WAS: What Adults are Saying about the Failing Promise of Substack
What might have been an independent news source is blending into the toxic social media swamp.
The platform that hosts this humble communication and thousands more like it initially seemed too good to be true. Here at Substack, with no more than a hopeful sense of civility, anyone could create content and offer their view of virtually any topic. If monetary gain was wanted for the effort then Substack would extract a portion of revenue for building, hosting and monitoring the information channel. By the standards of 21st century information technologies that seemed a fair bargain that might even birth a mini-news source for professionals and amateurs alike.
The sprawling site has posed broad appeal and on a given day one can read or view in sequence the musings of Nobel Prize or Pulitzer prize winners, famous entertainers, a high school senior rifting on politics and literally everything imaginable in between. A user’s journey through the content is bound only by curiosity and keywords. When devouring views from established pros who have long appeared in Main Stream Media (MSM), the promise of Substack as a new and different voice in the crowded “news” wilderness becomes clear. Many of these creators quite rightly offer views on a paid-subscription basis. Others mix it—perhaps “teasing” here with something “free”, then hoping a subsequent payment or pledge click will follow. By all standards these are reasonable approaches and hopeful anticipation blooms while awaiting new postings.
They come and many provoke thought. So much so that at times the site seems flirting with a “higher bar” of information context and insight. Perhaps this promises a type of knowledge sharing that punches through the ceiling en route to some higher benefit? Alas, this very real promise is not fulfilled. Maybe its simply an inexorable feature of any new media platform, but increasingly, Substack has become just another social media space flaunting more words and less emoticons.
The journey through the site reveals why. Even with a fully-functional “back end”, where content creators can focus narrowly on sharing original thought, for too many that bar seems simply too high. Having the right or wanting to use Substack and offering views that matter (even if to micro sized audiences) are two very different things! Repeatedly that sobering scenario is revealed. What’s worse, it’s patterned behavior. It would be one thing if so many posters were independently underwhelming on a potpourri of things but many fall away on the same issues. These are points that dramatically undercut poster credibility and heighten the juvenile vibe of the platform. More juvenile perspectives and more social media is hardly a cocktail that will unlock Substack as an alternative or provocative news and information source. For this the following factors are paramount
First Person Reporting
Hundreds of posters are either unable or unwilling to conceive and share content that does not have them at the center of the universe. Too often the “I” content appears as though a jumble of one-off anecdotes is thought something akin to news or even a meaningful perspective. Far too many posters show they cannot synthesize broad information concepts into a coherent story. What’s worse many (Nate Silver is famous for this), comment on how much hard work and challenging it is to frequently create meaningful content. Indeed that’s true but its self-reference suggests too many authors simply want acknowledgement that merely posting makes them all good boys and girls.
Blunt over statement of certitude
Too much content lacks even a smattering of thought-through finesse. The aforementioned anecdotes often propel a narrative with over stated proclamations of how things are. Those trying this must often be given the best grade for risk-taking and boldness. But the resulting content is to frequently a grossly over-simplified “magic bullet” approach to rifting on any topic.
Superficial labels that undercuts meaning
My god where would the world be without dozens of superficial labels allowing us to categorize thoughts? Great. But to convey meaning something a little more nuanced is needed. The human eye can distinguish 16 million shades of color and the brain in that same human can follow dozens of different narratives and language patterns. Unfortunately too many posters think content consumers are far more monolith. Especially in certain topics like politics phrases like “right” and “left” are so imprecisely and often used one can’t tell if they are consuming a viewpoint or receiving analog driving directions.
An absence of appreciating “qualitative distinction”
In the most reduced, binary-digital way too many contributors (the proverbial “1”) see themselves as equal to all others and correctly distinct from those who don’t contribute (the proverbial “0”). Indeed being a contributor carries a privilege that one is offering something original against those who don’t even bother trying. But that doesn’t extend as one’s contribution is equal to all others contributing. For many this seems hard to understand.
There are really only two primary ways where Substack posters are judged to be offering a credible perspective, regardless of topic:
The poster has a legacy reputation as credible from some other media or career channel, and
the quality of the posted content is compelling to the point that credibility is then inferred.
Merely posting, offering a byline or even having paid subscribers does not singularly mean content carries any real import or information utility (especially if those subscribers are eight members of your family)! Yet time and time again posters here drive a vibe that is the alternative. Just like merely eating at a Michelin restaurant does not make one a gourmet, merely posting here, does not in itself make one credible. What’s worse those unwilling or unable to make such a qualitative distinction are left to the hazard of judging where either all or none of the content is of equal import! Yet, one of the most fundamental aspects of the human condition is our ability to sort through things that help, or alternatively, that don’t. How this seems so broadly missed and why more posters don’t use this as motivation to create better content is a mystery.
Reposting
The bane of all social media is the information gadfly who sees something original of others and reposts it as a form of endorsement or agreement. Sadly, Substack authors are frequently driven in the same way. It’s true when one infers “this post is righteous” it offers good in directing others to consider it. But when the merits of that same post become the basis for second-generation content it risks repetition. Sure, all creators are motivated and inspired by something otherwise the digital page would be forever blank. But merely reposting something and saying “ya gotta read this” is not contributing content—it’s being a clerk.
Without a sharp shift away from these trends or equally notable thinning of the posting “herd”, Substack will sink under the weight of its own promise. One of the values of legacy media in pre-digital times is that the ordering of stories and import inferred to them helped set an important daily agenda of life. By no means was this approach anywhere near perfect. But it helped consumers dramatically in the daily need to separate information “wheat from chaff.” Substack posters would do well to consider this same approach as a form of self-regulation before its too late.