Journalists sometimes claim that "hit pieces" don't exist, and that some concerns are just newsworthy. But how much slant is consistent with really educating the public?
You have almost zero info on your "About" page. What credentials do you possess in critiquing the media and press? What experience do you have in journalism, particularly credible journalism? Who pays you to write a rebuttal to a NYT article whereby your rebuttal is as long, if not longer, than the story itself? What is your relationship with Musk or his companies or "foundations?" Please be transparent and honest with who you are, who pays you and what you perceive as your "mission."
1. Pointing out the flaws of credentialism is a major theme of my writing here. When you throw an impressive bio in someone's face, it's usually to elicit a certain deferential trust. Sometimes that's defensible. Oftentimes it's dangerous. *I don't want readers to offer me deferential trust.* I want them to read, to ponder, to consult other sources, and to push back. This is why I explicitly reward readers for critical engagement and rarely lean on my CV. It's also why I explicitly include statements (as I did in this piece) like "I encourage you to not take my word for any of them, and to confirm with your local tax attorney."
2. My readers pay me. That's the whole premise of Substack. Though I'm also self-funding a good deal of it as groundwork for a book on the subject of improving journalism. It's also good business for me as a professional writer. I've gained a lot of income from people appreciating how I've broken something down and hiring me for unrelated writing projects.
3. My relationships are outlined near the beginning of this article under "Bias & Disclosures".
4. While I can see from your comment there (which I've deleted) that you've already found it, I have a whole public article titled What This Project Is About (link below) that lays out this mission in detail. To address the only fair part of your deleted comment, the name "Save Journalism Committee" was hastily-chosen and a play on a reference from the NBC sitcom Community. I outlined this in my very first post. I kept it because while there is no formal comittee behind this substack, it is driven in part by volunteer contributions from those who share in the mission. These contributions are largely fact-checks and adversarial proofreading. None are financial, apart from those who have chosen to subscribe during periods when I have paid subscriptions turned on. Readers often tip me to things they think I should write about. On the rare occasion when I do, I'm up front about it. And on the rare occasion that anything I write about has even a tangential relationship to my day work (as was true here in a very limited sense), I disclose it up front.
And also: Have you ever really worked in journalism? A newspaper? Anywhere? You seem to know what's going on in the newsroom of the NYT but if you're not in that working environment, then who is cluing you in? Assumptions? I don't get the feeling you ever really worked in the free press. Maybe I am wrong, but you could disclose your experience somewhere, such as the About page.
You say that encourage pushback, but yet you deleted my comment critical of your blog or asking you what credentials you have in media, journalism and communications education or experience? What does that actually say about inviting pushback? You really don't want it. If you are not willing to disclose your credentials in the industry then your credibility to discuss these matters is doubtful. It's not a matter of expecting "deferential" treatment from your readers, but rather a statement about who you are. Your credibility is everything or it is nothing. I should not have to dance around and read your entire blog to see your disclosures. Put them all on your "About" page and be transparent. Otherwise you're a Musk lackey. Honestly, you really could write more concisely.
lol I deleted it because the only part I don’t address here in full was just you taking shots at my writing approach, and I didn’t feel compelled to explain to you all the ways in which your take was misguided.
Anyway, I’ve answered your actual questions. If you don’t like my answers, I’m content with that. I’ll leave this thread up for the value of other readers. But repeating yourself isn’t very concise and isn’t useful for readers, so I’ll delete anything further that isn’t good faith or new.
Fantastic piece, thanks!
You have almost zero info on your "About" page. What credentials do you possess in critiquing the media and press? What experience do you have in journalism, particularly credible journalism? Who pays you to write a rebuttal to a NYT article whereby your rebuttal is as long, if not longer, than the story itself? What is your relationship with Musk or his companies or "foundations?" Please be transparent and honest with who you are, who pays you and what you perceive as your "mission."
1. Pointing out the flaws of credentialism is a major theme of my writing here. When you throw an impressive bio in someone's face, it's usually to elicit a certain deferential trust. Sometimes that's defensible. Oftentimes it's dangerous. *I don't want readers to offer me deferential trust.* I want them to read, to ponder, to consult other sources, and to push back. This is why I explicitly reward readers for critical engagement and rarely lean on my CV. It's also why I explicitly include statements (as I did in this piece) like "I encourage you to not take my word for any of them, and to confirm with your local tax attorney."
2. My readers pay me. That's the whole premise of Substack. Though I'm also self-funding a good deal of it as groundwork for a book on the subject of improving journalism. It's also good business for me as a professional writer. I've gained a lot of income from people appreciating how I've broken something down and hiring me for unrelated writing projects.
3. My relationships are outlined near the beginning of this article under "Bias & Disclosures".
4. While I can see from your comment there (which I've deleted) that you've already found it, I have a whole public article titled What This Project Is About (link below) that lays out this mission in detail. To address the only fair part of your deleted comment, the name "Save Journalism Committee" was hastily-chosen and a play on a reference from the NBC sitcom Community. I outlined this in my very first post. I kept it because while there is no formal comittee behind this substack, it is driven in part by volunteer contributions from those who share in the mission. These contributions are largely fact-checks and adversarial proofreading. None are financial, apart from those who have chosen to subscribe during periods when I have paid subscriptions turned on. Readers often tip me to things they think I should write about. On the rare occasion when I do, I'm up front about it. And on the rare occasion that anything I write about has even a tangential relationship to my day work (as was true here in a very limited sense), I disclose it up front.
https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/what-this-newsletter-is-about
And also: Have you ever really worked in journalism? A newspaper? Anywhere? You seem to know what's going on in the newsroom of the NYT but if you're not in that working environment, then who is cluing you in? Assumptions? I don't get the feeling you ever really worked in the free press. Maybe I am wrong, but you could disclose your experience somewhere, such as the About page.
You say that encourage pushback, but yet you deleted my comment critical of your blog or asking you what credentials you have in media, journalism and communications education or experience? What does that actually say about inviting pushback? You really don't want it. If you are not willing to disclose your credentials in the industry then your credibility to discuss these matters is doubtful. It's not a matter of expecting "deferential" treatment from your readers, but rather a statement about who you are. Your credibility is everything or it is nothing. I should not have to dance around and read your entire blog to see your disclosures. Put them all on your "About" page and be transparent. Otherwise you're a Musk lackey. Honestly, you really could write more concisely.
lol I deleted it because the only part I don’t address here in full was just you taking shots at my writing approach, and I didn’t feel compelled to explain to you all the ways in which your take was misguided.
Anyway, I’ve answered your actual questions. If you don’t like my answers, I’m content with that. I’ll leave this thread up for the value of other readers. But repeating yourself isn’t very concise and isn’t useful for readers, so I’ll delete anything further that isn’t good faith or new.