for being public and strident about how they see the world? it s hard to answer that in the abstract, but i think, basically. . .i 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
and lunacy and someone seeking a headline. those are probably true. i think the danger in this, when you get to matters like ukraine and russia, whether it s opinion journalism or hard news, a lot of programming is built around political news that confirms somebody s viewpoint of the world and that s great. that s why some people choose in network. some choose others. it aligns with their view of politics. but when you re those are low information spaces with the message of those who cover the news really matters and informs and so for a large audience across the country when tucker carlson delivered this message, it s dangerous because it s actually informing and educating people that the western alliance that protects freedom from dictators and authoritarian des pits like putin somehow is not valuable and there s equity between putin and the western
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 about affirming peoples pre existing beliefs. that s been my personal experience. can i ask you how you re planning to handle opinion? you would ve been well aware within the new york times there was a big row internally. i covered it. you covered it! ..after the op ed article which suggested military force might be used to respond
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 about affirming peoples pre existing beliefs. that s been my personal experience. can i ask you how you re planning to handle opinion? you would ve been well aware within the new york times there was a big row internally. i covered it. you covered it! ..after the op ed article which suggested military force might be used to respond to back lives matter protests. how did you view the times s handling of that, and how might that inform your approach to covering subjects on which staff do not agree? yeah, ithink.