Gotta wonder about a new model for these substacks.
I read Common Sense, Matt Taibbi, and Glen Greenwald.
Although I would not necessarily suggest that you form a single "magazine" type thing with them, I would like to suggest that some version of a bundle be available from substack, perhaps with shared revenue.
So for example, I could purchase a bundle of 4 or 5 substacks under one heading at a discount and then each additional one might be some minimal cost.
I might also suggest that the University of Austin produce a substack that could be associated to some set of other substacks. The authors could be the various professors and perhaps students. The profits could be used to support the school.
BTW.....The University of Austin still needs swag to sell. Just my opinion.
Agreed, $400+ in Substacks isn’t sustainable for most people long-term. CS is a non-negotiable for me, but I’ve found myself considering purging some of the smaller guys who don’t post a ton because of the overall investment.
I know this is a new business model and I’m here for a while. Just thinking thoughts.
Thank You and Jen. Both of You have some great ideas. I don't wanna throw a damper on them. But I've given this subject some thought.
What You both are asking for is for *Substack* to take less money for what they do, because they get paid a percentage of what the Authors make. The discount would, obviously, be *great* for the Authors and Subscribers, but for Substack? (They make nothing on (what I guess is) the majority of Substacks that are free.)
Plus, You're asking for a major change in the *programming* code that forms the Substack platform. And if this site is like most-a them, the code they're working with is A Big Ball of Mud. IOW, not so easy to change as One would like. "One" being the Authors and the Subscribers.
Plus, it would require an act of faith on the part of the Authors. A number of them would hafta decide on what percentage of the revenues would be allocated per word, and what percentage would be allocated based on the strength of the Author's following.
Agreement when it comes to money, practically speaking, being easier said than done. *This* would be the biggest hurdle, actually.
And then, if the Authors had any conscience, and a sense that they were in large part "lucky" to be in the place they've arrived at, they would *give away* a percentage of their revenues to sponser up-and-coming Authors, right? Mebbe *not* right, because that's just me.
eh, JT, I think Substack could profitably offer a "bundled" model as well as support its authors. The "per stack" subscription model is limiting. Lots of great voices to hear, but yo, there's a limit to where I have well exceeded a monthly WaPo or NYTimes subscription (that also features "voices") to read maybe one or two "interesting" articles across.
You could be right. And mebbe the Authors would go along with taking less of a cut. Say.. If there was a buy four get one free offer or something. Mebbe.
Yeah, that's always the gamble in biz. They *may* gain more subscribers. Or they may drum up business for other Substacks while not gaining much at all for themselves, other than less money per subscriber.
Who knows? The Author, to best of their ability. (And Substack of course, who is the big loser.)
Always mistakes. I forgot to mention another Way percentages of revenues might wanna be distributed. Got this from time I posted on medium.com. Authors may agree that the *time spent* by a subscriber could determine how much an article was worth. That way people who were more engaged would pay more. Unfortunately for some, people engaged in commenting would pay more. Seems fair to me, and probably to the Authors as well. BUt that's just me.
I appreciate the logic of your comment "Wrung Out Lemon," but as a long ago newspaper reporter and editor, I also understand that certain issues require a huge amount of research and shoe leather.
During my 15 year stint as a newspaper reporter I was blessed to have worked under one of America's outstanding managing editors.
Malcolm Stone was a refugee from the Philadelphia Inquirer, where his job as managing editor had became too high a burden for him and his family.
When he accepted the managing editor's job at the Bangor (Maine) Daily News in 1970, I was about a third of the way into my 15 years of working at the Daily News.
Shortly after Mal took over the editorial reins, he called me and several other reporters into his office for a come to Jesus talk. He asked for a show of hands by those of us willing to spend weeks or even months working on a single story. Yes, I was the only one ignorant enough to accept the challenge.
During my remaining time as a news reporter, Stone assigned me to several long term projects, the most memorable being a series of 25 stories dealing with the energy "crisis" of the mid 70s.
That project resulted in our small town newspaper receiving a second place award for national science and technology reporting.
The entire point of my comment is to explain how some issues are too complex for day to day, or even week to week reporting.
I had a team of talented editors and subject experts behind my work, and thus I understand how difficult it must be for a single reporter to accurately deal with complex issues.
Now long into my retirement years, I like the bundle concept as a way to reduce the cost of supporting the people who provide such good content for us on Substack.com
Thank you "Wrung Out" for the suggestions in your comment.
Totally agree. Like streaming services it's getting a little out of hand. Being able to get a "bundle" for a reasonable monthly price would be good (but that's Substack's issue of course).
No way bundle payments to Bari with anti American, supporter of Putin, Maduro, Fidel Castro, Boonie Sandas, Chicomm apologist until yesterday, Gays for Palestine, post Jewish Leftist, the Intercept wasnt radical chic enough so i left... Glenn Greenwald? They have zero in common except they are both anti woke.
What you're talking about is something like a basic cable fee. But I think that some of the Substack writers have more expenses than others, write more than others,
Podcasts and the like. It would have to be pro-rated. Bari for example is doing other things, traveling for interviews, editing, and I think the page is more news oriented then some others, so I don't know how that would work out.
Cable TV is pro-rated. HBO costs more than any other channel because it is more popular. So, the analogy with the cable TV s valid. When years ago I subscribed to the NYT, I was able to read Glenn Greenwald, Alex Berenson and hundreds of others for one price. Now I have to pay for each substack separately. BW is wonderful by inviting interesting prominent guest writers. Others mostly just write themselves, so the price, obviously, has to be in proportion to their expenses. I agree with others that subscribing to many individual substacks is becoming burdensome and unsustainable. I hope an idea of updating the subscription and payment structure has already been considered by Bari and the rest of substackers. With that being said, we are very grateful that CS came into existence. It gave our lives a ray of hope.
I do not disagree, that is why I would suggest that a lot of thought would need to go into the how of it.
Obviously not all writers are of equal worth either in terms of reading or to a business. Not all writers can or want to produce the same amount of material as others. Thats fine, there are a lot of businesses that work that way. Any NFL team has 80 different salaries and different salaries for the same position. Its not impossible to figure out.
But there is an argument to be made for either pre-selected bundles negotiated between the producers and for ala carte bundles negotiated between producers and substack.
How nice would it be to be able to just pick a Bari approved bundle of 3 substacks?
OR
To be able to select say...5, out of a list of say 30 substacks, to create a custom bundle. You can pay the ala carte price per or you get say, 15% off if you purchase all 5 and 20% off the next one. I mean the math has to be done, the analysis has to be done, deals negotiated, but the theory of it is right I think. If Substacking is gonna be the replacement for MSM then it needs to be affordable for people to assemble a collection of substacks that cover the breadth of news and opinion that one would normally expect from a MSM newspaper or news magazine such as what Newsweek and Time used to be. The difference is that in the model I propose, you would select the authors and pay accordingly, not have them all pre-selected for you by a publisher.
Maybe I want Common Sense & Matt Taibbi, then maybe I want a finance substack and sports substack and then I want one that is dedicated to my region.
I'd weight "both are non MSM journalists" pretty heavily. Do you only want to listen to people you agree with? I'd venture that is what Bari is working so hard to combat.
goodnesss.. the horror.. you might have to read and support opposing voices? lol
This was literally the model of the community and national newspapers. You get some op-ed you agree with, some you don't. It's healthy. Reading in a bubble of only sources you agree with a-priori is not.
Yes, the more viewpoints the merrier. As long as the point is argued logically and without insults, I'll read most anything that comes long. Doesn't matter if I agree; the view is what's important.
You would pick and choose which providers would be in your bundle. If you don't want to read about "Boonie Sandas," you wouldn't have to. You'd pay X dollars for a bundle and pick the ones you want.
I read the same three substackers. I might end my subscription for Taibbi and Greenwald because they are not publishing material on a regular basis. There have been a couple of 3 week periods where Greenwald has not published anything at all.
Do not disagree. BW is smart, she aggregates interesting writers under her substack and produces regular essays.
Problem that Greenwald and Taibbi have is that they are the sole producers of content. Anything happens to them or in their lives, such as with Greenwald, they are hosed.
Now, if Taibbi and Greenwald were to join forces or to publish under a bundle package with one or two or even 3 others, you limit the risk.
I think there is a place for something like a digital newspaper, essay magazine, where the consumer can select the contributing authors.
How that would be structured organizationally and financially is the trick. But is would distribute risk, albeit at the cost of distributing income.
Excuse Glennie and his husband who have been real busy on the Lula communist party reelection campaign in Brazil, and posting pro Russian, anti anti -Putin zingers on twitter. Bari respects her paid subscibers, that's why she posts at least 2-3 x a week.
AGREE. The "per substack" subscription model is bleeding me dry. It's like the "i cancelled cable TV to save money" yet now I'm somehow spending more money on each and every niche subscription as a result (Netflix, Hulu+/Disney+, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, etc).
It's almost like we need a "single subscription provider" (haha, like CABLE TV) and for news/opinion, a combined Substack subscription that gives at least tiered access to various blogs within.
I have thought that a lot.. “Is there one place I could get all my shows…” oh yeah. CABLE. We jumped ship back when streaming services were new, and it was actually saving us money. Now, we are all paying more than we began with. 😳
Why would a successful substack want to bundle with unsuccessful substacks?? This is a microcosm of the housing crisis in 2006 and derivatives that were used to support bad loans. It collapsed all housing finances.
I applaud the thought. But it is a rehash of a very non-competitive no-freedom model. I hope you see what I am saying.......
Also, I like how Medium allows you to “tip” a writer for a story or pub. That often gets a response from me when a particular entry has moved me or been insightful.
I would say let them compete in a friendly way. This will drive better innovation in their collective fight against the MSM. I would propose that there are joint efforts these new outlets can attempt where they team up for a portions of their content. But from my perspective, if they team up this early, they could be an easier target for MSM.
I look forward to this blog every day. Days when it doesn't update are a little sadder for me. But I must say that many of us would like to hear more from YOU, Bari. Not all of us are podcast listeners. Can we get more essays from you, or at least transcripts from Honestly?
I do both. I read some articles and others I take with me on my walks. It's nice to have the option. I wish all the articles were audio as well. I spend to much time sitting.
Exactly. My phone is used mainly as a phone, not for computing tasks, so when I listen to a podcast I feel trapped at my computer with nothing else to do.
One solution is to use a blue tooth device like wireless ear buds or wireless earphones. Perfect to let you go about your business within the limits of your home WiFi. That’s what I do. I love to read also, because I copy and paste or share points of interest, or save segments to my digital notes.
I am like you Celia. I look forward to this newsletter every day. I agree with most of the newsletter's post and look forward to those I don't agree with. I like the exchange of ideas and wish there were more leftists posting here but I think you don't see many leftists here because hard core ideologues don't like their ideologies challenged. That goes for both right and left ideologues.
I wonder if the fact that many of the commenters here are on the Right suggests something about the willingness (or lack thereof) of people on the Left to be challenged. Admittedly, the more Right-wing among us tend to bitch a lot about the more Left-leaning articles, but most of them still show up week after week.
As a moderate, it frustrates me to see too few actually *moderate* essays. And as a English M.A., it frustrates me to see how many of the Left-leaning articles (at least half of them, if not more) are poorly written, often without any display of rhetorical skills, and especially lacking in consideration of audience. Too often, I suspect, such essays are intended for "the choir," rather than with any expectation of having to convince anyone. Maybe they were written for other publications but not accepted, or maybe they are rough drafts intended for eventual submission elsewhere.
I really hope Bari can develop a slate of sufficiently good contributors that she won't have to foist bad writers on us.
Lefties don't need to go to Substack to get articles from their point of view - there's Politico, Vox, Daily Beast, the Atlantic, and pretty much every major newspaper.
