Reminds me of a quote from an economics professor, whose high salary was questioned by someone from another discipline.

"The university doesn't determine my salary; the market does that. The university only decides the city in which I earn it."

/paraphrase

But the market was invented by economics professors...

Discovered maybe, but certainly not invented.

This is actually debated. Check out DG’s book on the history of debt.

Don't even pretend that the market is some sort of natural phenomenon. That's got human fingerprints all over it

Of course, market is natural phenomenon. Every process with pressure, suction and or differences of potential is trying to achieve equilibrium. Electricity, hydraulics, they all manifest the same principles. Except that in nature, it's driven by pure physics. With people, you need to understand value and it's more generic. One step more generic from physics, is cybernetics. And market is a cybernetic system with difference of energies trying to achieve equilibrium.

Humans aren't a natural phenomenon?

Could you define "market" because I don't think you're using the word the way I would use it.

Markets exist in nature with the whole “seeking equilibrium” of so many natural systems (eg, chemical reactions).

And that raises a question. What will readers value? Will they value rigorous writers who may provide discomfort or engaging writers who write to choirs?

Presumably different audiences will prefer different writers, as they always have.

Yes but like food diet, is junk food more profitable or are staples more profitable?

What should we aim for?

If junk is more profitable, is that okay? Do we all jump on that wagon while the going is good, or do we think a minute about what is more fulfilling?

Media outlets other than substack are also hiring terrible people, and optimizing for trash.

To me the largest difference between large corporate outlets and substack (and other reader-financed journalists) is that large corporate outlets will keep people employed for years that nobody wants to read and could never support themselves independently - journalists who are only important and interesting because of their access to the outlet. The outlets themselves keep those journalists around as pure vehicles for the opinions of their owners.

At least with these outlets, the owners are the readers. If the readers like trash, they'll pay for trash. If the owners like quality, they'll demand it. I don't have to worry about how the subject of the article will affect Bezos's net worth, or wonder how David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, or Thomas Friedman are still employed.

But still, we’re not sure that the content will be free of external influence taking advantage of the writer’s reputation.

Obviously if they peddle too many interested articles they'll likely get caught, but if they do it once in a while or take payment from opposing interests, etc., who’ll know the difference?

There is no "we" here, certainly not in the sense that "do we think a minute". People can choose for themselves just fine, and they'll do so whether I wring my hands about it or not. If you want to be worried about other people, go ahead but leave me out of it. :)

Obviously trash sells and it always has ("The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience"), but some people care more about things like truth and style than they do about money.

This is the world we're living in. Unfortunately, I can give you only one upvote...

Regardless of whether Doritos are more profitable we still have millions of acres of staple crops grown each year. There is no shortage of good writing but it may not come in microwaveable packets. If the majority of the people don't care then that's the downside to living in a free society where each has their choice.

Majority people's staples are now junk. I expect the same thing to happen in media.

One of the dangers is that it turns out audiences actually prefer writers constrained and filtered and checked by editors.

But by the time they realize that, editors won’t exist any more.

I'd like my journalists to be constrained by the truth, and paid editors in the context of a "traditional" newspaper are one possible way to achieve that. However, if you believe the stats on this, trust for traditional news sources is at record lows.

I personally don't trust traditional news sources very much. Therefore, I'm open to trying something different. I've been a happy subscriber to a handful of Substack journalists for a few months now. It's too soon to say whether this will be a lasting improvement, but it's hard to do worse than the mainstream media.

I'm curious, as I tend to trust many of the large media outlets, especially the NYT and WaPo.

1) Which outlets do you consider to be the "mainstream media" or "traditional media"?

And 2) why don't you trust them?

Rather than annoy the HN mods by derailing this conversation into politics, I can answer in detail to you directly. If you want that, could you update your bio on HN to include your email address?

I appreciate that both for helping me keep it non-politics on HN and also for being willing to reach out.

I've updated my email in my bio, hope to hear from you soon.

> why don't you trust them?

Have we already forgotten the NYT and WaPo pushing to get us into the Iraq War on false pretenses?

