Thank you for this essay, which belongs to the genre of "how to think" not "what to think." And you've offered an excellent set of Substacks to choose from; they demonstrate that political and intellectual variety is consistent with good epistemic practice!
Thanks--the range of Substacks available is overwhelming at times, but many are still of high quality even with the growing "democratization" of writing and too many people, maybe, writing about topics that they aren't truly knowledgeable about. The Substacks I recommended here are a representative sampling. I believe one metric I saw recently was for 50,000 writers currently on Substack. I find the Substack Notes feature especially helpful when used with the Substack app--it helps me keep track of a conversation that one writer started that others are commenting on. It's like the retweeting in (x), but almost certainly makes more opportunity available for careful thought instead of the reactive and emotive dopamine "hits" on (x).
My own (free) Substack has over 1300 subscribers and about 14K page views a month. It is aimed to tell the general reader as well as interested librarians about aspects of book & library history.. I do it as I prepare my classes and find stories about library and book history that I try to write with documentation. I was surprised the one I did most recently about the British Library struggles between Panizzi and Madden in the 19th century got so many views."Madden vs Panizzi: Clash of the British Museum Titans." https://kathleenmccook.substack.com/p/madden-vs-panizzi-clash-of-the-british
Kathleen, I've added your Substack to our Recommendations list. I hope you'll be getting more subscribers as a result, and I also look forward to reading articles there.
Thanks, Kathleen. We should add your Substack to our Recommendations on Heterodoxy in the Stacks. It looks excellent, in the range of what you're covering there.
There are other Substacks on libraries, though not a huge number. Here's an example:
I think librarians were unnerved by the press you cover in this essay. I have been surprised that people are interested in library history--but happy, too.
Thanks, Kathleen. I think the Racket Timeline Library that Taibbi is doing is actually quite useful given the endless rush of events, decisions, policies, and reporting that confuse most of us much of the time.
Having read multiple accounts of the Twitter Files controversy, from various perspectives, and given Taibbi's own involvement in it, I'm more persuaded than ever that the idea that it signalled a rush into authoritarianism was exaggerated (compared to what we're seeing right now under Trump 2.0 with assaults on many institutions).
But Taibbi was the point of the spear. Had he not done his work the rest might not have been known. I do a little volunteering to assist as this kind of VP diversity has been absent from many platforms.
Katz must see Nazis in his sleep because while I've seen some pretty stupid far-right opinions, I can't remember even a single one I'd describe as Nazi. And these fools out themselves and it is better to know who they are and what they are saying than hide one's head in the sand.
Yes, agreed. The term "Nazi" is used entirely too loosely most of the time anyway. In any case, the "Nazi scandal" at Substack was a lot of exaggerated nonsense. Katz even wrote an article about it in The Atlantic. It doesn't appear to have stopped Substack's growth in any of the metrics I see. There was a small migration of Substack writers who fled Substack for other platforms because of this, and yes, there was an incendiary letter that they wrote to Substack's founders about all of it. I'm persuaded that Substack is living within the First Amendment in their Content Guidelines.
I find all of this commentary on The Atlantic quite interesting. The one "writer" I've truly objected to that The Atlantic published in recent years is Ibram Kendi, who is neither scholar, journalist, nor sound thinker. His recent departure from Boston University for other quarters has not gone unnoticed by some of us.
On the other hand, I find the quality of the writing, reporting, and scholarly inquiry of David Frum, Anne Applebaum, George Packer, David Graham, is quite high in my opinion, and there's a range of views there, it isn't uniform. I consider The Atlantic part of my necessary reading, along with The Financial Times, The Unpopulist, The Dispatch, Quillette, and the Bulwark.
I have not seen the indiscriminate use of "Nazi" among numerous Atlantic writers in the way suggested below, in another comment. I'm sure it's showed up with a few of them, but I don't see it that often. I most definitely see the term "authoritarian" applied to Trump, Orban, Putin, and others, and the various ways "authoritarian" can manifest itself in different societies. I think the populist/right authoritarian descriptor is an accurate one for much of what is now occurring in Trump 2.0, except that "populism" carries valences that don't align with techno-authoritarians like Musk, Thiel, and it would appear, Andreesen. The nomenclature is evolving.