We're here because the mainstream has failed us - and I, for one, am glad that it did, and so I had to go searching for writing that I could appreciate. I learned about Bari from Bill Maher's show, and even though I disagree with a lot of what he says, at least he is willing to listen to the "other side".
Substack will cause either a full revamp of mainstream media, or it will kill off most of it. CNN is just the beginning.
Celia, I always like your posts and agree with them. Let me throw you an idea, and hope you don't think it is because I am "far-right" because I am not at all: the left are unwilling to be challenged because many of their ideas would not stand scrutiny. This is the reason for the cancel culture that originated on the left. They cannot defend their position with logical arguments, so they simply cancel you. There is no way to have a civil discourse and be challenged on statements like there is no set gender or that more spending can bring down the inflation, to take just a few as examples.
I have observed that, too. I write on Quora, and while there are people on both sides who go straight to ad hominem, that seems to be the default for a lot more people on the Left. If they are asked to explain WHY they think what they do, they either respond with ad hominem attacks or just don't respond at all.
We've seen the ad hominem attacks in the comment section here. Profusely. It emanates from all sides. Everyone at either point of the political spectrum has a sacred cow - and no one wants to see it gored.
I would much rather vote on specific issues. Like crime and the border. I happen to think that permissive attitudes about both have created havoc on our country. Only the Republicans seem to address these issues. So for me its not about HRC or Trump (going back) its about WHO is crafting a plan that I feel will fix these things. Respectfully, I don't feel like the Dems or the MSM want to ADMIT these are serious problems. I don't feel heard or understood by Dem Reps. I feel ignored and vilified for even daring to notice these problems. So that is just me, one person, calmly explaining the "why" of my thoughts and decisions. I would respectfully and eagerly listen if any Dem wanted to explain to me why lax policies on crime and the border are good and should continue because I understand sometimes I can miss something.
This is true that there are people on both sides who resort to personal attacks. I take it as a sign of weakness. This place may be the last haven where most people still show respect towards opposite positions and try to use reasonable arguments. But even here, as we can see, we are too divided and too emotional sometimes to listen to one another.
I think you're right. The reason this comment section seems different to me is that people are comfortable explaining the "why" of what they believe. Like in real life people on the left tend to get defensive. When I politely say to someone I know "here is why I personally believe this. Please share why YOU think what you do" they get agitated and start getting hostile or say they won't be participating. No debate and defense of thought.
The most defensiveness I ever see in this Substack comment section is from right-wingers whenever anything critical is said of their beloved God-Emperor Trump. Holy hell do commenters ever get triggered in a hurry when they see their Orange Messiah criticized.
I believe this is because they have been TOLD and programmed what to think as opposed to having their own well thought out ideas, that have been discussed and mulled over for some time. When you are programmed to think and say things, you can't articulate why you are saying those things, you can only say them. This is what has happened to many people on the left.
I have family members on the LEFT - when you mention Trump they blurt out that "he is an effen piece of shit"....when you ask them why they feel this way, they can't respond with anything of substance, they just repeat, "he's is an effen piece of shit."
More recently the man standing in front of Trump Tower in NYC being asked about the recent raid he said he was glad that Trump was finally being held accountable for all his crimes and then the reporter asked him, what crimes are you referring to and the man, flustered, couldn't answer and then said, he didn't want to talk about it anymore. That man doesn't know the crimes, he just knows that CNN has told him there are crimes and he has heard this since Aug 2015 and when you hear something enough times, it becomes part of your programming.
This is serious what is happening - many (not all) on the LEFT are automatons for the LEFT (we call them NPCs or non-player characters). Zombies if you will.....repeating their programming and not listening to anyone that has an opposing view points. These people are not reachable. They have been used by the MSM apparatus (Trusted News Initiative) as pawns in their WAR on society and are essentially ruined.
You cannot logic with a fanatic, left or right. I find that most of them are intellectual light weights who because of their lack of, for want of a better word, education feel threatened if you challenge their beliefs.
It seems to me they will believe anything that someone on their side of the fence tells them and instead of researching what they were told, they repeat it as if it came from God him/herself.
That's.. not true. I've seen many cogent arguments from thoughtful left leaning commentators (hey! including me lol), excepting some of the ones that come from a (sigh) few individuals who do somewhat embody that stereotype.
I've also seen many ad-hominens and snark attacks from some "thoughtful" right wing commentators rather than engaging in the substance of what was presented. And those comments are highly rated by the readers : /
It goes both ways, but in this substack, the commentariat is overwhelmingly Republican/conservative/pro-Trump in variations. You get a "nice" community when everyone is in agreement, except for the skunks who dare to interrupt the back slapping and high fiving.
Try me though. I'll engage in lengthy debates (to the point you'll wish my laptop died) on "left" (and right) ideas. And.. you might find I also agree, to a degree, on left "woke" critique (after all, that's why I'm here). But I won't engage on "libtard' or other smears that I'm somehow "anti-American" or supportive of pedophilia "grooming" or the rest because I vote Democratic or support some measure of trans civil rights.
I would absolutely love to keep engaging with everyone on CS to discuss ideas without calling each other names and smearing on both side. People who fly off the handle and get infuriated are usually on the fringes IMO. We will not get a crowd with everyone in agreement, not now, and it was probably not realistic ever. It may be hard to even determine if you stand right or left of center or in the middle any more. I am all over the place on many issues. We are complex creatures and don’t want to be painted in one color, red or blue, at least some of us, myself included. I am sure I represent a small group here, but so what? Let’s discuss issues our country and the world face. Do we have to identify ourselves as belonging to a certain party before our thought are evaluated? Like: hi, I am a Democrat (Republican, Independent), this is what I think. Let’s not focus on how we voted in the past, because the parties no longer represent our values, but on where we should head Am I an idealist? You bet.
I would add a thought: having a blog where we can reduce as much as possible the partisan polemics is constructive for the various "sides" to get to know each other, and reduce some of the stereotyping and "villain" attributions to those on "the other side". In my real life, I have conservative family members, friends, and coworkers. And no, I do not believe they are atavistic racists and dummies : ) But online interactions where polemics are slung all around create that perception: conservatives are nasty racists, propaganda dupes and homophobes/transphobes, liberals are nasty snarky elitists who want to "groom" children for pedophiles while decimating everything "conservative" about America from every corner. Yikes in either case! But having a "safe space" (haha to borrow some "wokeism") where folks across the spectrum can meet and discuss civily, and more importantly, maybe about things that are not about politics and/or culture wars, is super important to bridging these divides, taking down stereotypes, etc.
And I have experienced this on this blog, which made me a "stay": initially I had a fairly terse and snarky back and forth with a regular on this blog, but apologized for tone and re-explained my position, and we ended up in a very nice exchange about some politics but other stuff too... and lo and behold, we agreed on some very basic issues to boot and left the exchange warmly. Gave me a warm feeling that "dialog" is possible if we drop the memes, stereotypes and conditioned reactions to each other. Both ways : )
Therefore, I do think it's important for the comments section to "diversify" in some ways, to include more points of view and respectful disagreements and exchange, and that has to start with dropping some of the polemics in either direction. It's a start, anyway.
You're being disingenuous if You think people aren't gonna try to figure out what an author's bias is, in interpreting what they "say."
Everybody does it, and You do it too, I'm sure. Being an idealist has nothing to do with it. *I'm* an idealist, because I think both parties are incompetent and we'll eventually need a new one. May never happen, of course, but that's what *idealism* is.
And give me a break. IIRC (If I Recall Correctly) Your Right. You've painted Yourself in the corner by Your taking personally the suggestion that You might not realize the *fact* that the election wasn't stolen. You can, of course, write anything You want about Yourself, and claim I'm smearing You. If You want me to, I'll go back to Your original two posts, and indicate word by word why I drew that conclusion.
I'll sum it up by an old saw by an old sage. "You doth protest TOO much." Like the above.
So yeah, people just *are* gonna try to identify where on the spectrum You are coming from. You're allowed to hold opinions that go against The Narrative, but almost *nobody does.*
There's The Woke Narrative on the Left. There's The Trump Narrative on the right. That's one reason, among several, why I written lately that there are a lotta similarities between the Woke and the MAGA crowd. Granted, there are few that are 100% Pure MAGA-tites.
If You wanna be someone who sees Trump for what he *is*, I'll be glad to slap You on the back and congratulate You. Buts odds of that aren't likely to be real good. Hardest thing in the world?
Changing Your mind. Changing a habit. That's not just to You, observer. That's everyone.
Mebbe You're just young and naive. People are NEVER gonna agree on where "we" should head when they can't have any realistic conversation on where we've BEEN, right? It'd be a lot worse than herding cats, I assure You. That's not idealism. That's fantasy.
An awful *lotta* this crowd is MAGA people who go ballistic if You say negative things about Trump. Well, You've surely seen that.
Since that's most (not *all*) I got to say about Trump, I've seen it more than most. And the thing that gets me is how sanctimonious a lotta these Trump-voters are. How they hold the right, and always have, and people on the left are despicable. I had this comment, I kid You not. It was the *worst* slur. "You have exposed Yourself as a Democrat." Worse thing You could call someone here. And anybody who says things against Trump are malefactors of the worst sort. Who just don't get it. And some people will say they don't *like* Trump, but will attack You anyway.
And then blame *You* for being condescending and what all.
It's not that I haven't had a large number of very excellent "conversations" here. A *Lotta* them.
But to expect people from the Left to willingly come here and comment and take that kind-a abuse may be too much to ask for. Still, one can hope.
Yes - I've seen some really outrageous comments about Democrats and people on the left in general. Now, to be fair, I can see a lot of polemics aimed at Trump supporters in left leaning blogs as well. But again, this blog advertising itself as a "Common Sense" "moderate middle" place for those on *all sides* it's a bit disconcerting to see such a hard right tilt dominating a lot of the comments, and some serious stereotyping and broad brushed judgements aimed across the hull (and yes, again, that happens in the opposite direction in left leaning blogs too). And I do think that probably turns off some left-moderate "curious readers", and ones who want to even tepidly engage against some of the assertions being made.
This is a typical reply from the right. And if You believe that Trump won the election and it was stolen, then I'm afraid You're from the far-right. I dunno that applies to You tho, so there is that.
I'm not gonna take that and just let it lay, Celia. Let's look at what I actually *wrote,* as compared to what You imputed.
"This is a typical reply from the right."
Is there any question that this describes the FACTS of the matter, Celia?
"And if You believe that Trump won the election and it was stolen, then I'm afraid You're from the far-right. I dunno that applies to You tho, so there is that."
This wasn't even a comment *about* "Just an observer." It was an observation. You even notice that Celia? No, You did NOT. In fact, I stated that it was an observation that may have nothing at all to DO with him/her.
Now, given that s/he took it *personally* I'd say that it probably did apply. I'd say very *high* probability they're far-right. And I think that's why both s/he and YOU were upset by it all, right?
I did not mention Trump in my post. Trump has nothing to do with the subject of our exchange. Let's not get personal here. The main reason I am subscribing is to avoid personal insults common to other social media sites. And I don't believe you are actually responding to what I said in regards to challenges left try to avoid.
I was responding to Your view that quote unquote are not far-right. Do I need to explain further?
And I think You're only partially correct on Your views of the left, at best. I dunno, but I wonder if You talk to people from the left with this view in mind. Or much at all.
You're right about the time. Only reason I have the time is I'm retired. And only reason I dare is because I can't be canceled. But as far as typing? I usually type so fast it *always* includes typos. Plus, I rarely read what I typed. "My bad." ;-)
Not a bad idea at *all,* M. Wildstar. Sounds like it could even be a *plan.* TYTY for Your reply.
But me? Long day done. Been reading for I-don't-know-how-many hours. Read I-don't-know-how-many chapters in M. Sowell's Basic Economics. Ten pages left, but I'm played.
