis explaining the sudden outburst of media animosity toward Substack. In sum:

- Large sectors of digital media are failing.

- Substack writers are thriving.

This is why the former harbors intense resentment toward the latter and wants to delegitimize it.

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1371566013720985609

In order to thrive on Substack, you need your own readership who believes you're offering something unique, informative and compelling that they can't get elsewhere - which is why they'll follow you and even subscribe.

That's exactly what so many resentful media people lack.

It's partially the fault of the climate of the liberal part of the media: allows no dissent or heterodoxy. So their journalist-employees, knowing jobs are sparse, constantly monitor what the liberal consensus is and cling to it for fear of being called names or being ostracized.

If all one does is cling in fear to the dominant liberal consensus and just echo it in everything then do, then of course it's impossible to provide anything interesting or unique, and therefore impossible to have your own readership who supports your work. That's not a virtue.

The other amazing thing about this outbreak of hostility is it's typically aimed at the most-read Substack writers (Taibbi, Sullivan, Yglesias & myself). Other than Yglesias (who does punditry), we all do reporting as well. But they claim we don't: compare their records to ours.

It's not true that "journalism is failing." It's true part of it is: a vocal corporate part. Much journalism is thriving: typically found on independent venues from those who are liberated by those corporate orthodoxies & repression. Replace the bitterness, with self-critique:

What Substack does -- like YouTube & Patreon before it -- is empower journalists to do reporting and analysis without the shackles of corporate editorial control or liberal pieties. That's why audiences love it, and why so many corporate journalists hate it. It's that simple.

(And oh, just for the record: I did not receive any advanced payment or salary or anything else from Substack to go there. I opted to rely exclusively on the income produced by those who subscribe to the work I do there, and am very glad I did. So please abandon that myth).

This translates to $80,000/month gross revenue, in case you're making a list of all the factors driving the recent outburst of corporate media rage and bitterness aimed at Substack:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1371554073837776899