We are in a situation where we are not arguing about policy, we are arguing about the rule of law and the destruction of our constitutional government. It's not a time for both sides-ism.
I've seen the quote, "If you want to know what you would've done during the rise of Nazism, it's what you are doing now." That's where we are.
Trump lies almost incessantly. Republicans have abandoned their long-held principles. It's not possible to have a politics as usual debate in these circumstances.
While I agree with you, I think Chris is speaking to this and his approach to journalism. Chris wants to call balls and strikes and let us come to the decisions we reach. What is intolerable is for his personal life. It is not for his journalism. I like Chris' approach. We don't need his permission to hold the views we hold.
I love the idea of a neutral umpire calling balls and strikes. But that only works when there are two teams playing baseball by the rules we know. What does the umpire call when one team eats the ball and then does donuts in the outfield in their cars? No amount of "well, both teams have an interesting strategy" is going to make that work.
You have a great point. I think that Chris is trying to be a trusted source of information as opposed to a relatable source of opinion. At a certain level, he succeeds. I see Chris as a Joe Buck type of guy. For years, Buck's twitter bio said, "I love every team but yours." If republicans and democrats are equally apoplectic over Chris' work, he is doing it right.
This is an opinion newsletter. This entire piece is an opinion about how a "center" position is better than others. There's not breaking news here. There is opinion about that breaking news and sometimes old news that is less relevant. If you like opinion, balls and strikes as Chris says, you'll stay here and keep reading it. By the numbers referenced though, I would say that there is a huge audience dying for the opinions of others. The market will definitely sort this out.
Oh, right, like we were told Joe Biden was doing donuts on the White House lawn - I mean behind closed doors at the White House. And any videos you saw that made look otherwise were "cheap fakes."
You know, the guy who started his term with 9% inflation.
The border was secure.
Whose Uncle Boozy was eaten by cannibals.
Who was arrested several times during civil rights protests - once in South Africa when he was trying to visit Nelson Mandela and another time when he was in college and got caught in a women's dorm.
Then there are all the Iraq and Afghanistan stories - like the one where he pinned a medal on a soldier.
Did you know his house burned down?
Oh, and he didn't pardon his son - the one whose laptop was Russian misinformation, according to 51 intelligence officials.
It also happens to be true. Or do you join Trump in refusing to call Putin a dictator and blame Ukraine for allowing itself to be invaded? The US is no longer the "leader of the Free World."
I agree with you Laura. I'm a paid subscriber of So What. I watch PBS News every day to make sure I'm seeing a non partisan view. I watch my local news (which often scews right because I live in deep red Idaho). I started tuning in to Jim Acosta's almost guerrilla videos with a constant stream of great guests, and became a paid subscriber within his 1st week. For my own peace of mind (and to help battle the anxiety the constant stream of chaos Trump is creating), I need to hear what Acosta and his guests are saying about what's happening each day. Acosta and his guests are not just saying it's going to be all right, they're saying people need to make their voices heard, and explaining pros and cons of policies that my other news sources aren't taking the time to do. For my own mental health, that's a great salve to the hopeless feelings Trump's actions have been engendering. I'm able to sift through this variety to what I feel is the truth, as I'm sure many of you can.
It sounds like a reasonable plan to keep informed, Tammy. In addition to being a paid subscriber here with Chris, I also watch Aaron Rupar's videos of actual events, read Heather Cox Richardson and Joyce Vance - and yes, I read The Bulwark.
I appreciate the content Chris posts here - but I also disagree with what I perceive as his sense that we are in a politics-as-usual both-sides environment. This seems particularly different as the fundamental structure of the government is affected, not just its policies.
You are a perfect example of the intolerant left. Conservatives will disagree with ideas, but we never say things like you just did.
You should learn about this country's history. Go back to the election of 1800 - the first with two distinctly different sides. Both predicted, with certainty, it would be the end of the American experiment if the other side won. The same thing happened after the election of 1824 and during the election of 1828, and several other times during the nation's history.
