John, I have a second, entirely separate, comment. I was especially impressed that it would occur to you and to the current Williams newspaper staff to question newspaper coverage of a newspaper-organized campus event. To my knowledge, no such self-examination was ever voiced by anyone during my three years (1968-70) on the editorial board of the Notre Dame student newspaper. But that was when ND accepted 1 in 7 applicants (now it's 1 in 17), and even then I got in through the side door of a newly invented affirmative action program. Student sophistication and insight has advanced by light-years.
For me, the whole thing comes across as excessive self-indulgence. It could have been appropriate as literally a personal letter to a friend, but doesn't rise above that level. On the other hand, I'm familiar with others on Substack, and have seen more than a fair share of excessive self-indulgence. Which is unsurprising in an Era of Excessive Self-Indulgence, an Era originated--of course--by Boomers, of which I am one. And when I happen to encounter and re-read the columns I wrote for the college newspaper as a journalism major in the 1960s, I see excessive self-indulgence.
When you say "the whole thing," do you mean "this whole essay"? Or "this trend toward writers revealing personal stakes"? Or journalism (or metajournalism) in general?
That's an excellent question that I should have answered in my comment. But I didn't take the time to think it through, because when I wrote the comment this morning, I didn't take time to re-read your essay. Instead, I commented only upon reading this morning's 7 comments, because I felt that the excellent questions and arguments you posed shouldn't be drowned in unanimously approving comments. Now that I consider what you ask, what I consciously had in mind was "this whole essay."
I like reading nonfiction (more than I like reading most memoir) for the stories of other people. It sometimes strikes me, too, as self-indulgent when the author enters or overrides their story. A friend yesterday suggested this is a generational thing, "Here comes the Millennial self-indulgence."
But conveying those personal stakes is what editors want. Presumably what readers want. (When done well.) The question I'm trying to explore here is how those market trends might be tied to news judgement and trust. Is it better (more trust-inducing) to take readers behind the scenes of the news judgement decisions? Or it just navel-gazing? (Or does it matter how well it's done, acknowledging that I may not have done it well here?)
So you've articulated the key question, with a provocative answer. Thanks!
I think you're too generous in according to me any role in spurring your thinking on these complex considerations of trust and responsibility in institutions, publications, and persons. I can say this with certainty owing to the glaring differences I perceive between today's Williams newspaper editors and the equivalent editors at Notre Dame in the late 60s. Even at that, my presence among those ND editors had nothing to do with intellectual prowess, but rather to my lifelong insomnia and resulting ability to stay awake and alert and in control of the newsroom for well more than 24 hours, without the aid of illicit drugs.
Such fun to read someone else's mind working through the idea of trust! I agree with you about the loss of it being the biggest problem for journalism.
Something I wonder all the time is why Substack succeeds (so far) with this model, whereas Medium has been around with a similar idea for much longer and has certainly struggled with making it work.
Thanks John! Another thoughtful, transparent and vulnerable piece - building blocks of trust that we all yearn for these days. Credible, authentic reporting regardless of who is delivering will always be appreciated.
Good question! Although Wikipedia defines it as "information about current events," I have come to think of it as, "a story worth sharing on this platform." Thus a bad (poorly written, shallow, or manipulative) story about current events shouldn't be news, where a great story about past or obscure events should be. The significance comes more from the relationships in the platform's community than the events themselves.
For example, when I was a 15-year-old sportswriter (https://naturalstories.substack.com/p/nature-story-and-local-journalism), I knew that the score of the game was news. But my editors, including the legendary Frank Wall, encouraged me to profile some of the players, because in a local afternoon newspaper where subscribers might already know the score, getting to know the kids in the community was a story worth sharing.
I love that you frame it around trust and then that you're forthcoming about your own involvement in the reunion -- and how that may compromise your objectivity. That you were involved in the planning of the event. We know where you're coming from. You may not be a completely reliable narrator (as we might saw when talking about a work of fiction).
All growing out of your belief "that good storytelling often requires revealing [your] personal stake in the story". When we, as writers, reveal that, we alert your readers to our own awareness of our limitations. While we strive to be objective, we appreciate that sometimes objectivity is a challenge.
That is the first part of building trust.
And methinks that in the ever-changing media market, from the introduction of blogs in the late '90s/early aughts to the rise of social media and Substack (does this platform count as social media?) in recent years, those writers who are as forthcoming as you are here will build trust with their readers.
Thanks Dan! This is exactly the conversation I hoped to open. I agree with you. Thanks for bringing up fiction: it's interesting how fiction writers have for decades trusted readers (even in "lowbrow" genres) to enjoy unreliable narrators, while journalists... I dunno, maybe they have too, maybe that's what Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, and the op-ed page are... but it sure feels like more transparency would help.
And thanks for asking if Substack is a social network. On its best days, I think it has the "feature, not destination" vibe that Chris Anderson once lauded (I wrote about it at https://naturalstories.substack.com/p/the-natural-cycles-of-scaled-social). Although I don't expect the model to remain stable much longer...