I believe that Jonathan Rauch, who wrote "The Constitution of Knowledge", may be closer than anyone else in describing Trump 2.0 as a form of "patrimonialism."
All these labels! Have you read "The Wine of Violence"? It has some great quotations about pigeon-holing people. Democrats could have stayed out of Musk's way and let him build rockets and other cool technology like Neuralink...but no they had to irritate him and then threaten him and then when they'd finally gotten his attention in the worst possible way...what did they do? Called him names from their copious list of all-purpose insults. Like "Nazi"! and "techno-authoritarian", probably, when they wanted to sound more like grown-ups.
I've read it - and other works of Rauch's. But I think your silo is showing if you think the Atlantic isn't highly biased in recent decades. Just look at any of the numerous sites that try to monitor metrics on bias in media, for example, here's the first one search turned up:
I understand and appreciate what you're saying. I have to compare what gets published in The Atlantic with what I see elsewhere, and that's where my calculus comes from. I also have my biases and try to hold them in check. :-)
I think nowadays what "Nazi" means is mostly aesthetic: jackboots, and greatcoats and toothbrush mustaches, and "Triumph of the Will". And its use is really just as a generic insult meaning "non-left". I read history including, e.g., fairly recently listening to the lecture series "Europe's Dark Journey: The Rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany" and the book "His Majesty's Airship" which is a history of zeppelins and covers a lot of the same period. I remember quite a lot and still I could not tell you what were the principles of the Nazi party. As far as I can tell, the Nazi party were very much of their time, created by the conditions of that time. That was 80+ years ago and times are _different_ now. I think that people, including Atlantic writers, should come up with some fresh insults OR demonstrate some substantive similarity between the people they label Nazis now and the real ones from almost a century ago. Otherwise, it's all just soooooo boring.
It would be most interesting to compare and contrast this practice with the use of "far Left" or "Marxist" or "socialist" used in some leading conservative outlets. The Daily Caller, The Federalist, maybe even the Claremont Review of Books might be a fertile field for that kind of analysis. I wouldn't even venture to imagine what Newsmax or Fox News does with these words.
Is it possible that "in-group signalling" occurs in various parts of the heavily political media? Maybe more in some than others? I'm not persuaded at all that The Atlantic is an exemplar of tight tribalism in ideological or political outlook.
I don't read any of these, nor the Atlantic either. But I have observed that the self-selected myrmidons of the left-wing army, i.e., people I might encounter vituperating on Facebook or on mailing lists in the place where I work, do use the word "nazi" as a generic insult and, as Jeff Cunningham has pointed out, as in-group signaling at the same time. And then, if the Atlantic wants to keep its readers happy and subscribing, it will use the language they know and use themselves and that the writers encounter all the time. So boooooring. I'm not interested in comparing or contrasting left and "right"; it would be about as fun as perusing my junk mail for grammar errors.
Thank you for another excellent and nuanced essay Craig--helpfully balancing the recognition of our fraught politics with a focus on some of the instrumentalities that might help us better navigate them. And lots of intriguing further reading!
Thanks, Michael. It did occur to me recently--and that's the impetus for writing this piece--that Substack may provide the best single option for a thriving viewpoint diversity in public discourse, as opposed to all the noise from podcasters and YouTubers (some of which I listen to anyway). Part of it is reading, and turning over in my mind, the claims being made, instead of the auditory flash and clatter of some in the "influencer" realm who are only about "influencing" in the sense of audience capture and monetization. Substack is at least an aspirational space for public discussion. Libraries and librarians might be thinking about the platform in a much more concerted way to promote viewpoint diversity and a better civic culture, in my view.
Thank you for this essay, which belongs to the genre of "how to think" not "what to think." And you've offered an excellent set of Substacks to choose from; they demonstrate that political and intellectual variety is consistent with good epistemic practice!
Thanks--the range of Substacks available is overwhelming at times, but many are still of high quality even with the growing "democratization" of writing and too many people, maybe, writing about topics that they aren't truly knowledgeable about. The Substacks I recommended here are a representative sampling. I believe one metric I saw recently was for 50,000 writers currently on Substack. I find the Substack Notes feature especially helpful when used with the Substack app--it helps me keep track of a conversation that one writer started that others are commenting on. It's like the retweeting in (x), but almost certainly makes more opportunity available for careful thought instead of the reactive and emotive dopamine "hits" on (x).