What's different this time is that this is the first time (since the Civil War) that one side (yours) has said the other side's views are "intolerable" and gone a step further to cancel people, attempt to jail the leader of the opposition, and even keep them off the ballot.
And this whole "Nazi" comparison is part of why you lost the election. What Republican wasn't a Nazi? Your side has become the "Boy that cried wolf" or "Chicken Little." At a certain point, the few who aren't firmly on one side or the other just stop listening to you.
I could continue and refute every point you attempt to make, but what's the point when you think the way you do.
“Conservatives will disagree with ideas, but we never say things like you just did.”
Really? It is a popular conservative belief that many members of the Democratic Party are part of a cult of pedophiles. It is a popular conservative belief that the Democrats stole the 2020 election. It is a popular conservative belief that Democrats are really Communists in disguise.
All of these beliefs have been professed not just in chat rooms online, but by elected Republican officials, including Trump himself, on multiple occasions. None of these beliefs are backed by any evidence, and there is plenty of evidence that the current Republican Party is leaning hard into fascism/nativism/nationalism. If you don’t believe me, ask the white supremacists, neo-nazis, and fascists in this country who they support. Their answer will be invariably Trump and his Republican Party.
I could continue, and provide countless more examples, but what's the point when you think the way you do?
I have a challenge for you, Chris. Contact 25 Trump supporters, not those in Washington DC. Ask them if they have ever heard or looked at anything on Substack. Then contact 25 progressives around the country and ask if they have heard of Substack. I think You'll be quite surprised by the reaction. I don't think anybody is saying that Trump supporters are all stupid. But when it comes to hearing a well-rounded and historically based view of the world, the Trump supporters are woefully inadequate.
Gott, you know, it may be. What is more condescending than my comment?
1. It is probably true.
2. That there is a significant percentage of Americans, say 35-42% of us, who are ready to alter the very fabric of our country to stoop to the desires of an autocratic group of oligarchs who feel it is perfectly fine to ethnically cleanse Gaza to turn it into a Trump resort or to offer wealthy foreigners a "Gold Card" citizenship path while completely forgetting the millions of immigrants who have cleaned your toilets and picked your crops and slaughtered your meat and landscaped our lawns for years with no thanks but the promise of being deported if ICE can catch up with them.
Now that my friend, that is truly condescending to the highest level imaginable. BTW, that tequila that you and I love so much, where does that come from? Not much of it being produced in the good ole USA, is there?
Rocket. I appreciate that you responded to my snark with good humor and open dialogue, so I will attempt to respond similarly.
But first, I raIse a toast of my beloved, soon to be tariffed, tequila in your honor. Good thing I can afford it.
1. I encourage you to rethink the idea that the average Republican is not well read or well informed. Trump received 77.3 million votes. In a pool this big there are both geniuses and morons, you will find the same in the 75 million who voted for Harris. Many have a well rounded historically based world viewpoint, they just don’t share the preferred solutions to issues proffered by the left. If they are truly uneducated anachronistic sheep…..what does that say about the folks that just lost to them? Viewing the opposition as stupid or lessor only makes it more likely they will continue to win.
2. I understand the frustration. But name calling will not bring anybody around to a different way of thinking. The only way to win in a battle of opinions on political direction is to engage. Hiding on Substack or Bluesky calling the opposition names does nothing except make the writer feel better. I trust you sincerely believe what you wrote in #2. So go out and convince others you are correct. Shouting them down will never succeed.
Your idea of "just calling balls and strikes regardless of the uniform" is problematic by the day, and honestly, it's beginning to sound a little irresponsible.
If you had been a journalist (or whatever you wish to be known by - I read that article too) during Hitler's rise to power, would you claim to be only calling balls and stikes? During Fidel Castro? Any autocrate? While we're not there yet, we could be. Certainly going in that direction.
I understand your concern over substack. But you need to understand you can be both objective and anti-Trump.
The same way you can be objective and anti-cancer. Or anti-dictator.
