Is Substack embarrassed by its ‘contrarian’ authors?
The company isn’t going out of its way to trumpet the accuracy and intellect of the authors who put this writers’ platform on the media map.
UPDATE: For Reich subscription numbers through today, January 17, see this new article I just posted. Reich has added 22,000(!) subscribers in the past 10 days. UPDATE 2: Reich added 5,000 new subscribers on Jan. 17 + 25,000 in 10 days.
***
In a recent article highlighting the eye-popping Substack subscription numbers of liberal commentator Robert Reich, I made the point that while “Covid Contrarians” clearly put Substack on the map, the work product and impressive intellect of these citizen journalists apparently hasn’t resonated with the founders of this company.
Another point I made was that Substack’s key executives “apparently don’t think like my readers.”
Today, I’d like to develop this point, an observation I believe has disturbing ramifications for society.
***
It’s obvious I don’t think like Substack executives (or any of society’s “leaders”), but if I was in a position of influence with this company, I’d be trumpeting the positive contributions made by the army of Substack writers who distinguished themselves with persuasive dissents of society’s myriad bogus and harmful “authorized narratives.”
If Substack distributed a press release on this topic, it might read:
“Substack is proud to be the primary platform of independent writers who identified numerous false or unproven claims made by the public health establishment.
“Since Covid became the story of our times, thousands of Substack newsletter authors have made vital contributions that provided the public information that was commonly censored, identified alternative theories and reached starkly-different conclusions than writers and leaders promulgating “official” narratives.
“Furthermore, conclusions once widely accepted as “scientific” fact have been either debunked or are no longer considered “settled science.”
“In recent years, millions of global citizens have concluded that corporate or “mainstream” media should not be viewed as the definitive source of news. Indeed, those in this group have been guilty of disseminating egregious disinformation.
“Substack is proud to support the growing number of intelligent and brave writers who are fulfilling the vital role of a genuine “watchdog” press …”
Etcetera and so on .…
***
Of course, Substack has never issued a press release like this, nor is the company likely to do so.
That is, Substack’s greatest selling point - that its home to the smartest journalism in the world - is a “marketing point” the company refuses to make.
The above statement provides a telling observation about the true nature of our New Normal world.
Even if organizations consist of intelligent citizens doing brave and vital work few others are willing to do, this is not something companies want to trumpet or publicize.
The opposite observation is just as scary …
An opposite maxim is also true and can also be easily observed by noting events of the past five years.
Namely, while 100-percent of “trusted” news organizations and “truth-seeking” organizations disseminated brazenly false stories about Covid, none of these organizations have admitted this.
Also, those who publicized dubious or spectacularly-wrong claims experienced no negative consequences.
When organizations that have distinguished themselves by reporting the truth possess no inclination to point this out - or are embarrassed by the work of the all-stars in their organizations - something is (seriously) off in the world.
Conversely, when organizations that should be humiliated by obtuse track records and which should be issuing contrite apologies know such mea culpas aren’t necessary … something is (seriously) off in the world.
Is this how a meritocracy operates?
The above points also cast aspersions on the once-accepted theory that America achieved its greatness because it was a meritocracy.
That is, society has bestowed no recognitions of “merit” on thinkers and authors who passed the intelligence litmus test by being right about Covid issues.
Instead, the officials who were awarded prizes, promotions or medals were those who proved their incompetence.
Why is this now our New Abnormal?
Question: So why is the braintrust of Substack seemingly eager to distance itself from the authors who made this platform a lucrative business and a significant voice in the media world?
My guess would be Substack’s executives must know the company’s growth would be harpooned - and Substack would become more of a “target” than it probably already is - if the company started crowing about how its star writers were right - and every other powerful person and organization in the world was wrong.
As I often write, being a part “the herd” provides safety, which in turn provides the opportunity to advance in a world where “contrarians” will be hunted like killer lions on the plains of Africa or expelled like lepers in the villages of the Bible.
Whether its founders are embarrassed by the label or not, Substack is already widely known as the “home of the Narrative Challengers.”
Thanks to this widely-held reputation (which executives didn’t need to accentuate), Substack experienced tremendous growth.
However, if Substack started citing the impressive accuracy-rate of its “Contrarian writers” as a key marketing point, one imagines the Status-Quo-Preserving classes would not be amused.
More-conspicuous retaliation would probably be inevitable.