Would recommend the book very *highly* to anybody who wants to see how things actually *work.* In the *real* world, as opposed to the world of the *politicians.*
I think you're right about the left leaning essays. They are written for a choir that does not tolerate dissent. So there is no need to try and convince anyone of the author's point of view, because you either agree with him/her, or you are labeled as a hate filled, anti (latest Trend/fad), racist, a phobic of some type, right winger.
Celia, I have posted on this topic before. I do it because I think it is important to point out censorship.
Censorship is censorship regardless of where it comes from. The Woke and PC morons are being challenged by the morons on the right and just because they are idiots doesn't mean they are not dangerous. I have asked this before. "What next? Book burning."
I believe that conservatives tend to be more educated to the positions of the left and appreciate that there are different viewpoints. The left (at least the sub 40 YO constituents, which controls social media) do not employ nuance, and are ignorant to the position of the conservatives. Their level of intolerance is, imho, what spawned cancel culture, Micro aggressions, dog whistles, and all the rest of garbage used to shut down those on the right.
I don't agree with Glenn, Matt and Bari on many fundamental political issues, but am united with them in their work to regain our Freedom of Speech, and the dangers of the Left/Media/Permanent US Govt alliance.
Substack, RCP and some podcasters (Rogan, Saagar/Krystal) are where I go for news, and with the exception of RCP, they're all quite liberal, unlike me,
The ignorance is the thing that gets me. As a moderate, I am well aware of the positions of people on both sides. And there are positions on both sides that I do not agree with. But for every person on the Right who mischaracterizes people on the Left, I see ten people on the Left mischaracterizing people on the Right. I know an insane number of Leftists who GENUINELY BELIEVE that a large number of people on the Right would love to live in a dystopia like Handmaid's Tale. I know NO ONE on the Right who would tolerate a society like that.
I know what you are saying Celia. I can only speak for myself and my close friends but we treat it like a work collaboration on a project. Or even a home remodel. A couple of people on the project look at the issue, compare knowledge of past solutions, consider current economic costs and availability and brainstorm solutions. Someone you might not want to spend dinner with comes up with an idea that is more reasonable than everyone else so even though you don't necessarily like them that much you defer to their idea because they explained it. Someone that is opposite you in political beliefs points out an external force you hadn't considered on one of YOUR ideas. You have to shift because they are right. The common theme here is EXPLAINING "why" you think something. Again speaking for myself but it seems like progressives only want to insult me for wondering and being curious instead of laying out WHY. For example I want to know why schools don't double down on math and reading and leave race completely out of things. But it seems the side that wants it will only deny its happening or call me names. When I heard the other day that Kathy Hochul was rejoicing over changing laws to have gender neutral verbiage I wanted to say "Ummmmm shouldn't that be number 762 on the list of your pressing problems?" But if I mention that calmly it would be met with calling me a violent terrorist transphobe. Really? Why can't we back and forth this? Why straight to extreme insults? If you have a great idea why not bring me around by laying it out?
I have changed my mind about a number of things due to gaining information I didn't previous know. I'm now against the death penalty, in practice (although I still favor it in theory), because of the number of people on Death Row who have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
My views on abortion have changed because I had to think through how my libertarian views actually applied in that circumstance. And I am also pragmatic enough to recognize that compromise is essential on tough issues.
People who just attack others personally because they hold the "wrong" views are not helping anyone.
OK truth: I'm a left leaner who has wavered on this Substack, but came home because the content is too good - and many commentors are awesome, even when we disagree. It took a bit to get there, but still. I think this could truly be a place of "real discussion" absent choir think and moderation for "right thoughts".
However, I do have some suggestions for attracting a larger left leaning audience in another post, because frankly, those are the readers that need to hear this content to truly reform the left. Which does involve perhaps a bit more balanced and even handed view of the excesses of the Right and the Left, and their relative threats. I have for sure witnessed the pushback against any gentle suggestion in supposed "left leaning" contributor essays that there's issues on the Right, as well as on the Left. I think if we're going to pose as "moderates" we need to accept criticism on both sides. I've swallowed and accepted it from the Left, and largely agree. But I see few right leaning commentators willing to do the same (kudos to those who do!) - and hence the blog's direction in tilt of the narrative to meet the subscriber base. I do think this has a "depressing" effect on getting more "moderate" left/left-center even progressives to engage and subscribe. Just IMO.
See, I think that's where there's always a difficulty, M. Smarticat. Because I would-a thought Your comment reflected facts, more than opinion. That's just me.
"I wonder if the fact that many of the commenters here are on the Right suggests something about the willingness (or lack thereof) of people on the Left to be challenged."
I would ask You to take note, Celia, how You and the Right like to be challenged. You don't like it any more than anybody else does.
When leftists manage to craft an argument that is not an ad hominem insult (orange man is a traitor, you're all Bible-thumping racist conspiracy nuts hugging your guns), it involves "compassion" towards the "vulnerable" and "making the wealthy pay their fair share". The vulnerable can be people (low income, addicts, gender-confused, non-white and non-Asian) or the planet (climate change, which is often confused with pollution).
The problem with the compassion argument is that compassion is either prohibitively expensive, as Canadians are learning with the "no private health care" and "no resource development" dogmas, or it ends up hurting the people it aims to help - addicts continue to be enabled to use drugs, gender-confused people, especially children, are mutilated, and "racialized" (ugh) people are told that they are forever victims, and they come to believe it. Meanwhile, racism is increasing.
I have never been able to carry on an argument with a leftist - they end up saying "well, you're just wrong", if they manage to remain polite. Usually it's worse. It's very difficult to break through years of indoctrination, especially when it's all around them, and those who think differently are demonised.
The "make the rich pay" argument is easier - most people realize that punitive taxes just drive money out of the country. But it continues to be made by populist leftist politicians.
I would ask people of the Right to turn their gaze inward. Like You "say:"
"It's very difficult to break through years of indoctrination, especially when it's all around them, and those who think differently are demonised."
You just demonized the Leftists, right?
Do I argue a whole *lot* against what You say? No, not a whole lot. As far as the wealthy paying their fair share, I think no right-thinking individual would complain. Warren Buffet himself agrees that he doesn't pay much in taxes. How can that be, in a country as wealthy as we are?
The problem, as I see it, is there are deductions for just about everything. Pols get paid (in campaign donations) for putting through those kinds-a things, right? To me anyway, just about *all* that should be done away with. A tax form about one page long for everybody. Very few deductions allowed. Home. Medical expenses *mebbe.* Details.
But, yeah, I agree with a graduated tax. Zero for most people, which is how much a large *number,* if not most, people pay right now, right? Just make those that pay zero be in the lower economic ranges, rather than anybody in the higher. Could probably *lower* the tax rates, if this was done and there wasn't as much cheating as goes on now.
IOW, I agree about punative taxes. I thought that was the answer at one time. And I'm not at all sure there shouldn't be *some* kind-a wealth tax, at *some* point in time, on *some* entities. I was just thinking past few days that mebbe individuals should be exempted. But corporations and Harvard and all those kinds-a institutions should mebbe be included in a wealth tax. IMO.
One thing would raise the roof, but has some, if not a lotta, merit to it, is to do away with tax-exempt organizations. For a number of reasons. Mebbe tax their wealth. That would necessarily do away with tax-exempt donations, so there's a downside. Dunno. IMO.
I don't think I demonised the leftists - I don't blame them for their own indoctrination. Certainly, there are influential people making policy that leads to the indoctrination of the masses, but I'm not talking about arguing with them.
As for taxes, I think that churches and other religious institutions should lose their tax-free status. As for a wealth tax, it is fraught. If it's implemented, Bitcoin will explode again. It's like squeezing a balloon - the air will just come out somewhere else. Taxes, I'm afraid, are for the little people who can't afford really good accountants and Caribbean tax shelters.
And yet moderates and many on the Right are able to craft responses to being challenged that don't involve going straight to ad hominems.
My original point is that moderates and people on the Right stick around on Common Sense, even when Bari has writers who challenge us, but as you yourself observed, there aren't many people on the Left here.
Yeah. And my point is the reason the Left aren't here, in the comments, is because of You on the Right are like a shark looking for blood. A lot (not all) the comments here are a great illustration of what I'm "talking" about.
You wanna talk about willful ignorance? Hundreds of examples of people praising Trump, right? Yet You so confident about how stupid the Left is. Me? I'm Centrist.
BTW, I suspect that the number of the 200K readers that are Left is a lot more than show up in the comments, right?
I think it's not so much about the unwillingness of the Left to be challenged. I think it may have more to do with whether someone likes to enter a tank with a shark in it.
I'm sorry, but these comments have always been from the right. And the two Leftist trolls don't signify. Most people that know about them just ignore them, right?
Agree. I have mentioned here before I welcome the other side's views. But ask that it stay calm and polite. Also articulate WHY you think something. If you think I am incorrect in my views about the 2 million people that have entered the country from all over the globe please share why YOU feel it is a positive development. Please by all means convince me how this benefits US citizens. Maybe you could change my mind if you actually put in a tiny effort but that's not what happens. Just insults. No one ever DEFENDS that position they just call me names for thinking it is a negative view. It often makes me wonder how many progressives are parents. I never believed in preaching to my children. I told them why I believed something and invited them to come to their own conclusions. What is wrong with that approach?
But you're right--it almost never happens that people on the Left explain *why* they think what they do. They just take their positions as an article of faith. And woe betide anyone who questions their faith!
Which is how I know that Woke-ism is a religion, because that's a normal (though not universal) reaction of the faithful (of any religion) to those who challenge their beliefs.
Echoes of John McWhorter's illuminating tome "Woke Racism." The sanctimony of Far Left and Critical Race Theory pundits he describes as a religion - far more harmful than helpful. Unassailable and beyond reproach. As in blind faith.
Why do I have a hunch you might already have read it..
One thing I have been struck with reading the Common Sense comments is how many people describe themselves as life-long Democrats who can no longer tolerate the extremism of their party. Many of the "far right" comments seem to come from people who consider themselves left of center, but the center has moved.
I have been an Independent, a Democrat, and a Republican. It's all a sh*t-show masquerading as choice. These labels don't mean what they used to because society has become so absurd. These labels are used to keep society at odds and a society at odds is too busy fighting amongst itself to realize they are being enslaved and ruled over.
I see these labels and their current definitions as a gigantic obstacle that as a society we need to rid ourselves. It's not RED vs BLUE - that is so lame and silly.
They are using these and other WORDS against us. Changing the definitions of things to suit their needs and telling us we are crazy.
Very few take on the battle against the ego. IMO, You hafta meditate or pray in a meditative fashion to see the scope of the problem. Me? I'm lousy at that stuff, for the most part.
I don't think anyone knows where the "center" is right now. I suspect it's now a much larger group of people who don't like the extremes of either party and don't consider themselves in the center, yet that is where they are. Might be half the country at this point.
You are right, the center has moved - in such a way it seems, that the fringes of each party appear even further away from whatever constitutes the center.
Perhaps some of us here are trying to reclaim the middle, find some areas we can agree on - and build on that.
A vote for transcripts from me as well. If I listen to a podcast while I work or drive, I either tune out of the podcast, or I make mistakes. Or both during the same podcast. Listening doesn't save me any time over reading.
FWIW, I posted a comment in one of her podcasts requesting transcription. Lo and behold, her latest Larry Summers Honestly podcast had transcription : D Did I cause that? Yah, I'll take credit ; P
Hope that's a forward moving trend for more of the Honestly podcasts. I tend to consume these things as "multi-tasking" efforts to read at my leisure rather than having to (gasp! lol) pay attention for an entire podcast ;P
I frequently post that same sentiment. I come here for the comments, and the articles are icing on the cake. I also appreciate the articles written by people that cause many subscribers to cancel their subscriptions as they often have some of the best comments.
Thank you, Bari and team. I am a paid subscriber and this newsletter is worth every penny and more. When I feel the world has gone haywire, I know there will always be sane voices here. Congratulations on your success!