Trump is bad; as a human, as a politician, as a role model, for Democracy, for National Security, for the economy, for the innocent and vulnerable, for the rule of law, for our allies, etc. etc.
Stating this does not make me un- objective, it makes me honest based on facts. And if that also makes me anti Trump because I value all those things, that follows the objective facts.
Everything Trump does is not bad. Every idea he has is not bad. But, almost every way he chooses to execute decisions is bad.
To stretch you analogy further: The batter you're calling balls and strikes on isn't playing by the rules and he's using the bat for his own purposes (pounding on the catcher). Soon he may charge the mound. And if he remains unrestrained, he might swing at the umpire. Too late to call balls and strikes then.
Heather Cox Richardson and Joyce Vance are infinitely objective and anti-Trump. You can absolutely be both! This balls and strikes thing is starting to sound like having to call the same number of balls as strikes. That's whataboutism at its core and it's not at all objective. It's scorekeeping to ensure that every game ends up in a tie because you're afraid to call things out that need to be called out.
I often think about (and agree with) this anonymous post, and I think it applies to the current divide in American politics:
“I was thinking of the “free exchange of ideas” last night. You know, it’s not like a market, it’s like a potluck. Everyone brings their own ideas and you sample others and some are familiar with a twist, some are interesting but not to your taste, some are bad, some are lifechanging. You can get into a discussion about recipes or technique, or what have you as people talk about the good.
If someone brings mashed potatoes, you can debate the appropriateness for a potluck: is it too bland? Will it get cold on the table? Do potatoes make up too much of our diet?
But if someone puts a steaming platter of dog shit on the table, we’re not going to debate it. And when we tell them to take it off the table, it’s not because we are afraid of eating their dog shit or that we think it’s going to revolutionize lunch but we don’t want to allow that to happen.
We tell them to get it off the table because there is no debate to be had. It’s dog shit. It’s not an open question, it’s not a matter of palettes or picky eaters.
That’s why we don’t engage with neo-nazis and white supremacists, and it’s why we don’t (or shouldn’t) let them come to the potluck.”
Republicans may not (yet) be outright neo-nazis, but they sure act like white supremacists, and the neo-nazis are their biggest fans.
I have a couple of thoughts about this. While conservative voices tend to be less popular on Substack, it's not as if there aren't plenty of places where they can be heard. I think one of the reasons why Substack has drawn in so many leftist/centrist voices is that there isn't the same infrastructure for voices on the Left to find an audience as there is on the Right.
I'll also note that this discussion about finding an audience overlooks the fact that nearly everyone who has amassed a large audience on Substack came to the platform from somewhere else where they had already made at least a bit of a name for themselves.
I do think it's easy to say "oh, people on the Left just want to hear from people they agree with." There is some of that at play. But it's more wanting to hear from people who don't otherwise have a voice.
I would also argue that "Bluesky is too liberal" argument is a bit of a red herring. Yes, it can be. But I have been online since the days of bulletin boards and I don't think I've ever changed someone's mind with the perfectly crafted post. At this point, I want to find news I wouldn't otherwise see, be exposed to some opinions in a non-confrontational way and sometimes post a clip from some obscure 1970s pop song. And Bluesky fits those purposes for me.
One last thought (and I apologize for the length). Politics seeps into everything nowadays. While I primarily write about TV and the media, that inevitably covers a lot of political hot button issues. For instance, last night's newsletter featured some comments from MSNBC staffers, including some from someone who worked on the Joy Reid show. Which weirdly enough got me invites to talk on a couple of conservative radio shows and a shout out from a big liberal-leaning blog.
OTOH, getting attention from the mainstream press is...challenging.
I don’t think you can legislate substack content, Chris. Every substack I read has a slant. And I’m sorry, but there is not an equivalency between what Trump is doing and what the Democrats were doing. Trump is destroying the country. I will get on board with any substacker that fights the obliteration of our constitutional republic.
