Are they saying milk from the teat is better? Pasteurization, homogenization, and bottling are all good things. They allow milk to be stored and transported easily, increase shelf life dramatically, and protect against the risk of food-borne illness. Pasteurization alone has saved countless lives. Isn't Politico supposed to have an editor who might catch that?
From just the tweet and headline, I thought they’re saying the opposite.
Like sub stack has shown that writers are shit and they need the refinement of editors, publishers, etc to turn their unfiltered thoughts into good (corporate friendly) media.
Didn’t read the article though.
The full paragraph is gold. So much going on here:
Partaking of a Substack column can be like drinking cow’s milk straight from the teat instead of waiting for it to be pasteurized, homogenized and bottled by the dairyman. Like drinking raw milk, the reading experience comes with pluses and minuses. It’s a rare Substack—even when written by a writer I admire—that wouldn’t be twice as good half as long. Not that self-indulgence is always a sin. I’d rather read Greenwald in all his woolly, ragged glory than see him bottled up by an editor. If you like your copy groomed and pristine, copy-edited professionally and fact-checked, and locked down by logic, some Substacks will give you fits. Some Substackers do more meandering than writing (you know who you are, Yglesias), pursuing their argument as if taking the longest possible route to buy a jug of milk from a 7-Eleven that’s only a block away from their door. Lots of Substacks read like lazy first drafts, probably because they are, taking forever to hit their marks, score their points and make their exit.
Are the saying Substack good becuase the writer is a raw milk guy or Substack bad because drinking straight from a cow titty is gross
The writer is vegan and is actually a proponent of not reading.
We should genetically engineer vegans to have chloroplasts so they can just absorb sunshine.
I tried substack out (as a reader, I don't rite gooder enough), and it just felt like an restricted rss feed? Anyone else have use case recommendation
I think the only thing that makes Substack moderately notable is that it has become a platform for the kind of journalists who would never be allowed to write for the Official Channels(TM). Kind of like Patreon has for podcasts. Of course, there's a lot of garbage on it too.
Politico is malding because a handful of muckrakers have found a way to keep on raking muck without being smote by the institutional media. Substack itself is just trying to get their bag though. It's not like they're actually on a mission to save journalism or anything.
As far as a use case goes, the only way I could see myself using it is to follow someone I'm interested in. I couldn't care less if they're on Substack, a personal blog, or whatever.
yes actually you don't suck on it you just spray it in your mouth
Pretty sure if you're mouth-locked on a cow teat you've cut out more than the dairyman.