Amen and Go Bari !! As a former (15-year) newsman, back in the pre-internet days when grizzled editors (remember editors?) required news reporters check our political opinions at the door, I find Bari's reporting invaluable.
I'm pretty much at the point where I rarely finalize an opinion on new developments without first checking what Bari (and Taibbi) have to say. That Bari published a straight-up interview with Tim Scott the same week the NYT chose to vet Scott's op-ed with a sitting government official? This should be all anyone needs to hear to know who's objective and who has chosen instead to function as an arm of a political party.
Sometimes, like others, I wonder about a future in which the Bari's and Matt's and Glenn's join forces to produce a more comprehensive independent news product. Maybe that will happen in the future, but for the time being, I don't think she should change a thing. At some point it will be fair to fence off more content for paying subscribers, but this thing is still very new, and the 220k readership figure speaks for itself.
I find myself repeating it several times a week, including above, but keep it up and GO BARI !
Common Sense is the glimmer of hope I need when the rest of the journalistic world seems to have packed their bags and gone on an LSD trip.
Thank you, thank you Bari Weiss and all the staff for illumination, rational inquiry and fearless journalism. I would give up coffee before I give up my subscription.
Substack, and writers like you, Glenn and Matt are the only hope I have for a 'Free Press' returning. I believe it is historically important.
For any of you who didn't hear it, Chris Best, co-founder and CEO of Substack, was recently interviewed by Joe Rogan on his podcast. It was a five star podcast.
You guys are great and I admire what you do. I do think you have a major blind spot where Trump supporters are concerned. Very few journalists are able to cross that line but some have managed it, like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald. For me it is a litmus test to see whether a writer is truly able to assess this moment, or whether they are still a part of the mass panic that has gripped our country. Why not find a writer to rep that world just a little bit and cover things like the 2020 election, not from the POV of "widespread fraud" but how the media and big money (one billion) tilted an elected in the favor of the democrats and why that is a genuine threat to Democracy Itself.
I would suggest David Mamet or Ben Shapiro for a reasonable take on Trump, etc.
You’ve got to be ready for a barrage of words when listening to Ben. That’s for sure!
I could see Ben and Bari getting along really well. He’s a very sincere serious person with an extraordinary intellect. He’d be a great mentor for her access to the conservative world. He could also help her with Trump. I think Ben does a good job looking at Trump objectively. He praises the good and criticizes the bad. Bari needs that balance.
If only we could figure out how to do this at the local level. Cities and counties would really benefit from deep digging into local policy stories (especially fiscal) that young reporters just don't have the experience or wisdom to understand. Our Sacramento Bee is a skeleton of itself. It reprints the talking points from the City Council, Mayor and Governor's office. Very little in-depth or pushback on the "official" report. Kudos to you Bari for showing so many independent thinkers and writers the way and giving hope to those of us still seeking truth (wherever that may lead).
Common Sense publishes opinions that I heartily agree with and opinions that I vehemently disagree with - is that not the essence of freedom of speech? Kudos for doing that, you might stand alone in that regard - and further kudos for paying extra attention to voices crying in the wilderness, as uncomfortable truths are often hidden there.
That said, the question remains as to "what's next". How to organically grow a better alternative to legacy media - well, I'm at a loss as to how to do so. As is Common Sense, apparently... thanks for past efforts, and thanks for asking the question.
I look forward to Common Sense in my inbox. After reading just one piece last year, I knew this was something I needed to see regularly, and more importantly, something I need to support.
Yes…sometimes I disagree with a piece (rare), or find it wanting (the Kansas abortion story the other week was short on some essential information, like, ‘what did the law actually say?’), but I think (as opposed to ‘feel’…start thinking about how you use those words) I found a home here.
I don’t quite share the enthusiasm of the rest of the commenters. I’d give a mixed review:
- excellent coverage of the woke malaise that has infected our country
- excellent coverage of the over the top GLBTQIA+ and Anti-Racist excesses
- good coverage of leftist excesses where they intersect the above
- some coverage of the danger our federal and some state bureaucracies are posing. More coverage here would be helpful
- definite anti-Trump bias. Not that I think there should be overly positive coverage, just neutral. This seems to be a blind spot for Bari
- too many writers who paint conservatives with a very broad negative brush. I don’t see much of this negative assumption against liberals outside of the hot button issues mentioned above. Needs more balance.
It’s fair to say that I don’t see anything out there that’s been able to truly break out of the broken journalistic hegemony today, but this one comes close.
Keep up the great work, but constantly evaluate your blind spots. It’s the only way you’ll remain unique. New competitors will emerge when they see your success. The only way you’ll stay ahead of them is by being better. And by better I mean fanatically better.
If I didn’t care about the success of this publication I wouldn’t have taken the time to write this!
Thanks, Bari. Enjoy your work and congratulations for having the courage to turn your back on the establishment media and beat them at their game.
If this humble subscriber could offer a suggestion for a topic—China.
China has numerous challanges facing it future—-population decline, an exploded real estate situation worse than 2008, ghost cities, runs on banks, drought, trillions in debt… yet all we hear is Xi is the next Mao and China is going to take over the world. Can both be true?
Your concern about China is valid. I'm reluctantly going to use a Biblical term. China along with other dictatorships in this world is evil. I have said this quote before, "In order for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." That quote was valid when nobody except Churchill stood up against Hitler and it is valid now.
Where is the outrage from the woke, PC morons when it comes to China? They should be boiling into the streets demanding we stop trading with them. But they won't because they will only attack the US as an evil police state and never criticize China. Remember when people called Covid the Wuhan virus? The PC and woke idiots said that was racist.
The left never praises the US for being a bastion of liberty and they will never condemn the evil other nations do.
The Left never seems willing to react to China's "sins" they way they do when any Western country (particularly the U.S.) does things that are mild in comparison.
Our minimum wage--says the Left--is not a "living wage," but crickets on slave wages in horrifying conditions in China. We should buy Nike shoes and Apple phones because those companies support Woke issues--says the Left--even though they are among the worst offenders.
Islamophobia--says the Left--is evil, but crickets on Uighurs in prison camps. When four Muslim men in Albuquerque are murdered, the killer--says the Left--MUST be a White Supremacist, but crickets when it turns out that the murderer is a Muslim carrying out the same violence between different sects of Islam that has been going on for the last 1400 years.
Asians are white adjacent--says the Left--so we need to punish their excellence by making it harder for them to get into college, but when Asians are the victims of hate crimes, that's clearly due to White Supremacists, but crickets when it turns that most attacks on Asians are committed by blacks.
Comparing anything to the Holocaust--says the Left--is evil, but loud cheers when fellow Leftists call Trump (and now DeSantis) "literally Hitler." Saying bad things about Soros--says the Left--is antisemitic, but crickets when Democratic members of Congress say ACTUAL antisemitic things, and loud cheers when someone says bad things about Israel.
I have said this before. The left says the US is a police state shit hole and then the left riots and burns cities. If it is such a totalitarian quagmire, why do thousands of people risk their lives to enter illegally? The left called Tea Party members NAZIs but the Tea Party people never turned over cars and burnt down anything. Yet the left never said a word about BLM and ANTIA burning down our cities. A NY Democrat congressman denied it was happening.
What happened on Jan. 6 was wrong but it didn't hold a candle to what the left wing rioters did to the cities run by Democrats.
The obsequious swine in the press never once asked any Democrat why they never once spoke out against these riots but cried to the high heavens about Jan. 6. To say the behavior by the Democrats wailing about Jan. 6 and silent about the riots disgusts me is an understatement.
Lonesome and Celia - I copied this thread into a worksheet. This list of contrasting, contradicting positions if expanded upon would make a great essay - would it not?
Well, in the 24 hour news cycle, because people are addicted to social media, the time for that seems to be long past, right?
Mebbe if the Rs gain control, which no longer seems a sure thing, they could investigate why governments, in certain areas, *chose* not to enforce the law, and what the consequences of that have been. Mebbe going as far back as Ferguson, IMO.
It is our main adversary but remains opaque to most Americans. It’s closed society will make it a challenge to get real reporting but it needs to be done.
I am also very interested in all of these topics. My brother and I are always digging around everywhere for the real story about what is really going on in the lives of regular Chinese citizens amidst the serious demographic and economic challenges. I have come to believe that things are falling apart inside China far more than mainstream media reports. Check out the YouTube channel called “ADV China”. Very interesting videos produced by two men who lived in China for about 15 years and both married Chinese women while living there. One of them is American, the other is South African. From what they have seen and experienced they sure don’t believe China is “taking over the world “. The types dis function they report on is so alarming . To my understanding both men, including their wives and children, had to leave China because they were being threatened by the CCP.
Gotta wonder about a new model for these substacks.
I read Common Sense, Matt Taibbi, and Glen Greenwald.
Although I would not necessarily suggest that you form a single "magazine" type thing with them, I would like to suggest that some version of a bundle be available from substack, perhaps with shared revenue.
So for example, I could purchase a bundle of 4 or 5 substacks under one heading at a discount and then each additional one might be some minimal cost.
I might also suggest that the University of Austin produce a substack that could be associated to some set of other substacks. The authors could be the various professors and perhaps students. The profits could be used to support the school.
BTW.....The University of Austin still needs swag to sell. Just my opinion.
Agreed, $400+ in Substacks isn’t sustainable for most people long-term. CS is a non-negotiable for me, but I’ve found myself considering purging some of the smaller guys who don’t post a ton because of the overall investment.
I know this is a new business model and I’m here for a while. Just thinking thoughts.
I agree. I cut a few sub stacks for that reason. However I love the model so I am sure I will add a few back.
Yep. We need a bundled subscription option.
Dear Wrung Out Lemon,
Thank You and Jen. Both of You have some great ideas. I don't wanna throw a damper on them. But I've given this subject some thought.
What You both are asking for is for *Substack* to take less money for what they do, because they get paid a percentage of what the Authors make. The discount would, obviously, be *great* for the Authors and Subscribers, but for Substack? (They make nothing on (what I guess is) the majority of Substacks that are free.)
Plus, You're asking for a major change in the *programming* code that forms the Substack platform. And if this site is like most-a them, the code they're working with is A Big Ball of Mud. IOW, not so easy to change as One would like. "One" being the Authors and the Subscribers.
Plus, it would require an act of faith on the part of the Authors. A number of them would hafta decide on what percentage of the revenues would be allocated per word, and what percentage would be allocated based on the strength of the Author's following.
Agreement when it comes to money, practically speaking, being easier said than done. *This* would be the biggest hurdle, actually.
And then, if the Authors had any conscience, and a sense that they were in large part "lucky" to be in the place they've arrived at, they would *give away* a percentage of their revenues to sponser up-and-coming Authors, right? Mebbe *not* right, because that's just me.
TYTY again, both-a Youse.
eh, JT, I think Substack could profitably offer a "bundled" model as well as support its authors. The "per stack" subscription model is limiting. Lots of great voices to hear, but yo, there's a limit to where I have well exceeded a monthly WaPo or NYTimes subscription (that also features "voices") to read maybe one or two "interesting" articles across.
You could be right. And mebbe the Authors would go along with taking less of a cut. Say.. If there was a buy four get one free offer or something. Mebbe.
Right, but in exchange for that lesser cut they may gain more subscribers and come out better..
Yeah, that's always the gamble in biz. They *may* gain more subscribers. Or they may drum up business for other Substacks while not gaining much at all for themselves, other than less money per subscriber.
Who knows? The Author, to best of their ability. (And Substack of course, who is the big loser.)
Always mistakes. I forgot to mention another Way percentages of revenues might wanna be distributed. Got this from time I posted on medium.com. Authors may agree that the *time spent* by a subscriber could determine how much an article was worth. That way people who were more engaged would pay more. Unfortunately for some, people engaged in commenting would pay more. Seems fair to me, and probably to the Authors as well. BUt that's just me.