My own (free) Substack has over 1300 subscribers and about 14K page views a month. It is aimed to tell the general reader as well as interested librarians about aspects of book & library history.. I do it as I prepare my classes and find stories about library and book history that I try to write with documentation. I was surprised the one I did most recently about the British Library struggles between Panizzi and Madden in the 19th century got so many views."Madden vs Panizzi: Clash of the British Museum Titans." https://kathleenmccook.substack.com/p/madden-vs-panizzi-clash-of-the-british
Kathleen, I've added your Substack to our Recommendations list. I hope you'll be getting more subscribers as a result, and I also look forward to reading articles there.
Thanks, Kathleen. We should add your Substack to our Recommendations on Heterodoxy in the Stacks. It looks excellent, in the range of what you're covering there.
There are other Substacks on libraries, though not a huge number. Here's an example:
https://circideas.substack.com/ (more traditional public library issues)
https://miarginalia.substack.com/ (definitely of the social justice outlook)
I also noticed recently that Rob Henderson wrote a post on what he's learned about writing on Substack after three years:
https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/what-ive-learned-after-three-years
I think librarians were unnerved by the press you cover in this essay. I have been surprised that people are interested in library history--but happy, too.
The new Racket Library at Racket News (Matt Taibbi) provides Timelines of current events.
https://www.racket.news/s/racket-library
Most recent is "Timeline: The Path to Real ID Implementation
It's been two decades since passage of the Real ID Act. It finally takes effect May 7"
https://www.racket.news/p/timeline-the-path-to-real-id-implementation
Thanks, Kathleen. I think the Racket Timeline Library that Taibbi is doing is actually quite useful given the endless rush of events, decisions, policies, and reporting that confuse most of us much of the time.
Having read multiple accounts of the Twitter Files controversy, from various perspectives, and given Taibbi's own involvement in it, I'm more persuaded than ever that the idea that it signalled a rush into authoritarianism was exaggerated (compared to what we're seeing right now under Trump 2.0 with assaults on many institutions).
https://www.allsides.com/tags/twitter-files?search=twitter%20files
To me, where I live and work, the highwater mark of authoritarianism while I have been paying attention to politics was https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/14/2021-19924/ensuring-adequate-covid-safety-protocols-for-federal-contractors promulgated under the Biden administration.
But Taibbi was the point of the spear. Had he not done his work the rest might not have been known. I do a little volunteering to assist as this kind of VP diversity has been absent from many platforms.
Katz must see Nazis in his sleep because while I've seen some pretty stupid far-right opinions, I can't remember even a single one I'd describe as Nazi. And these fools out themselves and it is better to know who they are and what they are saying than hide one's head in the sand.
Yes, agreed. The term "Nazi" is used entirely too loosely most of the time anyway. In any case, the "Nazi scandal" at Substack was a lot of exaggerated nonsense. Katz even wrote an article about it in The Atlantic. It doesn't appear to have stopped Substack's growth in any of the metrics I see. There was a small migration of Substack writers who fled Substack for other platforms because of this, and yes, there was an incendiary letter that they wrote to Substack's founders about all of it. I'm persuaded that Substack is living within the First Amendment in their Content Guidelines.
My how the Atlantic has fallen. Up until the late nineties I always had a subscription to it.
I find all of this commentary on The Atlantic quite interesting. The one "writer" I've truly objected to that The Atlantic published in recent years is Ibram Kendi, who is neither scholar, journalist, nor sound thinker. His recent departure from Boston University for other quarters has not gone unnoticed by some of us.
On the other hand, I find the quality of the writing, reporting, and scholarly inquiry of David Frum, Anne Applebaum, George Packer, David Graham, is quite high in my opinion, and there's a range of views there, it isn't uniform. I consider The Atlantic part of my necessary reading, along with The Financial Times, The Unpopulist, The Dispatch, Quillette, and the Bulwark.
I have not seen the indiscriminate use of "Nazi" among numerous Atlantic writers in the way suggested below, in another comment. I'm sure it's showed up with a few of them, but I don't see it that often. I most definitely see the term "authoritarian" applied to Trump, Orban, Putin, and others, and the various ways "authoritarian" can manifest itself in different societies. I think the populist/right authoritarian descriptor is an accurate one for much of what is now occurring in Trump 2.0, except that "populism" carries valences that don't align with techno-authoritarians like Musk, Thiel, and it would appear, Andreesen. The nomenclature is evolving.