I really like this commentary. I was thinking the same but everything I thought to say was too snarky. But when you use legislate. It sort of said what I couldn't.
INCs aren't in the position to tell INPs--imdependent news purchasers--what the landscape should look like. I get CCs vision and to some degree understand/share that viewpoint....but to say it can't become this...or it can't become that.....sort of misses the point...
Bc isn't new media about the consumer making the decision as to what he/she/they want to consume? No longer do I have to put up w the good and bad of MSM to see the nightly news....
Maybe I read way too much into this post though....
Many of the anti Trump voices are conservative such as Liz Cheney. These times call for a strong anti-Trump voice. I can read in MSM what Trump apologists are saying. I would like Conservatives to reclaim the meaning of the word. An article in WAPO characterized the administration as deeply conservative which it is most definitely not
I really can't say why one side gravitates more to one area than the other. I have always refused to be in a right-wing bubble and deliberately seek out left leaning sites like Slate and Political Wire. I like your work, Chris, because you have generally been down the line (though I will say at CNN, you did show some symptoms of TDS). I really don't understand the people in the comments who demand that you #resist, #resist, resist! No, this isn't Germany in 1933 no matter what your TDS is telling you. I would think there's a limited market for the #resist! substacks - if you have one or two of them, how many more do you need to sign up for? Are they going to be saying something different? I follow you and Mark Halprin's 2Way platform because I know I will be able to get content that I can't get anywhere else. People with their hair on fire over Trump and Musk are a dime a dozen.
Chris, You are so right on this discussion! A good example in my case is "Letters from an American". Her letters are now so anti-Trump that I have almost stopped reading. The occasional letter about history and its relationship to today are the best. You calling the balls and strikes are what I want...Thank you for the great work!
HCR reports current events through the lens of history. It’s not her fault that trump is hands down the worst person ever to hold the office of the presidency. Is she supposed to be a trump fluffer working even harder to spin trump’s horrible ideas and behavior into something more palatable for trump supporters?
I agree with your observation regarding “Letters from an American”, but would ask you to consider what changed in the last month that may have shifted the tone of Heather Cox Richardson’s daily letters?
IMHO the sheer volume of unconstitutional and unethical actions by the President and his loyalists since inauguration day have made it impossible for her to appear balanced. An egregious action every day forces here to respond every day. Thus, while she tries to maintain her fact based and historically grounded delivery, the daily drumbeat of required responses can paint her with the anti Trump brush.
I am one of those MSNBC watchers who can still really appreciate your work, even when you criticized Kamala and stated that Trump is a revolutionary (he's a dark side revolutionary). I enjoyed your work on CNN and continue to sustain a paid subscription, watching those 'balls and strikes'.
All of these people were being muzzled and censored on mainstream media. That is why they are all here. I think it is a good thing that there is a place where they can speak openly. Nothing about this is ideal but it is not their fault that people voted for an autocratic criminal.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your points. But maybe if MSM would stop trying to be Fox News Lite, and stop firing good reporters, then the Substack wave of liberal content might wane.
Let’s not do ’balls and stricks’ since they are opinions. Same as ‘right and wrong’ or ‘moral and amoral’ or ‘legal and illegal’ or ‘ethical and unethical’
Some political views are intolerable.
We are in a situation where we are not arguing about policy, we are arguing about the rule of law and the destruction of our constitutional government. It's not a time for both sides-ism.
I've seen the quote, "If you want to know what you would've done during the rise of Nazism, it's what you are doing now." That's where we are.
Trump lies almost incessantly. Republicans have abandoned their long-held principles. It's not possible to have a politics as usual debate in these circumstances.
I couldn’t agree more strongly.
I agree. This isn’t politics as usual, it’s a fight against those who want to destroy our nation from within!
And sadly, they’re doing a great job of it so far.
Yes, they are.😢
But we're going to keep fighting them at every turn!
Right!! Onward!!!