I appreciate the logic of your comment "Wrung Out Lemon," but as a long ago newspaper reporter and editor, I also understand that certain issues require a huge amount of research and shoe leather.
During my 15 year stint as a newspaper reporter I was blessed to have worked under one of America's outstanding managing editors.
Malcolm Stone was a refugee from the Philadelphia Inquirer, where his job as managing editor had became too high a burden for him and his family.
When he accepted the managing editor's job at the Bangor (Maine) Daily News in 1970, I was about a third of the way into my 15 years of working at the Daily News.
Shortly after Mal took over the editorial reins, he called me and several other reporters into his office for a come to Jesus talk. He asked for a show of hands by those of us willing to spend weeks or even months working on a single story. Yes, I was the only one ignorant enough to accept the challenge.
During my remaining time as a news reporter, Stone assigned me to several long term projects, the most memorable being a series of 25 stories dealing with the energy "crisis" of the mid 70s.
That project resulted in our small town newspaper receiving a second place award for national science and technology reporting.
The entire point of my comment is to explain how some issues are too complex for day to day, or even week to week reporting.
I had a team of talented editors and subject experts behind my work, and thus I understand how difficult it must be for a single reporter to accurately deal with complex issues.
Now long into my retirement years, I like the bundle concept as a way to reduce the cost of supporting the people who provide such good content for us on Substack.com
Thank you "Wrung Out" for the suggestions in your comment.
Totally agree. Like streaming services it's getting a little out of hand. Being able to get a "bundle" for a reasonable monthly price would be good (but that's Substack's issue of course).
No way bundle payments to Bari with anti American, supporter of Putin, Maduro, Fidel Castro, Boonie Sandas, Chicomm apologist until yesterday, Gays for Palestine, post Jewish Leftist, the Intercept wasnt radical chic enough so i left... Glenn Greenwald? They have zero in common except they are both anti woke.
You miss the point entirely. The point is that it would be nice to be able to purchase either ala carte selected bundles OR prepackaged bundles.
In essence, Bari could work with those she respects to create a prepackaged bundle OR I could create one from the various substacks I like.
What you're talking about is something like a basic cable fee. But I think that some of the Substack writers have more expenses than others, write more than others,
Podcasts and the like. It would have to be pro-rated. Bari for example is doing other things, traveling for interviews, editing, and I think the page is more news oriented then some others, so I don't know how that would work out.
Cable TV is pro-rated. HBO costs more than any other channel because it is more popular. So, the analogy with the cable TV s valid. When years ago I subscribed to the NYT, I was able to read Glenn Greenwald, Alex Berenson and hundreds of others for one price. Now I have to pay for each substack separately. BW is wonderful by inviting interesting prominent guest writers. Others mostly just write themselves, so the price, obviously, has to be in proportion to their expenses. I agree with others that subscribing to many individual substacks is becoming burdensome and unsustainable. I hope an idea of updating the subscription and payment structure has already been considered by Bari and the rest of substackers. With that being said, we are very grateful that CS came into existence. It gave our lives a ray of hope.
I do not disagree, that is why I would suggest that a lot of thought would need to go into the how of it.
Obviously not all writers are of equal worth either in terms of reading or to a business. Not all writers can or want to produce the same amount of material as others. Thats fine, there are a lot of businesses that work that way. Any NFL team has 80 different salaries and different salaries for the same position. Its not impossible to figure out.
But there is an argument to be made for either pre-selected bundles negotiated between the producers and for ala carte bundles negotiated between producers and substack.
How nice would it be to be able to just pick a Bari approved bundle of 3 substacks?
OR
To be able to select say...5, out of a list of say 30 substacks, to create a custom bundle. You can pay the ala carte price per or you get say, 15% off if you purchase all 5 and 20% off the next one. I mean the math has to be done, the analysis has to be done, deals negotiated, but the theory of it is right I think. If Substacking is gonna be the replacement for MSM then it needs to be affordable for people to assemble a collection of substacks that cover the breadth of news and opinion that one would normally expect from a MSM newspaper or news magazine such as what Newsweek and Time used to be. The difference is that in the model I propose, you would select the authors and pay accordingly, not have them all pre-selected for you by a publisher.
Maybe I want Common Sense & Matt Taibbi, then maybe I want a finance substack and sports substack and then I want one that is dedicated to my region.
A bundle I can see. I would spring for a Bari/Matt Taibbi/Andrew Sullivan package.
"How nice would it be to be able to just pick a Bari approved bundle of 3 substacks?"
I don't need Bari to approve what substacks I want to support.
Daniel, it's simply an option for readers to group together substacks they do want at a discount. An option..nothing more.
I'd weight "both are non MSM journalists" pretty heavily. Do you only want to listen to people you agree with? I'd venture that is what Bari is working so hard to combat.
goodnesss.. the horror.. you might have to read and support opposing voices? lol
This was literally the model of the community and national newspapers. You get some op-ed you agree with, some you don't. It's healthy. Reading in a bubble of only sources you agree with a-priori is not.
Yes, the more viewpoints the merrier. As long as the point is argued logically and without insults, I'll read most anything that comes long. Doesn't matter if I agree; the view is what's important.
100
You would pick and choose which providers would be in your bundle. If you don't want to read about "Boonie Sandas," you wouldn't have to. You'd pay X dollars for a bundle and pick the ones you want.
Agree. CS is the only subscription I pay for. If i could buy a bundle, there would be several more.
Like the bundling idea for sure
I read the same three substackers. I might end my subscription for Taibbi and Greenwald because they are not publishing material on a regular basis. There have been a couple of 3 week periods where Greenwald has not published anything at all.
His husband is really sick and hospitalized. He sent an explanation and will be extending subscriptions because of it.
I know. I read it. I sympathize.
Do not disagree. BW is smart, she aggregates interesting writers under her substack and produces regular essays.
Problem that Greenwald and Taibbi have is that they are the sole producers of content. Anything happens to them or in their lives, such as with Greenwald, they are hosed.
Now, if Taibbi and Greenwald were to join forces or to publish under a bundle package with one or two or even 3 others, you limit the risk.
I think there is a place for something like a digital newspaper, essay magazine, where the consumer can select the contributing authors.
How that would be structured organizationally and financially is the trick. But is would distribute risk, albeit at the cost of distributing income.
Matt has regular contributors, a staff, and other writers. I don't know about GG.
Excuse Glennie and his husband who have been real busy on the Lula communist party reelection campaign in Brazil, and posting pro Russian, anti anti -Putin zingers on twitter. Bari respects her paid subscibers, that's why she posts at least 2-3 x a week.
Then you do you and don’t pay. Easy solutions mean no problems.
I think his husband is very ill at the moment.
AGREE. The "per substack" subscription model is bleeding me dry. It's like the "i cancelled cable TV to save money" yet now I'm somehow spending more money on each and every niche subscription as a result (Netflix, Hulu+/Disney+, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, etc).
It's almost like we need a "single subscription provider" (haha, like CABLE TV) and for news/opinion, a combined Substack subscription that gives at least tiered access to various blogs within.
I have thought that a lot.. “Is there one place I could get all my shows…” oh yeah. CABLE. We jumped ship back when streaming services were new, and it was actually saving us money. Now, we are all paying more than we began with. 😳
"funny" how that worked out ;P
I also subscribe to Taibbi and Greenwald, would love to see anything that produces collaboration with these two and UATX.
Thanks and keep up the great work, it is so important.
Why would a successful substack want to bundle with unsuccessful substacks?? This is a microcosm of the housing crisis in 2006 and derivatives that were used to support bad loans. It collapsed all housing finances.
I applaud the thought. But it is a rehash of a very non-competitive no-freedom model. I hope you see what I am saying.......
Been thinking of a bundle, myself, lad. Good show.!
Bundling is such a great idea!!!
Also, I like how Medium allows you to “tip” a writer for a story or pub. That often gets a response from me when a particular entry has moved me or been insightful.
Love this idea!
Good idea! There are a lot of people I'd like to subscribe to, but it does add up...
I would say let them compete in a friendly way. This will drive better innovation in their collective fight against the MSM. I would propose that there are joint efforts these new outlets can attempt where they team up for a portions of their content. But from my perspective, if they team up this early, they could be an easier target for MSM.
Only in the minds of extremists.
I look forward to this blog every day. Days when it doesn't update are a little sadder for me. But I must say that many of us would like to hear more from YOU, Bari. Not all of us are podcast listeners. Can we get more essays from you, or at least transcripts from Honestly?
Transcripts would be very helpful. It takes much less time to read than to listen, much as I enjoy listening.
Agree. I never listen to podcasts. I like to read.
Ditto.
Ditto twice.
I do both. I read some articles and others I take with me on my walks. It's nice to have the option. I wish all the articles were audio as well. I spend to much time sitting.
Exactly. My phone is used mainly as a phone, not for computing tasks, so when I listen to a podcast I feel trapped at my computer with nothing else to do.
One solution is to use a blue tooth device like wireless ear buds or wireless earphones. Perfect to let you go about your business within the limits of your home WiFi. That’s what I do. I love to read also, because I copy and paste or share points of interest, or save segments to my digital notes.
Ditto. And TYTY, M. Weiss (and et al ;-).
I am like you Celia. I look forward to this newsletter every day. I agree with most of the newsletter's post and look forward to those I don't agree with. I like the exchange of ideas and wish there were more leftists posting here but I think you don't see many leftists here because hard core ideologues don't like their ideologies challenged. That goes for both right and left ideologues.
I wonder if the fact that many of the commenters here are on the Right suggests something about the willingness (or lack thereof) of people on the Left to be challenged. Admittedly, the more Right-wing among us tend to bitch a lot about the more Left-leaning articles, but most of them still show up week after week.
As a moderate, it frustrates me to see too few actually *moderate* essays. And as a English M.A., it frustrates me to see how many of the Left-leaning articles (at least half of them, if not more) are poorly written, often without any display of rhetorical skills, and especially lacking in consideration of audience. Too often, I suspect, such essays are intended for "the choir," rather than with any expectation of having to convince anyone. Maybe they were written for other publications but not accepted, or maybe they are rough drafts intended for eventual submission elsewhere.
I really hope Bari can develop a slate of sufficiently good contributors that she won't have to foist bad writers on us.
Lefties don't need to go to Substack to get articles from their point of view - there's Politico, Vox, Daily Beast, the Atlantic, and pretty much every major newspaper.
We're here because the mainstream has failed us - and I, for one, am glad that it did, and so I had to go searching for writing that I could appreciate. I learned about Bari from Bill Maher's show, and even though I disagree with a lot of what he says, at least he is willing to listen to the "other side".
Substack will cause either a full revamp of mainstream media, or it will kill off most of it. CNN is just the beginning.
agree - it is why I stand by Common Sense and would prefer it to remain a stand-alone substack.
Celia, I always like your posts and agree with them. Let me throw you an idea, and hope you don't think it is because I am "far-right" because I am not at all: the left are unwilling to be challenged because many of their ideas would not stand scrutiny. This is the reason for the cancel culture that originated on the left. They cannot defend their position with logical arguments, so they simply cancel you. There is no way to have a civil discourse and be challenged on statements like there is no set gender or that more spending can bring down the inflation, to take just a few as examples.
I have observed that, too. I write on Quora, and while there are people on both sides who go straight to ad hominem, that seems to be the default for a lot more people on the Left. If they are asked to explain WHY they think what they do, they either respond with ad hominem attacks or just don't respond at all.
We've seen the ad hominem attacks in the comment section here. Profusely. It emanates from all sides. Everyone at either point of the political spectrum has a sacred cow - and no one wants to see it gored.
