I rarely disagree with you, BJ, but I do disagree with this piece. First, Greenwald left a somewhat mainstream news organization and founded The Intercept. In many ways, he WAS The Intercept. The rest of the site is a loose collection of dimwits -- something Greenwald would likely disagree with. But, one of the principal reasons Greenwald founded The Intercept was to create a free speech platform, one that wasn't beholden to corporate money in the form of advertising or other less direct influence.
And, these free speech principles were publicly proclaimed when The Intercept was founded. Everyone there had to at least pay lip service to the notion that free speech was a founding precept. So, this comment wildly misses the mark (in my opinion): "But the mechanics of modern media organizations, where they play to a tight bubble because tight bubbles get the most clicks, basically force editors to do this."
The Intercept was never supposed to be a "modern media organization" at least if you compare it to the vast bastion of them such as they are today. And, I'd place a large wager that The Intercept has far, far fewer clicks today than it did when Greenwald was there. I would even wager that its editors likely knew this would be the result of driving him away from the platform he founded. But, they couldn't help themselves. In a fight between clicks and ideology, it is ideology that eventually wins out.
And, though I agree with much of what you say about Medium, I think it will lose clicks as it further censors content. I definitely would be a subscriber there today but for the fact that I started seeing their censorship. I wrote a few articles there, as well, though nowhere near as successful as yours. After 2 or 3, they shadow banned me. It was easy to see. Login with a different account and neither my articles nor comments from the other account would show up.
Now, I rarely go to Medium and wouldn't dream of subscribing. I suspect many others have left for the same reason, and it's probably one of the factors that led Greenwald and Taibbi here rather than Medium. I follow them both, as well as you. And, I'm glad you all have taken your business elsewhere.
Fascinating about Medium shadowbanning. I don't think I've been subject to that, although I definitely roast a few woke sacred cows intermittently. It seems as if my departure is relatively well timed.
BJ: To quote Gen. George S. Patton: "When everyone is thinking alike, someone is not thinking.'' To a point, I agree with your conclusion that "from a monetary perspective, the editors were doing the right thing." But I would add a caveat: In their minds.
There would seem an economic opportunity for a site that goes both left and right. People love to argue. Someone needs to give them some substantive data to fuel those arguments. Reading people who do nothing but confirm your own biases gets boring fast.
Think Point-Counterpoint from 60 Minutes of long ago, or the SNL parody of the same: "Jane, you ignorant slut.'' The internets could really, really, really use more humor.
P.S. Medium still pushes me copy, but I find I seldom read it. The problem isn't that it's woke. The problem is that most of it is shallow, navel-gazing nonsense about how life is hard because yadda, yadda, yadda.
Yes, life is hard. It's hard for everybody. That might explain why the demographics for suicide are so diverse.
Loved the article "Everybody's lying", I have all of those gun articles saved and whip them out on occasion when I run across someone on FB that needs to be enlightened.
I rarely disagree with you, BJ, but I do disagree with this piece. First, Greenwald left a somewhat mainstream news organization and founded The Intercept. In many ways, he WAS The Intercept. The rest of the site is a loose collection of dimwits -- something Greenwald would likely disagree with. But, one of the principal reasons Greenwald founded The Intercept was to create a free speech platform, one that wasn't beholden to corporate money in the form of advertising or other less direct influence.
And, these free speech principles were publicly proclaimed when The Intercept was founded. Everyone there had to at least pay lip service to the notion that free speech was a founding precept. So, this comment wildly misses the mark (in my opinion): "But the mechanics of modern media organizations, where they play to a tight bubble because tight bubbles get the most clicks, basically force editors to do this."
The Intercept was never supposed to be a "modern media organization" at least if you compare it to the vast bastion of them such as they are today. And, I'd place a large wager that The Intercept has far, far fewer clicks today than it did when Greenwald was there. I would even wager that its editors likely knew this would be the result of driving him away from the platform he founded. But, they couldn't help themselves. In a fight between clicks and ideology, it is ideology that eventually wins out.
And, though I agree with much of what you say about Medium, I think it will lose clicks as it further censors content. I definitely would be a subscriber there today but for the fact that I started seeing their censorship. I wrote a few articles there, as well, though nowhere near as successful as yours. After 2 or 3, they shadow banned me. It was easy to see. Login with a different account and neither my articles nor comments from the other account would show up.
Now, I rarely go to Medium and wouldn't dream of subscribing. I suspect many others have left for the same reason, and it's probably one of the factors that led Greenwald and Taibbi here rather than Medium. I follow them both, as well as you. And, I'm glad you all have taken your business elsewhere.
Fascinating about Medium shadowbanning. I don't think I've been subject to that, although I definitely roast a few woke sacred cows intermittently. It seems as if my departure is relatively well timed.
Yes. Your exit timing was impeccable!
I agree 100%
BJ: To quote Gen. George S. Patton: "When everyone is thinking alike, someone is not thinking.'' To a point, I agree with your conclusion that "from a monetary perspective, the editors were doing the right thing." But I would add a caveat: In their minds.
There would seem an economic opportunity for a site that goes both left and right. People love to argue. Someone needs to give them some substantive data to fuel those arguments. Reading people who do nothing but confirm your own biases gets boring fast.
Think Point-Counterpoint from 60 Minutes of long ago, or the SNL parody of the same: "Jane, you ignorant slut.'' The internets could really, really, really use more humor.
P.S. Medium still pushes me copy, but I find I seldom read it. The problem isn't that it's woke. The problem is that most of it is shallow, navel-gazing nonsense about how life is hard because yadda, yadda, yadda.
Yes, life is hard. It's hard for everybody. That might explain why the demographics for suicide are so diverse.
Loved the article "Everybody's lying", I have all of those gun articles saved and whip them out on occasion when I run across someone on FB that needs to be enlightened.
That was literally the point of me writing them, so I didn't have to whip the same argument out over and over on FB from scratch.