>I've yet to read what I would consider high quality journalism on Substack. It's a lot of quick take opinion pieces.

Most of what passes for "high quality journalism" in "high quality outlets" are fluff pieces and government/corporate PR masquerading as facts.

And as Alan Kay said: "a point of view is worth 80 IQ points". I'd rather read the opinion of people with well honed points of view than what passes as news in mainstream media.

Glenn Greenwald has written a number of very good pieces on his Substack that I would in no way describe as quick take opinion pieces and Matt Taibbi has the best reporting on the journalism industry itself going around. These guys are "well honed" because they're well read on the activities of the media and they think and communicate clearly

Maybe you're not reading the right posts or you just agree with the prevailing narrative in the traditional outlets?

Usually I find the people who don't see value in Substack also want the news to be reported with "moral clarity" and to eschew objectivity as a valuable aim entirely.

And besides, the mainstream outlets are barely reporting on anything anyway (where's the national news coverage of the George Floyd Autonomous Zone in Minneapolis? For the second time an American city has lost sovereignty over several blocks and the mainstream media is ignoring it) and if you do real investigative journalism into the wrong group, like Andy Ngo has (thank God for Quillette) you are branded a fascist

>Glenn Greenwald has written a number of very good pieces on his Substack that I would in no way describe as quick take opinion piece.

He wrote a piece about Parler and the storming of the Capital[0], within a week of the event that was certainly a quick take. There is absolutely no way to definitively make any sort of claim about how involved it was, especially from his position, thousands of miles away on a patio in Rio.

I find most of his pieces, to be very much 'hot take' in nature, responding to something that is currently going on.

[0]https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...

>He wrote a piece about Parler and the storming of the Capital[0], within a week of the event that was certainly a quick take. There is absolutely no way to definitively make any sort of claim about how involved it was, especially from his position, thousands of miles away on a patio in Rio.

The position "on a patio in Rio" doesn't matter, as he was not doing reporting, he was doing a take. It wasn't some obscure event that needed on-the-field investigation for someone to make a take a week later (which is a lot of time in news).

It's enough that others did the reporting, or the events were plain and clearly recorded on video, or one has sources, or experience to see what's the deal behind what's reported.

"within a week" is an eternity in journalism.

>Maybe you're not reading the right posts or you just agree with the prevailing narrative in the traditional outlets?

Maybe you meant this for the parent commenter? I wrote in favor of Substack writers and against the "traditional outlets" superiority.

Thank you for the Autonomous Zone reference. Googling for this and finding local news, Fox and NY Post is really eye-opening. Apparently it's not even worth mentioning... optics would be bad for the -useful idi- compassionate supporters more towards the center.