I would much rather vote on specific issues. Like crime and the border. I happen to think that permissive attitudes about both have created havoc on our country. Only the Republicans seem to address these issues. So for me its not about HRC or Trump (going back) its about WHO is crafting a plan that I feel will fix these things. Respectfully, I don't feel like the Dems or the MSM want to ADMIT these are serious problems. I don't feel heard or understood by Dem Reps. I feel ignored and vilified for even daring to notice these problems. So that is just me, one person, calmly explaining the "why" of my thoughts and decisions. I would respectfully and eagerly listen if any Dem wanted to explain to me why lax policies on crime and the border are good and should continue because I understand sometimes I can miss something.
This is true that there are people on both sides who resort to personal attacks. I take it as a sign of weakness. This place may be the last haven where most people still show respect towards opposite positions and try to use reasonable arguments. But even here, as we can see, we are too divided and too emotional sometimes to listen to one another.
I think you're right. The reason this comment section seems different to me is that people are comfortable explaining the "why" of what they believe. Like in real life people on the left tend to get defensive. When I politely say to someone I know "here is why I personally believe this. Please share why YOU think what you do" they get agitated and start getting hostile or say they won't be participating. No debate and defense of thought.
The most defensiveness I ever see in this Substack comment section is from right-wingers whenever anything critical is said of their beloved God-Emperor Trump. Holy hell do commenters ever get triggered in a hurry when they see their Orange Messiah criticized.
I believe this is because they have been TOLD and programmed what to think as opposed to having their own well thought out ideas, that have been discussed and mulled over for some time. When you are programmed to think and say things, you can't articulate why you are saying those things, you can only say them. This is what has happened to many people on the left.
I have family members on the LEFT - when you mention Trump they blurt out that "he is an effen piece of shit"....when you ask them why they feel this way, they can't respond with anything of substance, they just repeat, "he's is an effen piece of shit."
More recently the man standing in front of Trump Tower in NYC being asked about the recent raid he said he was glad that Trump was finally being held accountable for all his crimes and then the reporter asked him, what crimes are you referring to and the man, flustered, couldn't answer and then said, he didn't want to talk about it anymore. That man doesn't know the crimes, he just knows that CNN has told him there are crimes and he has heard this since Aug 2015 and when you hear something enough times, it becomes part of your programming.
This is serious what is happening - many (not all) on the LEFT are automatons for the LEFT (we call them NPCs or non-player characters). Zombies if you will.....repeating their programming and not listening to anyone that has an opposing view points. These people are not reachable. They have been used by the MSM apparatus (Trusted News Initiative) as pawns in their WAR on society and are essentially ruined.
You cannot logic with a fanatic, left or right. I find that most of them are intellectual light weights who because of their lack of, for want of a better word, education feel threatened if you challenge their beliefs.
It seems to me they will believe anything that someone on their side of the fence tells them and instead of researching what they were told, they repeat it as if it came from God him/herself.
That's.. not true. I've seen many cogent arguments from thoughtful left leaning commentators (hey! including me lol), excepting some of the ones that come from a (sigh) few individuals who do somewhat embody that stereotype.
I've also seen many ad-hominens and snark attacks from some "thoughtful" right wing commentators rather than engaging in the substance of what was presented. And those comments are highly rated by the readers : /
It goes both ways, but in this substack, the commentariat is overwhelmingly Republican/conservative/pro-Trump in variations. You get a "nice" community when everyone is in agreement, except for the skunks who dare to interrupt the back slapping and high fiving.
Try me though. I'll engage in lengthy debates (to the point you'll wish my laptop died) on "left" (and right) ideas. And.. you might find I also agree, to a degree, on left "woke" critique (after all, that's why I'm here). But I won't engage on "libtard' or other smears that I'm somehow "anti-American" or supportive of pedophilia "grooming" or the rest because I vote Democratic or support some measure of trans civil rights.
I would absolutely love to keep engaging with everyone on CS to discuss ideas without calling each other names and smearing on both side. People who fly off the handle and get infuriated are usually on the fringes IMO. We will not get a crowd with everyone in agreement, not now, and it was probably not realistic ever. It may be hard to even determine if you stand right or left of center or in the middle any more. I am all over the place on many issues. We are complex creatures and don’t want to be painted in one color, red or blue, at least some of us, myself included. I am sure I represent a small group here, but so what? Let’s discuss issues our country and the world face. Do we have to identify ourselves as belonging to a certain party before our thought are evaluated? Like: hi, I am a Democrat (Republican, Independent), this is what I think. Let’s not focus on how we voted in the past, because the parties no longer represent our values, but on where we should head Am I an idealist? You bet.
I would add a thought: having a blog where we can reduce as much as possible the partisan polemics is constructive for the various "sides" to get to know each other, and reduce some of the stereotyping and "villain" attributions to those on "the other side". In my real life, I have conservative family members, friends, and coworkers. And no, I do not believe they are atavistic racists and dummies : ) But online interactions where polemics are slung all around create that perception: conservatives are nasty racists, propaganda dupes and homophobes/transphobes, liberals are nasty snarky elitists who want to "groom" children for pedophiles while decimating everything "conservative" about America from every corner. Yikes in either case! But having a "safe space" (haha to borrow some "wokeism") where folks across the spectrum can meet and discuss civily, and more importantly, maybe about things that are not about politics and/or culture wars, is super important to bridging these divides, taking down stereotypes, etc.
And I have experienced this on this blog, which made me a "stay": initially I had a fairly terse and snarky back and forth with a regular on this blog, but apologized for tone and re-explained my position, and we ended up in a very nice exchange about some politics but other stuff too... and lo and behold, we agreed on some very basic issues to boot and left the exchange warmly. Gave me a warm feeling that "dialog" is possible if we drop the memes, stereotypes and conditioned reactions to each other. Both ways : )
Therefore, I do think it's important for the comments section to "diversify" in some ways, to include more points of view and respectful disagreements and exchange, and that has to start with dropping some of the polemics in either direction. It's a start, anyway.
You're being disingenuous if You think people aren't gonna try to figure out what an author's bias is, in interpreting what they "say."
Everybody does it, and You do it too, I'm sure. Being an idealist has nothing to do with it. *I'm* an idealist, because I think both parties are incompetent and we'll eventually need a new one. May never happen, of course, but that's what *idealism* is.
And give me a break. IIRC (If I Recall Correctly) Your Right. You've painted Yourself in the corner by Your taking personally the suggestion that You might not realize the *fact* that the election wasn't stolen. You can, of course, write anything You want about Yourself, and claim I'm smearing You. If You want me to, I'll go back to Your original two posts, and indicate word by word why I drew that conclusion.
I'll sum it up by an old saw by an old sage. "You doth protest TOO much." Like the above.
So yeah, people just *are* gonna try to identify where on the spectrum You are coming from. You're allowed to hold opinions that go against The Narrative, but almost *nobody does.*
There's The Woke Narrative on the Left. There's The Trump Narrative on the right. That's one reason, among several, why I written lately that there are a lotta similarities between the Woke and the MAGA crowd. Granted, there are few that are 100% Pure MAGA-tites.
If You wanna be someone who sees Trump for what he *is*, I'll be glad to slap You on the back and congratulate You. Buts odds of that aren't likely to be real good. Hardest thing in the world?
Changing Your mind. Changing a habit. That's not just to You, observer. That's everyone.
Mebbe You're just young and naive. People are NEVER gonna agree on where "we" should head when they can't have any realistic conversation on where we've BEEN, right? It'd be a lot worse than herding cats, I assure You. That's not idealism. That's fantasy.
So what's it *really* all about?
Well said!
You got a tough row to hoe here, Ma'am.
An awful *lotta* this crowd is MAGA people who go ballistic if You say negative things about Trump. Well, You've surely seen that.
Since that's most (not *all*) I got to say about Trump, I've seen it more than most. And the thing that gets me is how sanctimonious a lotta these Trump-voters are. How they hold the right, and always have, and people on the left are despicable. I had this comment, I kid You not. It was the *worst* slur. "You have exposed Yourself as a Democrat." Worse thing You could call someone here. And anybody who says things against Trump are malefactors of the worst sort. Who just don't get it. And some people will say they don't *like* Trump, but will attack You anyway.
And then blame *You* for being condescending and what all.
It's not that I haven't had a large number of very excellent "conversations" here. A *Lotta* them.
But to expect people from the Left to willingly come here and comment and take that kind-a abuse may be too much to ask for. Still, one can hope.
Yes - I've seen some really outrageous comments about Democrats and people on the left in general. Now, to be fair, I can see a lot of polemics aimed at Trump supporters in left leaning blogs as well. But again, this blog advertising itself as a "Common Sense" "moderate middle" place for those on *all sides* it's a bit disconcerting to see such a hard right tilt dominating a lot of the comments, and some serious stereotyping and broad brushed judgements aimed across the hull (and yes, again, that happens in the opposite direction in left leaning blogs too). And I do think that probably turns off some left-moderate "curious readers", and ones who want to even tepidly engage against some of the assertions being made.
Ha! I just posted this 10 minutes ago in response to a CM post.
This is a typical reply from the right. And if You believe that Trump won the election and it was stolen, then I'm afraid You're from the far-right. I dunno that applies to You tho, so there is that.
jt, you just did exactly what I described Leftists doing on Quora--jumping straight to an ad hominem!
I'm not gonna take that and just let it lay, Celia. Let's look at what I actually *wrote,* as compared to what You imputed.
"This is a typical reply from the right."
Is there any question that this describes the FACTS of the matter, Celia?
"And if You believe that Trump won the election and it was stolen, then I'm afraid You're from the far-right. I dunno that applies to You tho, so there is that."
This wasn't even a comment *about* "Just an observer." It was an observation. You even notice that Celia? No, You did NOT. In fact, I stated that it was an observation that may have nothing at all to DO with him/her.
Now, given that s/he took it *personally* I'd say that it probably did apply. I'd say very *high* probability they're far-right. And I think that's why both s/he and YOU were upset by it all, right?
He always does that. Substack needs a silence function.
An ad hominem? To say that a reply that denigrates the Left is something that typically comes from the right?
Gimme a break. That's a pattern anybody who reads these replies could-a given You.
I did not mention Trump in my post. Trump has nothing to do with the subject of our exchange. Let's not get personal here. The main reason I am subscribing is to avoid personal insults common to other social media sites. And I don't believe you are actually responding to what I said in regards to challenges left try to avoid.
I was responding to Your view that quote unquote are not far-right. Do I need to explain further?
And I think You're only partially correct on Your views of the left, at best. I dunno, but I wonder if You talk to people from the left with this view in mind. Or much at all.
I'm left of most of the usual commenters. I just don't have the time to comment often. (That and I'm a shit typist. :))
I don't let shitty typing or inability to articulate get in my way :)
You're right about the time. Only reason I have the time is I'm retired. And only reason I dare is because I can't be canceled. But as far as typing? I usually type so fast it *always* includes typos. Plus, I rarely read what I typed. "My bad." ;-)
And apparently a Star Blazer…
We must be strong and brave
Our home we've got to save . . .
Not a bad idea at *all,* M. Wildstar. Sounds like it could even be a *plan.* TYTY for Your reply.
But me? Long day done. Been reading for I-don't-know-how-many hours. Read I-don't-know-how-many chapters in M. Sowell's Basic Economics. Ten pages left, but I'm played.
Would recommend the book very *highly* to anybody who wants to see how things actually *work.* In the *real* world, as opposed to the world of the *politicians.*
Mebbe tomorrow. Mebbe not. TY again.
I think you're right about the left leaning essays. They are written for a choir that does not tolerate dissent. So there is no need to try and convince anyone of the author's point of view, because you either agree with him/her, or you are labeled as a hate filled, anti (latest Trend/fad), racist, a phobic of some type, right winger.
The left fans probably just skim (if that) to make sure its Newspeak and then give their "like"
Celia, I have posted on this topic before. I do it because I think it is important to point out censorship.
Censorship is censorship regardless of where it comes from. The Woke and PC morons are being challenged by the morons on the right and just because they are idiots doesn't mean they are not dangerous. I have asked this before. "What next? Book burning."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/conservative-activists-want-ban-400-books-library-arent-even-shelves-rcna44026
You want to censor something, change the channel or don't read things that offend you.