I believe that Jonathan Rauch, who wrote "The Constitution of Knowledge", may be closer than anyone else in describing Trump 2.0 as a form of "patrimonialism."
His article is in The Atlantic: https://archive.ph/CWTOr
https://archive.ph/CWTOr
All these labels! Have you read "The Wine of Violence"? It has some great quotations about pigeon-holing people. Democrats could have stayed out of Musk's way and let him build rockets and other cool technology like Neuralink...but no they had to irritate him and then threaten him and then when they'd finally gotten his attention in the worst possible way...what did they do? Called him names from their copious list of all-purpose insults. Like "Nazi"! and "techno-authoritarian", probably, when they wanted to sound more like grown-ups.
I've read it - and other works of Rauch's. But I think your silo is showing if you think the Atlantic isn't highly biased in recent decades. Just look at any of the numerous sites that try to monitor metrics on bias in media, for example, here's the first one search turned up:
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
But I'm not going to get involved in argument about it. I read pretty widely. I have my opinions. I have my biases too.
I understand and appreciate what you're saying. I have to compare what gets published in The Atlantic with what I see elsewhere, and that's where my calculus comes from. I also have my biases and try to hold them in check. :-)
I think nowadays what "Nazi" means is mostly aesthetic: jackboots, and greatcoats and toothbrush mustaches, and "Triumph of the Will". And its use is really just as a generic insult meaning "non-left". I read history including, e.g., fairly recently listening to the lecture series "Europe's Dark Journey: The Rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany" and the book "His Majesty's Airship" which is a history of zeppelins and covers a lot of the same period. I remember quite a lot and still I could not tell you what were the principles of the Nazi party. As far as I can tell, the Nazi party were very much of their time, created by the conditions of that time. That was 80+ years ago and times are _different_ now. I think that people, including Atlantic writers, should come up with some fresh insults OR demonstrate some substantive similarity between the people they label Nazis now and the real ones from almost a century ago. Otherwise, it's all just soooooo boring.
To borrow one of their coined ideas, calling conservatives "Nazis" is a dog-whistle. They do it to self-identify and call for their own IMO.
I think you must be right about this. Calling other people "Nazis" is part of their endless in-group signalling.
It would be most interesting to compare and contrast this practice with the use of "far Left" or "Marxist" or "socialist" used in some leading conservative outlets. The Daily Caller, The Federalist, maybe even the Claremont Review of Books might be a fertile field for that kind of analysis. I wouldn't even venture to imagine what Newsmax or Fox News does with these words.
Is it possible that "in-group signalling" occurs in various parts of the heavily political media? Maybe more in some than others? I'm not persuaded at all that The Atlantic is an exemplar of tight tribalism in ideological or political outlook.
I don't read any of these, nor the Atlantic either. But I have observed that the self-selected myrmidons of the left-wing army, i.e., people I might encounter vituperating on Facebook or on mailing lists in the place where I work, do use the word "nazi" as a generic insult and, as Jeff Cunningham has pointed out, as in-group signaling at the same time. And then, if the Atlantic wants to keep its readers happy and subscribing, it will use the language they know and use themselves and that the writers encounter all the time. So boooooring. I'm not interested in comparing or contrasting left and "right"; it would be about as fun as perusing my junk mail for grammar errors.
Thank you for another excellent and nuanced essay Craig--helpfully balancing the recognition of our fraught politics with a focus on some of the instrumentalities that might help us better navigate them. And lots of intriguing further reading!
Thanks, Michael. It did occur to me recently--and that's the impetus for writing this piece--that Substack may provide the best single option for a thriving viewpoint diversity in public discourse, as opposed to all the noise from podcasters and YouTubers (some of which I listen to anyway). Part of it is reading, and turning over in my mind, the claims being made, instead of the auditory flash and clatter of some in the "influencer" realm who are only about "influencing" in the sense of audience capture and monetization. Substack is at least an aspirational space for public discussion. Libraries and librarians might be thinking about the platform in a much more concerted way to promote viewpoint diversity and a better civic culture, in my view.