While I agree with you, I think Chris is speaking to this and his approach to journalism. Chris wants to call balls and strikes and let us come to the decisions we reach. What is intolerable is for his personal life. It is not for his journalism. I like Chris' approach. We don't need his permission to hold the views we hold.
I love the idea of a neutral umpire calling balls and strikes. But that only works when there are two teams playing baseball by the rules we know. What does the umpire call when one team eats the ball and then does donuts in the outfield in their cars? No amount of "well, both teams have an interesting strategy" is going to make that work.
You have a great point. I think that Chris is trying to be a trusted source of information as opposed to a relatable source of opinion. At a certain level, he succeeds. I see Chris as a Joe Buck type of guy. For years, Buck's twitter bio said, "I love every team but yours." If republicans and democrats are equally apoplectic over Chris' work, he is doing it right.
This is an opinion newsletter. This entire piece is an opinion about how a "center" position is better than others. There's not breaking news here. There is opinion about that breaking news and sometimes old news that is less relevant. If you like opinion, balls and strikes as Chris says, you'll stay here and keep reading it. By the numbers referenced though, I would say that there is a huge audience dying for the opinions of others. The market will definitely sort this out.
Bingo
Oh, right, like we were told Joe Biden was doing donuts on the White House lawn - I mean behind closed doors at the White House. And any videos you saw that made look otherwise were "cheap fakes."
You know, the guy who started his term with 9% inflation.
The border was secure.
Whose Uncle Boozy was eaten by cannibals.
Who was arrested several times during civil rights protests - once in South Africa when he was trying to visit Nelson Mandela and another time when he was in college and got caught in a women's dorm.
Then there are all the Iraq and Afghanistan stories - like the one where he pinned a medal on a soldier.
Did you know his house burned down?
Oh, and he didn't pardon his son - the one whose laptop was Russian misinformation, according to 51 intelligence officials.
I could go on for hours.
I'm serious. No, no joke. C'ome on, man!
You may be serious but you don't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe the sarcasm is beyond me.
This is classic Bulwark hair on fire panic porn.
It also happens to be true. Or do you join Trump in refusing to call Putin a dictator and blame Ukraine for allowing itself to be invaded? The US is no longer the "leader of the Free World."
Since you do not offer an argument, I will say that your statement is classic trolling porn.
I agree with you Laura. I'm a paid subscriber of So What. I watch PBS News every day to make sure I'm seeing a non partisan view. I watch my local news (which often scews right because I live in deep red Idaho). I started tuning in to Jim Acosta's almost guerrilla videos with a constant stream of great guests, and became a paid subscriber within his 1st week. For my own peace of mind (and to help battle the anxiety the constant stream of chaos Trump is creating), I need to hear what Acosta and his guests are saying about what's happening each day. Acosta and his guests are not just saying it's going to be all right, they're saying people need to make their voices heard, and explaining pros and cons of policies that my other news sources aren't taking the time to do. For my own mental health, that's a great salve to the hopeless feelings Trump's actions have been engendering. I'm able to sift through this variety to what I feel is the truth, as I'm sure many of you can.
It sounds like a reasonable plan to keep informed, Tammy. In addition to being a paid subscriber here with Chris, I also watch Aaron Rupar's videos of actual events, read Heather Cox Richardson and Joyce Vance - and yes, I read The Bulwark.
I appreciate the content Chris posts here - but I also disagree with what I perceive as his sense that we are in a politics-as-usual both-sides environment. This seems particularly different as the fundamental structure of the government is affected, not just its policies.
You are a perfect example of the intolerant left. Conservatives will disagree with ideas, but we never say things like you just did.
You should learn about this country's history. Go back to the election of 1800 - the first with two distinctly different sides. Both predicted, with certainty, it would be the end of the American experiment if the other side won. The same thing happened after the election of 1824 and during the election of 1828, and several other times during the nation's history.
What's different this time is that this is the first time (since the Civil War) that one side (yours) has said the other side's views are "intolerable" and gone a step further to cancel people, attempt to jail the leader of the opposition, and even keep them off the ballot.