Glenn Greenwald gets into this a lot. As one recent example, WaPo misquoted Trump's comments on his infamous phone call with the Georgia secretary of state and this was not corrected until two months later when the Wall Street Journal obtained a recording of the call: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-do-big-media-outlets-so...

Indeed. Readers of WaPo should be outraged the paper took one source at their word when it came to statements from the President. Zero confirmation.

And it turns out it was all made up.

Do we know how many writers on Substack/Medium/independent blogs employ an editor or researcher in some capacity? I've only seen occasional mention, e.g., Kevin Kelly has said that he employs a librarian as a full time researcher. But the absence of mention isn't necessarily a strong indicator to the negative.

If substack stars need an editor, I assume they hire one.

Some probably already do.

Very unlikely that they won’t exist anymore.

And whichever low number they are reduced to, they will start to grow again because there will be people willing to pay for their services.

some of the more successful writers on substack are hiring people to do editorial work so even with this model it doesnt go away entirely

It depends on the reader. I, for example, always value, when I learn something new. No matter if it supports or questions my current views.

The issue with some Substack authors is they fall into Productivity Bullshit Industrial Complex (https://99u.adobe.com/articles/55974/the-creative-worlds-bul...) cathegory which is not very novel for anyone, who have read a few pieces in this space.

IMO it should read more:

"...it’s not that Substack will compete with existing publications for their *popular* writers, but rather that Substack makes it easy for the *popular* writers to discover their actual market value."

I've yet to read what I would consider high quality journalism on Substack. It's a lot of quick take opinion pieces.

On top of that, some may consider journalistic good writing a collective effort, in which an editor is usually necessary.

>I've yet to read what I would consider high quality journalism on Substack. It's a lot of quick take opinion pieces.

Most of what passes for "high quality journalism" in "high quality outlets" are fluff pieces and government/corporate PR masquerading as facts.

And as Alan Kay said: "a point of view is worth 80 IQ points". I'd rather read the opinion of people with well honed points of view than what passes as news in mainstream media.

Glenn Greenwald has written a number of very good pieces on his Substack that I would in no way describe as quick take opinion pieces and Matt Taibbi has the best reporting on the journalism industry itself going around. These guys are "well honed" because they're well read on the activities of the media and they think and communicate clearly

Maybe you're not reading the right posts or you just agree with the prevailing narrative in the traditional outlets?

Usually I find the people who don't see value in Substack also want the news to be reported with "moral clarity" and to eschew objectivity as a valuable aim entirely.

And besides, the mainstream outlets are barely reporting on anything anyway (where's the national news coverage of the George Floyd Autonomous Zone in Minneapolis? For the second time an American city has lost sovereignty over several blocks and the mainstream media is ignoring it) and if you do real investigative journalism into the wrong group, like Andy Ngo has (thank God for Quillette) you are branded a fascist

>Glenn Greenwald has written a number of very good pieces on his Substack that I would in no way describe as quick take opinion piece.

He wrote a piece about Parler and the storming of the Capital[0], within a week of the event that was certainly a quick take. There is absolutely no way to definitively make any sort of claim about how involved it was, especially from his position, thousands of miles away on a patio in Rio.

I find most of his pieces, to be very much 'hot take' in nature, responding to something that is currently going on.

[0]https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...

>He wrote a piece about Parler and the storming of the Capital[0], within a week of the event that was certainly a quick take. There is absolutely no way to definitively make any sort of claim about how involved it was, especially from his position, thousands of miles away on a patio in Rio.

The position "on a patio in Rio" doesn't matter, as he was not doing reporting, he was doing a take. It wasn't some obscure event that needed on-the-field investigation for someone to make a take a week later (which is a lot of time in news).

It's enough that others did the reporting, or the events were plain and clearly recorded on video, or one has sources, or experience to see what's the deal behind what's reported.

"within a week" is an eternity in journalism.

>Maybe you're not reading the right posts or you just agree with the prevailing narrative in the traditional outlets?

Maybe you meant this for the parent commenter? I wrote in favor of Substack writers and against the "traditional outlets" superiority.

Thank you for the Autonomous Zone reference. Googling for this and finding local news, Fox and NY Post is really eye-opening. Apparently it's not even worth mentioning... optics would be bad for the -useful idi- compassionate supporters more towards the center.