undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointsDoctorOW3y ago0 comments

"Mainstream Media" especially in contexts like these is meaningless. You seem to mean many PEOPLE don't like them. There's an argument to be made that for the average person, being attacked by a number of Substack's writers would make that average person less likely to explore their other writers offerings. Fewer readers means less revenue.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

AlbertCory3y ago· 3 in thread

What?

"Mainstream media" is certainly not meaningless. A good proxy would be any organ considered an "authoritative source" by Facebook: NYT, WaPo, CNN, Politico, AP, etc.

As for "fewer readers" I don't know what you mean. The "readers" are paying their money, aren't they?

DoctorOWOP3y ago

Meaningless in that the phrase is used almost exclusively in the way you use it, and yet you (and others) aren't able to construct a coherent definition. Regarding your examples, Facebook was a weird choice of authority when viewership/readership are easily researched numbers. I bring this up partially because the only thing that you believe is "media" is news sources but the most popular news sources aren't "mainstream media"? There is clearly something specific you're filtering for but are unwilling to say. Until you do the term means nothing.

AlbertCory3y ago

Wow, you're really going to elaborate lengths of pedantry here, aren't you?

"Please define 'mainstream media' and no, I'm not satisfied with your definition."

Why is this important? You could make a list of 100 news sources and ask a random sample of 1,000 people to check Yes/No on "is this mainstream media?" You would get a very high level of agreement. It's not my responsibility to give you a definition you're happy with. This isn't a scientific debate.

DoctorOWOP3y ago

I pointed out that you've yet to make any attempt to define it and still haven't.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse