Interesting, on Twitter Noah Smith has become a laughing stock.
I will say that generally, non-print media like Substack, personal blogs and Twitter can be a much higher quality replacement. Requires a little digging though.
I've found the opposite. Print media publications seem to be higher quality with better editorial review. There are of course exceptions and outstanding blogs out there.
I've seen some reporters go from working at a "big" publisher to Substack and I can tell the difference in their writing. Usually more extreme and alarmist. I chalk it up to less review.
I agree the individual pieces are less polished and tend more towards alarmism or outrage. I still find it overall better, because logical inconsistencies and wrong facts will get called out viciously and without mercy. The result is a more correct worldview, but one needs to keep some distance, otherwise it can get unhealthy.
Its the difference between a university debate club and an MMA cage. The MMA filter is much stronger, but there tends to be a lot more blood.
> logical inconsistencies and wrong facts will get called out viciously and without mercy
Even here, inaccuracies are promoted as fact regularly. I don't count on the social media herd as a compass.
Other than this site I avoid news that comes with a comment section because internet anons have their own biases and agendas and aren't representative.
You end up with nuance swept aside and extreme unflinching loudmouths getting the most visibility. A lot of this goes hand in hand with quitting social media.
Just a personal opinion, but I'd characterize Noah Smith as "uneven", not "laughingstock". He hits enough high notes that I would be quite sad to see him go, even though I find him very unreliable.
I will say that generally, non-print media like Substack, personal blogs and Twitter can be a much higher quality replacement. Requires a little digging though.