about how they see the world? it s hard to answer that in the abstract, but i think, basically.| don t want to hire people who a fair minded reader is going to think that they cannot totally trust on the subject. for any reason including because they have such a public stake in a side of an argument that you as a normal person are going to feel like it s going to be hard to trust them. i m interested to ask that question, because obviously rupert murdoch is investing heavily in opinion, and substack is really built around people whose opinions are really seen as valuable in and of themselves outside of a larger organisation. presumably, opinion has to be part of the equation here. i don t think we anticipate launching with much opinion journalism. i think there are ways, particularly getting scoops and breaking news, and a sort of open minded analysis that can connect with an audience without that kind of strident opinion that is often just
i think, if you talk to people certainly in the us and the uk, and many other places, if you either look at public opinion research or you ask them, you know, are you delighted, are you satisfied with the way the news being delivered to you, with the news you re getting? they will mostly say no, unfortunately. and i think there s a lot of things that we hope we can do well. one is hiring really great journalists and, you know, having their names, theirfaces prominent enough that the audience can feel like they know who they are getting their news from and feel connected to the people they re getting their news from, without stepping away from having a real news organisation and a guarantee, a central guarantee, of trust and a style and a voice. so, is this substack with a newsroom attached? no, but i think that newsrooms that don t learn what s happening you know, substack s a small example, but really all of the talent industries,
i actually think manyjournalists are eagerfor a new thing. i think there s been a pendulum swing, as it always does in this industry, you know, ten years ago towards lots of interesting new stuff, and then sort of a rush of people like me back to the new york times, back to the safety of these big established institutions, and i think there s a lot of appetite among journalists, actually, to try something new. could they be people who have strong opinions who are known for being public and strident about how they see the world? it s hard to answer that in the abstract, but i think, basically.| don t want to hire people who a fair minded reader is going to think that they cannot totally trust on the subject. for any reason including because they have such a public stake in a side of an argument that you as a normal person are going to feel like it s going to be hard to trust them. i m interested to ask that question, because obviously rupert murdoch is investing heavily in opinion,
and in a subscription business, maybe enough are for a lot of the businesses, it s actually very successful for them but my own experience of the times, in my own journalism, has been that people respond most strongly to the stories that don t disguise the journalist, aren t free of sensibility, aren t just the facts, ma am , but at the same time leave space for you know, are fundamentally reliant on the reporting and the information and leave space for a smart reader to disagree with you. so, are you already thinking about how you might do stories? so, the novak djokovic story is one of the biggest in the world at the moment. how would you do that differently to how other, established news organisations are doing it? one of the things is, we would compete with everybody to break it, right? i m not sure who broke it, maybe it was reuters. and another thing that i ve done in my career and which you just need to do is break huge stories that i would want, you know, that story fast
but the whole notion that withholding funds and obviously the pressure applied was done subtly but it seemed to me between the phone call and the various witnesses it s unmistakable that s what was going on. it would be foolish to think nothing else but that was going on. and that s what was so disheartening and disappointing. we know this president said things we were told not to do as kids. you know, don t make fun of someone s appearance, don t make fun of someone s handicaps, basically don t be cruel as a way of making a joke, if you will. and the other day the president talked about john dingell, i knew the guy, good guy i liked him. and he s a tough guy. and the president referred to him being in hell basically as a way to taunt his widow who was now a member of congress. where does that fit in your way of looking at trump? well, that s a classic