And this whole "Nazi" comparison is part of why you lost the election. What Republican wasn't a Nazi? Your side has become the "Boy that cried wolf" or "Chicken Little." At a certain point, the few who aren't firmly on one side or the other just stop listening to you.
I could continue and refute every point you attempt to make, but what's the point when you think the way you do.
“Conservatives will disagree with ideas, but we never say things like you just did.”
Really? It is a popular conservative belief that many members of the Democratic Party are part of a cult of pedophiles. It is a popular conservative belief that the Democrats stole the 2020 election. It is a popular conservative belief that Democrats are really Communists in disguise.
All of these beliefs have been professed not just in chat rooms online, but by elected Republican officials, including Trump himself, on multiple occasions. None of these beliefs are backed by any evidence, and there is plenty of evidence that the current Republican Party is leaning hard into fascism/nativism/nationalism. If you don’t believe me, ask the white supremacists, neo-nazis, and fascists in this country who they support. Their answer will be invariably Trump and his Republican Party.
I could continue, and provide countless more examples, but what's the point when you think the way you do?
Substack really needs to add a choice to DISLIKE posts.
I have a challenge for you, Chris. Contact 25 Trump supporters, not those in Washington DC. Ask them if they have ever heard or looked at anything on Substack. Then contact 25 progressives around the country and ask if they have heard of Substack. I think You'll be quite surprised by the reaction. I don't think anybody is saying that Trump supporters are all stupid. But when it comes to hearing a well-rounded and historically based view of the world, the Trump supporters are woefully inadequate.
I'm right here!
Me too.
Me too Mr. Rocket man
That's 3.
A sadly condescending comment.
Gott, you know, it may be. What is more condescending than my comment?
1. It is probably true.
2. That there is a significant percentage of Americans, say 35-42% of us, who are ready to alter the very fabric of our country to stoop to the desires of an autocratic group of oligarchs who feel it is perfectly fine to ethnically cleanse Gaza to turn it into a Trump resort or to offer wealthy foreigners a "Gold Card" citizenship path while completely forgetting the millions of immigrants who have cleaned your toilets and picked your crops and slaughtered your meat and landscaped our lawns for years with no thanks but the promise of being deported if ICE can catch up with them.
Now that my friend, that is truly condescending to the highest level imaginable. BTW, that tequila that you and I love so much, where does that come from? Not much of it being produced in the good ole USA, is there?
Rocket. I appreciate that you responded to my snark with good humor and open dialogue, so I will attempt to respond similarly.
But first, I raIse a toast of my beloved, soon to be tariffed, tequila in your honor. Good thing I can afford it.
1. I encourage you to rethink the idea that the average Republican is not well read or well informed. Trump received 77.3 million votes. In a pool this big there are both geniuses and morons, you will find the same in the 75 million who voted for Harris. Many have a well rounded historically based world viewpoint, they just don’t share the preferred solutions to issues proffered by the left. If they are truly uneducated anachronistic sheep…..what does that say about the folks that just lost to them? Viewing the opposition as stupid or lessor only makes it more likely they will continue to win.
2. I understand the frustration. But name calling will not bring anybody around to a different way of thinking. The only way to win in a battle of opinions on political direction is to engage. Hiding on Substack or Bluesky calling the opposition names does nothing except make the writer feel better. I trust you sincerely believe what you wrote in #2. So go out and convince others you are correct. Shouting them down will never succeed.
All the best! Gott
Your idea of "just calling balls and strikes regardless of the uniform" is problematic by the day, and honestly, it's beginning to sound a little irresponsible.
If you had been a journalist (or whatever you wish to be known by - I read that article too) during Hitler's rise to power, would you claim to be only calling balls and stikes? During Fidel Castro? Any autocrate? While we're not there yet, we could be. Certainly going in that direction.
I understand your concern over substack. But you need to understand you can be both objective and anti-Trump.
The same way you can be objective and anti-cancer. Or anti-dictator.