John, I have a second, entirely separate, comment. I was especially impressed that it would occur to you and to the current Williams newspaper staff to question newspaper coverage of a newspaper-organized campus event. To my knowledge, no such self-examination was ever voiced by anyone during my three years (1968-70) on the editorial board of the Notre Dame student newspaper. But that was when ND accepted 1 in 7 applicants (now it's 1 in 17), and even then I got in through the side door of a newly invented affirmative action program. Student sophistication and insight has advanced by light-years.
For me, the whole thing comes across as excessive self-indulgence. It could have been appropriate as literally a personal letter to a friend, but doesn't rise above that level. On the other hand, I'm familiar with others on Substack, and have seen more than a fair share of excessive self-indulgence. Which is unsurprising in an Era of Excessive Self-Indulgence, an Era originated--of course--by Boomers, of which I am one. And when I happen to encounter and re-read the columns I wrote for the college newspaper as a journalism major in the 1960s, I see excessive self-indulgence.
When you say "the whole thing," do you mean "this whole essay"? Or "this trend toward writers revealing personal stakes"? Or journalism (or metajournalism) in general?
That's an excellent question that I should have answered in my comment. But I didn't take the time to think it through, because when I wrote the comment this morning, I didn't take time to re-read your essay. Instead, I commented only upon reading this morning's 7 comments, because I felt that the excellent questions and arguments you posed shouldn't be drowned in unanimously approving comments. Now that I consider what you ask, what I consciously had in mind was "this whole essay."
I like reading nonfiction (more than I like reading most memoir) for the stories of other people. It sometimes strikes me, too, as self-indulgent when the author enters or overrides their story. A friend yesterday suggested this is a generational thing, "Here comes the Millennial self-indulgence."
But conveying those personal stakes is what editors want. Presumably what readers want. (When done well.) The question I'm trying to explore here is how those market trends might be tied to news judgement and trust. Is it better (more trust-inducing) to take readers behind the scenes of the news judgement decisions? Or it just navel-gazing? (Or does it matter how well it's done, acknowledging that I may not have done it well here?)
So you've articulated the key question, with a provocative answer. Thanks!
I think you're too generous in according to me any role in spurring your thinking on these complex considerations of trust and responsibility in institutions, publications, and persons. I can say this with certainty owing to the glaring differences I perceive between today's Williams newspaper editors and the equivalent editors at Notre Dame in the late 60s. Even at that, my presence among those ND editors had nothing to do with intellectual prowess, but rather to my lifelong insomnia and resulting ability to stay awake and alert and in control of the newsroom for well more than 24 hours, without the aid of illicit drugs.
Such fun to read someone else's mind working through the idea of trust! I agree with you about the loss of it being the biggest problem for journalism.
Something I wonder all the time is why Substack succeeds (so far) with this model, whereas Medium has been around with a similar idea for much longer and has certainly struggled with making it work.
Thanks John! Another thoughtful, transparent and vulnerable piece - building blocks of trust that we all yearn for these days. Credible, authentic reporting regardless of who is delivering will always be appreciated.
Thanks for the focus on the issue of trust. I am not a writer, but as a surgeon have learned some things about the subject.
1) it’s not “trust” as an entity, but the object of that trust that counts ( much like faith).
2) trust in a person takes time, a slow demonstration of consistent regard for others and truth.
BTW, could you define “news”?
Good question! Although Wikipedia defines it as "information about current events," I have come to think of it as, "a story worth sharing on this platform." Thus a bad (poorly written, shallow, or manipulative) story about current events shouldn't be news, where a great story about past or obscure events should be. The significance comes more from the relationships in the platform's community than the events themselves.
For example, when I was a 15-year-old sportswriter (https://naturalstories.substack.com/p/nature-story-and-local-journalism), I knew that the score of the game was news. But my editors, including the legendary Frank Wall, encouraged me to profile some of the players, because in a local afternoon newspaper where subscribers might already know the score, getting to know the kids in the community was a story worth sharing.
The only way to earn trust is to extend it. And that is hard.
John, another smart piece.
I love that you frame it around trust and then that you're forthcoming about your own involvement in the reunion -- and how that may compromise your objectivity. That you were involved in the planning of the event. We know where you're coming from. You may not be a completely reliable narrator (as we might saw when talking about a work of fiction).
All growing out of your belief "that good storytelling often requires revealing [your] personal stake in the story". When we, as writers, reveal that, we alert your readers to our own awareness of our limitations. While we strive to be objective, we appreciate that sometimes objectivity is a challenge.
That is the first part of building trust.
And methinks that in the ever-changing media market, from the introduction of blogs in the late '90s/early aughts to the rise of social media and Substack (does this platform count as social media?) in recent years, those writers who are as forthcoming as you are here will build trust with their readers.
And let's hope they build audiences as well.
Thanks Dan! This is exactly the conversation I hoped to open. I agree with you. Thanks for bringing up fiction: it's interesting how fiction writers have for decades trusted readers (even in "lowbrow" genres) to enjoy unreliable narrators, while journalists... I dunno, maybe they have too, maybe that's what Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, and the op-ed page are... but it sure feels like more transparency would help.
And thanks for asking if Substack is a social network. On its best days, I think it has the "feature, not destination" vibe that Chris Anderson once lauded (I wrote about it at https://naturalstories.substack.com/p/the-natural-cycles-of-scaled-social). Although I don't expect the model to remain stable much longer...