Gah! I agree completely!
I believe that conservatives tend to be more educated to the positions of the left and appreciate that there are different viewpoints. The left (at least the sub 40 YO constituents, which controls social media) do not employ nuance, and are ignorant to the position of the conservatives. Their level of intolerance is, imho, what spawned cancel culture, Micro aggressions, dog whistles, and all the rest of garbage used to shut down those on the right.
I don't agree with Glenn, Matt and Bari on many fundamental political issues, but am united with them in their work to regain our Freedom of Speech, and the dangers of the Left/Media/Permanent US Govt alliance.
Substack, RCP and some podcasters (Rogan, Saagar/Krystal) are where I go for news, and with the exception of RCP, they're all quite liberal, unlike me,
The ignorance is the thing that gets me. As a moderate, I am well aware of the positions of people on both sides. And there are positions on both sides that I do not agree with. But for every person on the Right who mischaracterizes people on the Left, I see ten people on the Left mischaracterizing people on the Right. I know an insane number of Leftists who GENUINELY BELIEVE that a large number of people on the Right would love to live in a dystopia like Handmaid's Tale. I know NO ONE on the Right who would tolerate a society like that.
I know what you are saying Celia. I can only speak for myself and my close friends but we treat it like a work collaboration on a project. Or even a home remodel. A couple of people on the project look at the issue, compare knowledge of past solutions, consider current economic costs and availability and brainstorm solutions. Someone you might not want to spend dinner with comes up with an idea that is more reasonable than everyone else so even though you don't necessarily like them that much you defer to their idea because they explained it. Someone that is opposite you in political beliefs points out an external force you hadn't considered on one of YOUR ideas. You have to shift because they are right. The common theme here is EXPLAINING "why" you think something. Again speaking for myself but it seems like progressives only want to insult me for wondering and being curious instead of laying out WHY. For example I want to know why schools don't double down on math and reading and leave race completely out of things. But it seems the side that wants it will only deny its happening or call me names. When I heard the other day that Kathy Hochul was rejoicing over changing laws to have gender neutral verbiage I wanted to say "Ummmmm shouldn't that be number 762 on the list of your pressing problems?" But if I mention that calmly it would be met with calling me a violent terrorist transphobe. Really? Why can't we back and forth this? Why straight to extreme insults? If you have a great idea why not bring me around by laying it out?
I have changed my mind about a number of things due to gaining information I didn't previous know. I'm now against the death penalty, in practice (although I still favor it in theory), because of the number of people on Death Row who have been exonerated by DNA evidence.
My views on abortion have changed because I had to think through how my libertarian views actually applied in that circumstance. And I am also pragmatic enough to recognize that compromise is essential on tough issues.
People who just attack others personally because they hold the "wrong" views are not helping anyone.
Perfectly said Jon
I'm not sure how to take that :)
OK truth: I'm a left leaner who has wavered on this Substack, but came home because the content is too good - and many commentors are awesome, even when we disagree. It took a bit to get there, but still. I think this could truly be a place of "real discussion" absent choir think and moderation for "right thoughts".
However, I do have some suggestions for attracting a larger left leaning audience in another post, because frankly, those are the readers that need to hear this content to truly reform the left. Which does involve perhaps a bit more balanced and even handed view of the excesses of the Right and the Left, and their relative threats. I have for sure witnessed the pushback against any gentle suggestion in supposed "left leaning" contributor essays that there's issues on the Right, as well as on the Left. I think if we're going to pose as "moderates" we need to accept criticism on both sides. I've swallowed and accepted it from the Left, and largely agree. But I see few right leaning commentators willing to do the same (kudos to those who do!) - and hence the blog's direction in tilt of the narrative to meet the subscriber base. I do think this has a "depressing" effect on getting more "moderate" left/left-center even progressives to engage and subscribe. Just IMO.
See, I think that's where there's always a difficulty, M. Smarticat. Because I would-a thought Your comment reflected facts, more than opinion. That's just me.
"I wonder if the fact that many of the commenters here are on the Right suggests something about the willingness (or lack thereof) of people on the Left to be challenged."
I would ask You to take note, Celia, how You and the Right like to be challenged. You don't like it any more than anybody else does.
When leftists manage to craft an argument that is not an ad hominem insult (orange man is a traitor, you're all Bible-thumping racist conspiracy nuts hugging your guns), it involves "compassion" towards the "vulnerable" and "making the wealthy pay their fair share". The vulnerable can be people (low income, addicts, gender-confused, non-white and non-Asian) or the planet (climate change, which is often confused with pollution).
The problem with the compassion argument is that compassion is either prohibitively expensive, as Canadians are learning with the "no private health care" and "no resource development" dogmas, or it ends up hurting the people it aims to help - addicts continue to be enabled to use drugs, gender-confused people, especially children, are mutilated, and "racialized" (ugh) people are told that they are forever victims, and they come to believe it. Meanwhile, racism is increasing.
I have never been able to carry on an argument with a leftist - they end up saying "well, you're just wrong", if they manage to remain polite. Usually it's worse. It's very difficult to break through years of indoctrination, especially when it's all around them, and those who think differently are demonised.
The "make the rich pay" argument is easier - most people realize that punitive taxes just drive money out of the country. But it continues to be made by populist leftist politicians.
I would ask people of the Right to turn their gaze inward. Like You "say:"
"It's very difficult to break through years of indoctrination, especially when it's all around them, and those who think differently are demonised."
You just demonized the Leftists, right?
Do I argue a whole *lot* against what You say? No, not a whole lot. As far as the wealthy paying their fair share, I think no right-thinking individual would complain. Warren Buffet himself agrees that he doesn't pay much in taxes. How can that be, in a country as wealthy as we are?
The problem, as I see it, is there are deductions for just about everything. Pols get paid (in campaign donations) for putting through those kinds-a things, right? To me anyway, just about *all* that should be done away with. A tax form about one page long for everybody. Very few deductions allowed. Home. Medical expenses *mebbe.* Details.
But, yeah, I agree with a graduated tax. Zero for most people, which is how much a large *number,* if not most, people pay right now, right? Just make those that pay zero be in the lower economic ranges, rather than anybody in the higher. Could probably *lower* the tax rates, if this was done and there wasn't as much cheating as goes on now.
IOW, I agree about punative taxes. I thought that was the answer at one time. And I'm not at all sure there shouldn't be *some* kind-a wealth tax, at *some* point in time, on *some* entities. I was just thinking past few days that mebbe individuals should be exempted. But corporations and Harvard and all those kinds-a institutions should mebbe be included in a wealth tax. IMO.
One thing would raise the roof, but has some, if not a lotta, merit to it, is to do away with tax-exempt organizations. For a number of reasons. Mebbe tax their wealth. That would necessarily do away with tax-exempt donations, so there's a downside. Dunno. IMO.
I don't think I demonised the leftists - I don't blame them for their own indoctrination. Certainly, there are influential people making policy that leads to the indoctrination of the masses, but I'm not talking about arguing with them.
As for taxes, I think that churches and other religious institutions should lose their tax-free status. As for a wealth tax, it is fraught. If it's implemented, Bitcoin will explode again. It's like squeezing a balloon - the air will just come out somewhere else. Taxes, I'm afraid, are for the little people who can't afford really good accountants and Caribbean tax shelters.
And yet moderates and many on the Right are able to craft responses to being challenged that don't involve going straight to ad hominems.
My original point is that moderates and people on the Right stick around on Common Sense, even when Bari has writers who challenge us, but as you yourself observed, there aren't many people on the Left here.
Yeah. And my point is the reason the Left aren't here, in the comments, is because of You on the Right are like a shark looking for blood. A lot (not all) the comments here are a great illustration of what I'm "talking" about.
You wanna talk about willful ignorance? Hundreds of examples of people praising Trump, right? Yet You so confident about how stupid the Left is. Me? I'm Centrist.
BTW, I suspect that the number of the 200K readers that are Left is a lot more than show up in the comments, right?
I think it's not so much about the unwillingness of the Left to be challenged. I think it may have more to do with whether someone likes to enter a tank with a shark in it.
A colorful analogy..
And yet the Leftist trolls have not driven people away.
The drift toward the Right among commenters has been fairly recent.
I'm sorry, but these comments have always been from the right. And the two Leftist trolls don't signify. Most people that know about them just ignore them, right?
Maybe I've been here longer than you? Not sure. All I know is that when I started commenting here, there were more moderates and fewer from the right.
There are a few left of center people here..
:)
And I’m here because, like you, I enjoy the exchange of ideas, and in our own small way, reaching across the divide.
We need more opposing ideas. Logical debate is healthy for a democracy.
Yes we do. Otherwise we just preach to the choir
Agree. I have mentioned here before I welcome the other side's views. But ask that it stay calm and polite. Also articulate WHY you think something. If you think I am incorrect in my views about the 2 million people that have entered the country from all over the globe please share why YOU feel it is a positive development. Please by all means convince me how this benefits US citizens. Maybe you could change my mind if you actually put in a tiny effort but that's not what happens. Just insults. No one ever DEFENDS that position they just call me names for thinking it is a negative view. It often makes me wonder how many progressives are parents. I never believed in preaching to my children. I told them why I believed something and invited them to come to their own conclusions. What is wrong with that approach?
I took the same approach to parenting.
But you're right--it almost never happens that people on the Left explain *why* they think what they do. They just take their positions as an article of faith. And woe betide anyone who questions their faith!
Which is how I know that Woke-ism is a religion, because that's a normal (though not universal) reaction of the faithful (of any religion) to those who challenge their beliefs.
Echoes of John McWhorter's illuminating tome "Woke Racism." The sanctimony of Far Left and Critical Race Theory pundits he describes as a religion - far more harmful than helpful. Unassailable and beyond reproach. As in blind faith.
Why do I have a hunch you might already have read it..
One thing I have been struck with reading the Common Sense comments is how many people describe themselves as life-long Democrats who can no longer tolerate the extremism of their party. Many of the "far right" comments seem to come from people who consider themselves left of center, but the center has moved.
I have been an Independent, a Democrat, and a Republican. It's all a sh*t-show masquerading as choice. These labels don't mean what they used to because society has become so absurd. These labels are used to keep society at odds and a society at odds is too busy fighting amongst itself to realize they are being enslaved and ruled over.
I see these labels and their current definitions as a gigantic obstacle that as a society we need to rid ourselves. It's not RED vs BLUE - that is so lame and silly.
They are using these and other WORDS against us. Changing the definitions of things to suit their needs and telling us we are crazy.
We have a uni-party of Elites vs. Society.
The EGO vs. the SOUL.
Right on. Well said Lori.
100%
I heard an interview with Winsome Sears this weekend sharing this very POV
"The EGO vs. the SOUL."
Very few take on the battle against the ego. IMO, You hafta meditate or pray in a meditative fashion to see the scope of the problem. Me? I'm lousy at that stuff, for the most part.
I don't think anyone knows where the "center" is right now. I suspect it's now a much larger group of people who don't like the extremes of either party and don't consider themselves in the center, yet that is where they are. Might be half the country at this point.
Extremism exists on both the left and right.
You are right, the center has moved - in such a way it seems, that the fringes of each party appear even further away from whatever constitutes the center.
Perhaps some of us here are trying to reclaim the middle, find some areas we can agree on - and build on that.
Good on Ya, and Lee too!
A vote for transcripts from me as well. If I listen to a podcast while I work or drive, I either tune out of the podcast, or I make mistakes. Or both during the same podcast. Listening doesn't save me any time over reading.