While a guess, Substack’s strategy is probably to …
“Lay low;” try to stay out of the spotlight as much as possible; continue to promote liberal and authorized Substack newsletters like those produced by Robert Reich and Bob Dunning …
… and cross their fingers the contrarian authors who are generating large percentages of the company’s revenues … and readers who are generating large percentages of its “users” … remain loyal customers/partners.
No ‘leaders’ are steering citizens to Substack …
Of course, if Substack is unwilling to trumpet its most-impressive selling point, other “leaders” with influence could do this for them.
However, this hasn’t happened either … and, one assumes, won’t happen in the future.
For example, a high-profile political leader could make opening remarks at a Congressional hearing, remarks that showered praise on Substack authors who played a vital role debunking false narratives.
“I strongly encourage Americans to continue to flee the atrocious mainstream media and discover the excellent journalists on Substack,” this hypothetical leader might say.
Alas, any prominent leader could have made such remarks in the past five years … but none have - another “tell” suggesting a world where no adults exist in the room.
Indeed, a contrarian might even believe a conspiracy exists to keep the public in the dark about the presence of so many outstanding muck-rakers.
Running a few numbers …
Per my research, Substack has at least 35 million global users.
While this sounds like a significant number, in a world with 8 billion people, this figure’s not nearly as impressive.
In fact, my guess is 95 percent of the world’s adult citizens have no clue Substack - and all its excellent “contrarian authors” - even exists.
However, if, say, 350 million global citizens suddenly started to peruse Substack, society’s iron-clad narratives would no longer qualify as universally-accepted conventional wisdom.
This hypothetical scenario illustrates the potential threat Substack poses to the Status Quo and, no doubt, explains why no influential leader promotes Substack.
(One hopes this will change in the second Trump administration.)
*** (Substack’s best tool, the one the Deep State fears the most, is the Share button) ***
No Substack authors are ‘hire-able’ in the MSM
Another point I made in my “Robert Reich” article is it’s almost certain no “Covid Contrarian” All-Star writer would ever be hired by a mainstream news organization.
To me, this is bizarre, surreal, non-sensical and, for what it’s worth (nothing) .. “unfair.”
My list of almost 150 “Contrarian” writers is replete with talented writers, including a fair number of “real” or former journalists.
These writers have exhibited initiative, impressive research skills, the ability to identify important untold stories and scandals and, also, found the time and energy to market and grow their audiences.
Any editor looking for talented content providers with the skills to grow the organization’s readership/viewership would seemingly jump at the opportunity to either hire such people full-time or at least periodically run a few of their freelance stories or guest op-eds.
But, as they say … Not.Going.To.Happen.
Let’s end with some hypocrisy …
I bring up this point to highlight the fact the DEI initiatives championed by progressives are as hypocritical as the same people’s alleged defense of “democracy” and “free speech.”
“DEI” stands for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
Using this acronym, I can state that in American corporate newsrooms:
Diversity - does NOT include diversity of thought.
Equity - does not mean equitable pay as only a tiny percentage of “Contrarian” writers make as much money as salaried corporate staffers pushing the authorized (Big Pharma) narratives.
(The majority of “Contrarian” newsletter authors on my list make less than $25,000 - which is less than the salary of a typical Wal-Mart employee … And the people on this list are the superstars in Substack’s version of the “alternative media.”)
Inclusion - In Orwell speak, this means “sanctioned discrimination” as corporate news organizations clearly discriminate against writers who think like myself.
I would expand the DEI acronym to DEIH - with the H standing for Hubris - because it’s understood these organizations know what’s best for everyone.
***
In conclusion, Substack deserves great credit for at least allowing its contrarian authors to write what they want.
However, these writers still aren’t reaching nearly enough people to change most of the false and misery-producing accepted narratives.
This might change if and when Substack’s executives tell the world how important its “contrarian” writers really are.
Cutting-Room Floor Text (A Hypothetical Job Interview for me):
I would expand the DEI acronym to DEIH - with the H standing for Hubris - because it’s understood these organizations know what’s best for everyone.
“Bill, thank you for your application, but hiring you would be detrimental to our newspaper’s mission and wouldn’t serve our readers or American citizens. We here at Gannett are committed to protecting our readers.”
Bill: “But half your readers probably think like I do, or at least would appreciate being exposed to the stories I could write.”
“Have a good day, Bill … and, next time you come into our newsroom show some respect for others and wear your Covid mask.”
As #98, I fully agree with this! The problem is that the things we're currently being contrarian about, the rest of the world isn't yet ready to talk about.
But in a year, you might run this same exact article about people who reported about January 6th -- or censorship, or Ukraine -- before it was 'common knowledge'.