Trump is bad; as a human, as a politician, as a role model, for Democracy, for National Security, for the economy, for the innocent and vulnerable, for the rule of law, for our allies, etc. etc.
Stating this does not make me un- objective, it makes me honest based on facts. And if that also makes me anti Trump because I value all those things, that follows the objective facts.
Everything Trump does is not bad. Every idea he has is not bad. But, almost every way he chooses to execute decisions is bad.
To stretch you analogy further: The batter you're calling balls and strikes on isn't playing by the rules and he's using the bat for his own purposes (pounding on the catcher). Soon he may charge the mound. And if he remains unrestrained, he might swing at the umpire. Too late to call balls and strikes then.
Heather Cox Richardson and Joyce Vance are infinitely objective and anti-Trump. You can absolutely be both! This balls and strikes thing is starting to sound like having to call the same number of balls as strikes. That's whataboutism at its core and it's not at all objective. It's scorekeeping to ensure that every game ends up in a tie because you're afraid to call things out that need to be called out.
I often think about (and agree with) this anonymous post, and I think it applies to the current divide in American politics:
“I was thinking of the “free exchange of ideas” last night. You know, it’s not like a market, it’s like a potluck. Everyone brings their own ideas and you sample others and some are familiar with a twist, some are interesting but not to your taste, some are bad, some are lifechanging. You can get into a discussion about recipes or technique, or what have you as people talk about the good.
If someone brings mashed potatoes, you can debate the appropriateness for a potluck: is it too bland? Will it get cold on the table? Do potatoes make up too much of our diet?
But if someone puts a steaming platter of dog shit on the table, we’re not going to debate it. And when we tell them to take it off the table, it’s not because we are afraid of eating their dog shit or that we think it’s going to revolutionize lunch but we don’t want to allow that to happen.
We tell them to get it off the table because there is no debate to be had. It’s dog shit. It’s not an open question, it’s not a matter of palettes or picky eaters.
That’s why we don’t engage with neo-nazis and white supremacists, and it’s why we don’t (or shouldn’t) let them come to the potluck.”
Republicans may not (yet) be outright neo-nazis, but they sure act like white supremacists, and the neo-nazis are their biggest fans.
I have a couple of thoughts about this. While conservative voices tend to be less popular on Substack, it's not as if there aren't plenty of places where they can be heard. I think one of the reasons why Substack has drawn in so many leftist/centrist voices is that there isn't the same infrastructure for voices on the Left to find an audience as there is on the Right.
I'll also note that this discussion about finding an audience overlooks the fact that nearly everyone who has amassed a large audience on Substack came to the platform from somewhere else where they had already made at least a bit of a name for themselves.
I do think it's easy to say "oh, people on the Left just want to hear from people they agree with." There is some of that at play. But it's more wanting to hear from people who don't otherwise have a voice.
I would also argue that "Bluesky is too liberal" argument is a bit of a red herring. Yes, it can be. But I have been online since the days of bulletin boards and I don't think I've ever changed someone's mind with the perfectly crafted post. At this point, I want to find news I wouldn't otherwise see, be exposed to some opinions in a non-confrontational way and sometimes post a clip from some obscure 1970s pop song. And Bluesky fits those purposes for me.
One last thought (and I apologize for the length). Politics seeps into everything nowadays. While I primarily write about TV and the media, that inevitably covers a lot of political hot button issues. For instance, last night's newsletter featured some comments from MSNBC staffers, including some from someone who worked on the Joy Reid show. Which weirdly enough got me invites to talk on a couple of conservative radio shows and a shout out from a big liberal-leaning blog.
OTOH, getting attention from the mainstream press is...challenging.
I don’t think you can legislate substack content, Chris. Every substack I read has a slant. And I’m sorry, but there is not an equivalency between what Trump is doing and what the Democrats were doing. Trump is destroying the country. I will get on board with any substacker that fights the obliteration of our constitutional republic.