FWIW, I posted a comment in one of her podcasts requesting transcription. Lo and behold, her latest Larry Summers Honestly podcast had transcription : D Did I cause that? Yah, I'll take credit ; P
Hope that's a forward moving trend for more of the Honestly podcasts. I tend to consume these things as "multi-tasking" efforts to read at my leisure rather than having to (gasp! lol) pay attention for an entire podcast ;P
Absolutely agree, it’s difficult for me to listen to a podcast but I love the content they have so yes please transcribe them whenever possible Bar!
I want more articles turned into podcasts. ;) We can have it all! We really can.
I value this comment section as much as I do the stories themselves. Bari’s “newsroom” is much more expansive than she realizes.
absolutely.
I frequently post that same sentiment. I come here for the comments, and the articles are icing on the cake. I also appreciate the articles written by people that cause many subscribers to cancel their subscriptions as they often have some of the best comments.
Thank you, Bari and team. I am a paid subscriber and this newsletter is worth every penny and more. When I feel the world has gone haywire, I know there will always be sane voices here. Congratulations on your success!
Amen and Go Bari !! As a former (15-year) newsman, back in the pre-internet days when grizzled editors (remember editors?) required news reporters check our political opinions at the door, I find Bari's reporting invaluable.
I'm pretty much at the point where I rarely finalize an opinion on new developments without first checking what Bari (and Taibbi) have to say. That Bari published a straight-up interview with Tim Scott the same week the NYT chose to vet Scott's op-ed with a sitting government official? This should be all anyone needs to hear to know who's objective and who has chosen instead to function as an arm of a political party.
Sometimes, like others, I wonder about a future in which the Bari's and Matt's and Glenn's join forces to produce a more comprehensive independent news product. Maybe that will happen in the future, but for the time being, I don't think she should change a thing. At some point it will be fair to fence off more content for paying subscribers, but this thing is still very new, and the 220k readership figure speaks for itself.
I find myself repeating it several times a week, including above, but keep it up and GO BARI !
Every commenter is a paid subscriber. Free subs don't have commenting privileges.
You’re right. Thank you.
Ditto that from another paid subscriber!
Common Sense is the glimmer of hope I need when the rest of the journalistic world seems to have packed their bags and gone on an LSD trip.
Thank you, thank you Bari Weiss and all the staff for illumination, rational inquiry and fearless journalism. I would give up coffee before I give up my subscription.
Gasp! Not coffee!!!
😂
Me too and I have about four cups a day!
BW gets my vote for entrepreneur of the year
For real! I love this space. Hope she and Nellie share a new family photo when they all get settled in. Can't wait to hear their new perspectives.
Substack, and writers like you, Glenn and Matt are the only hope I have for a 'Free Press' returning. I believe it is historically important.
For any of you who didn't hear it, Chris Best, co-founder and CEO of Substack, was recently interviewed by Joe Rogan on his podcast. It was a five star podcast.
Thanks for the 411. Will listen.
I’m halfway through it now and it’s an amazing podcast.
Thanks for the tip!
Yes! Good episode.
I’m a paid subscriber. I read everything you print. Every piece is relevant, thoroughly explored, accurate and engaging. Thank you. Don’t change.
You guys are great and I admire what you do. I do think you have a major blind spot where Trump supporters are concerned. Very few journalists are able to cross that line but some have managed it, like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald. For me it is a litmus test to see whether a writer is truly able to assess this moment, or whether they are still a part of the mass panic that has gripped our country. Why not find a writer to rep that world just a little bit and cover things like the 2020 election, not from the POV of "widespread fraud" but how the media and big money (one billion) tilted an elected in the favor of the democrats and why that is a genuine threat to Democracy Itself.
I would suggest David Mamet or Ben Shapiro for a reasonable take on Trump, etc.
Anyway, just my two cents.
I’d love to see a Ben Shapiro article!
Definitely Ben Shapiro and David Mamet. I would really love to hear David interviewed on the Honestly podcast.
Gregg...Ben does great, i do wish he would slow down, he does get the detail.
You’ve got to be ready for a barrage of words when listening to Ben. That’s for sure!
I could see Ben and Bari getting along really well. He’s a very sincere serious person with an extraordinary intellect. He’d be a great mentor for her access to the conservative world. He could also help her with Trump. I think Ben does a good job looking at Trump objectively. He praises the good and criticizes the bad. Bari needs that balance.
Molly Hemingway or John Solomon.
Those 2 would fall under the "claims of widespread fraud" category.
Wait, what? David Mamet the playwright? I had no idea he had a side gig as a commentator! Very interested in checking that out.
If only we could figure out how to do this at the local level. Cities and counties would really benefit from deep digging into local policy stories (especially fiscal) that young reporters just don't have the experience or wisdom to understand. Our Sacramento Bee is a skeleton of itself. It reprints the talking points from the City Council, Mayor and Governor's office. Very little in-depth or pushback on the "official" report. Kudos to you Bari for showing so many independent thinkers and writers the way and giving hope to those of us still seeking truth (wherever that may lead).
We are seeing some of what Common Sense does at the local level, too.
For those who live or are interested in Central Virginia, check out the Charlottesville Community Engagement substack, by Sean Tubbs:
https://communityengagement.substack.com/
Love it! Thanks for sharing!
Thanks! I’m native and local to C’ville and never heard about this. thanks!
Thank you Bari, Nellie, and the whole team at Common Sense for giving us hope. I am so grateful.
Common Sense publishes opinions that I heartily agree with and opinions that I vehemently disagree with - is that not the essence of freedom of speech? Kudos for doing that, you might stand alone in that regard - and further kudos for paying extra attention to voices crying in the wilderness, as uncomfortable truths are often hidden there.
That said, the question remains as to "what's next". How to organically grow a better alternative to legacy media - well, I'm at a loss as to how to do so. As is Common Sense, apparently... thanks for past efforts, and thanks for asking the question.
I look forward to Common Sense in my inbox. After reading just one piece last year, I knew this was something I needed to see regularly, and more importantly, something I need to support.
Yes…sometimes I disagree with a piece (rare), or find it wanting (the Kansas abortion story the other week was short on some essential information, like, ‘what did the law actually say?’), but I think (as opposed to ‘feel’…start thinking about how you use those words) I found a home here.
I don’t quite share the enthusiasm of the rest of the commenters. I’d give a mixed review:
- excellent coverage of the woke malaise that has infected our country
- excellent coverage of the over the top GLBTQIA+ and Anti-Racist excesses
- good coverage of leftist excesses where they intersect the above
- some coverage of the danger our federal and some state bureaucracies are posing. More coverage here would be helpful
- definite anti-Trump bias. Not that I think there should be overly positive coverage, just neutral. This seems to be a blind spot for Bari
- too many writers who paint conservatives with a very broad negative brush. I don’t see much of this negative assumption against liberals outside of the hot button issues mentioned above. Needs more balance.
It’s fair to say that I don’t see anything out there that’s been able to truly break out of the broken journalistic hegemony today, but this one comes close.
Keep up the great work, but constantly evaluate your blind spots. It’s the only way you’ll remain unique. New competitors will emerge when they see your success. The only way you’ll stay ahead of them is by being better. And by better I mean fanatically better.
If I didn’t care about the success of this publication I wouldn’t have taken the time to write this!
Thanks, Bari. Enjoy your work and congratulations for having the courage to turn your back on the establishment media and beat them at their game.
If this humble subscriber could offer a suggestion for a topic—China.
China has numerous challanges facing it future—-population decline, an exploded real estate situation worse than 2008, ghost cities, runs on banks, drought, trillions in debt… yet all we hear is Xi is the next Mao and China is going to take over the world. Can both be true?
Thanks and will stay tuned.
Your concern about China is valid. I'm reluctantly going to use a Biblical term. China along with other dictatorships in this world is evil. I have said this quote before, "In order for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." That quote was valid when nobody except Churchill stood up against Hitler and it is valid now.
Where is the outrage from the woke, PC morons when it comes to China? They should be boiling into the streets demanding we stop trading with them. But they won't because they will only attack the US as an evil police state and never criticize China. Remember when people called Covid the Wuhan virus? The PC and woke idiots said that was racist.
The left never praises the US for being a bastion of liberty and they will never condemn the evil other nations do.
The Left never seems willing to react to China's "sins" they way they do when any Western country (particularly the U.S.) does things that are mild in comparison.
Our minimum wage--says the Left--is not a "living wage," but crickets on slave wages in horrifying conditions in China. We should buy Nike shoes and Apple phones because those companies support Woke issues--says the Left--even though they are among the worst offenders.
Islamophobia--says the Left--is evil, but crickets on Uighurs in prison camps. When four Muslim men in Albuquerque are murdered, the killer--says the Left--MUST be a White Supremacist, but crickets when it turns out that the murderer is a Muslim carrying out the same violence between different sects of Islam that has been going on for the last 1400 years.
Asians are white adjacent--says the Left--so we need to punish their excellence by making it harder for them to get into college, but when Asians are the victims of hate crimes, that's clearly due to White Supremacists, but crickets when it turns that most attacks on Asians are committed by blacks.
Comparing anything to the Holocaust--says the Left--is evil, but loud cheers when fellow Leftists call Trump (and now DeSantis) "literally Hitler." Saying bad things about Soros--says the Left--is antisemitic, but crickets when Democratic members of Congress say ACTUAL antisemitic things, and loud cheers when someone says bad things about Israel.
I have said this before. The left says the US is a police state shit hole and then the left riots and burns cities. If it is such a totalitarian quagmire, why do thousands of people risk their lives to enter illegally? The left called Tea Party members NAZIs but the Tea Party people never turned over cars and burnt down anything. Yet the left never said a word about BLM and ANTIA burning down our cities. A NY Democrat congressman denied it was happening.
What happened on Jan. 6 was wrong but it didn't hold a candle to what the left wing rioters did to the cities run by Democrats.
The obsequious swine in the press never once asked any Democrat why they never once spoke out against these riots but cried to the high heavens about Jan. 6. To say the behavior by the Democrats wailing about Jan. 6 and silent about the riots disgusts me is an understatement.
Lonesome and Celia - I copied this thread into a worksheet. This list of contrasting, contradicting positions if expanded upon would make a great essay - would it not?
I think so. Celia is one of the more erudite posters on this BBS.
Thank you. *blushes*
It would indeed!
"What happened on Jan. 6 was wrong but it didn't hold a candle to what the left wing rioters did to the cities run by Democrats."
This is where a lotta Centrists would disagree. The D's cities paid, right? They paid for not enforcing the laws like they should-a.
The whole *country* paid for Trump's actions (and inactions), right?
You're right but where is the Democrat outrage for the burning cities? Where are the congressional committees investigating these riots?
Well, in the 24 hour news cycle, because people are addicted to social media, the time for that seems to be long past, right?
Mebbe if the Rs gain control, which no longer seems a sure thing, they could investigate why governments, in certain areas, *chose* not to enforce the law, and what the consequences of that have been. Mebbe going as far back as Ferguson, IMO.
Exactly! Nailed it on all points. But try gently mentioning this to any Democrat.
Yellow Dog Democrats are like True Blue Republicans. They don't want to hear opposing ideas and will curse you if you persist and try to debate them.
The woke PC morons secretly admire and envy China’s totalitarianism. They are useful idiots.
Spot on, polecat.
Agreed - China is a very worthy topic.
It is our main adversary but remains opaque to most Americans. It’s closed society will make it a challenge to get real reporting but it needs to be done.
I am also very interested in all of these topics. My brother and I are always digging around everywhere for the real story about what is really going on in the lives of regular Chinese citizens amidst the serious demographic and economic challenges. I have come to believe that things are falling apart inside China far more than mainstream media reports. Check out the YouTube channel called “ADV China”. Very interesting videos produced by two men who lived in China for about 15 years and both married Chinese women while living there. One of them is American, the other is South African. From what they have seen and experienced they sure don’t believe China is “taking over the world “. The types dis function they report on is so alarming . To my understanding both men, including their wives and children, had to leave China because they were being threatened by the CCP.
Thanks for all you do Bari.