I really like this commentary. I was thinking the same but everything I thought to say was too snarky. But when you use legislate. It sort of said what I couldn't.
INCs aren't in the position to tell INPs--imdependent news purchasers--what the landscape should look like. I get CCs vision and to some degree understand/share that viewpoint....but to say it can't become this...or it can't become that.....sort of misses the point...
Bc isn't new media about the consumer making the decision as to what he/she/they want to consume? No longer do I have to put up w the good and bad of MSM to see the nightly news....
Maybe I read way too much into this post though....
Many of the anti Trump voices are conservative such as Liz Cheney. These times call for a strong anti-Trump voice. I can read in MSM what Trump apologists are saying. I would like Conservatives to reclaim the meaning of the word. An article in WAPO characterized the administration as deeply conservative which it is most definitely not
My country is being destroyed before my very eyes! I’m on Substack to do so about that! Period!
I really can't say why one side gravitates more to one area than the other. I have always refused to be in a right-wing bubble and deliberately seek out left leaning sites like Slate and Political Wire. I like your work, Chris, because you have generally been down the line (though I will say at CNN, you did show some symptoms of TDS). I really don't understand the people in the comments who demand that you #resist, #resist, resist! No, this isn't Germany in 1933 no matter what your TDS is telling you. I would think there's a limited market for the #resist! substacks - if you have one or two of them, how many more do you need to sign up for? Are they going to be saying something different? I follow you and Mark Halprin's 2Way platform because I know I will be able to get content that I can't get anywhere else. People with their hair on fire over Trump and Musk are a dime a dozen.
Yes, a dime a dozen!
Chris, You are so right on this discussion! A good example in my case is "Letters from an American". Her letters are now so anti-Trump that I have almost stopped reading. The occasional letter about history and its relationship to today are the best. You calling the balls and strikes are what I want...Thank you for the great work!
HCR reports current events through the lens of history. It’s not her fault that trump is hands down the worst person ever to hold the office of the presidency. Is she supposed to be a trump fluffer working even harder to spin trump’s horrible ideas and behavior into something more palatable for trump supporters?
That’s what Faux is for.
But that's what's great about substack! You stop liking what you're reading you stop subscribing! Again what am I missing?
I agree with your observation regarding “Letters from an American”, but would ask you to consider what changed in the last month that may have shifted the tone of Heather Cox Richardson’s daily letters?
IMHO the sheer volume of unconstitutional and unethical actions by the President and his loyalists since inauguration day have made it impossible for her to appear balanced. An egregious action every day forces here to respond every day. Thus, while she tries to maintain her fact based and historically grounded delivery, the daily drumbeat of required responses can paint her with the anti Trump brush.
Well said.
Hi Chris,
I am one of those MSNBC watchers who can still really appreciate your work, even when you criticized Kamala and stated that Trump is a revolutionary (he's a dark side revolutionary). I enjoyed your work on CNN and continue to sustain a paid subscription, watching those 'balls and strikes'.
Bill Bream
All of these people were being muzzled and censored on mainstream media. That is why they are all here. I think it is a good thing that there is a place where they can speak openly. Nothing about this is ideal but it is not their fault that people voted for an autocratic criminal.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your points. But maybe if MSM would stop trying to be Fox News Lite, and stop firing good reporters, then the Substack wave of liberal content might wane.
I think you’re inverting cause and effect. Readers and viewers of video content aren’t limited to a single platform.
And if someone only wants to see one perspective it’s easy to limit your information consumption on a completely mixed and representative platform.
It’s up to those of us who want to be informed to make sure we don’t succumb to confirmation bias and silo ourselves.
Have you heard of Braver Angels ?
https://braverangels.org/
“Bringing Americans together to bridge the partisan divide and strengthen our democratic republic.” is their mission.
They’re trying to bring diverse voices together to fight division and discord.
Let’s not do ’balls and stricks’ since they are opinions. Same as ‘right and wrong’ or ‘moral and amoral’ or ‘legal and illegal’ or ‘ethical and unethical’