You and Heather Cox Richardson are my two favorites so don’t reduce frequency, please. And don’t make me choose between your column topics. Write what speaks to you. We’ll read it.
Was going to say I'm overwhelmed by the emails and substacks too, but totally agree that anything Margaret writes(and Heather Richardson, and Parker Molloy, and Judd Legum) is worth reading! I will defer to your muse, and however many times it moves you to write! Thank you for your invaluable insights.
See, this is part of the problem. Thoughtful readers have just mentioned a half-dozen or so to check on. Those plus items from NYT, Guardian, Economist, etc. plus personal correspondence can take up a lot of time each day. I will always read commentaries from Margaret Sullivan (which I did when she was at the Post), however often she writes, and Heather Cox Richardson. For Sullivan, may 2-3 times a week, but whenever she writes is a must-read for me.
Once a week, more when an urgent issue arises. Focus on media and diverge when you want to. In other words, follow your sense of what’s most important. Thank you for your reporting!
First, about frequency: Like you, I just can't keep up with regular news (AP, NPR, local newspapers, NY Times and WaPo), let alone multiple posts from excellent sources such as Robert Reich. I feel as though I'm missing something unless I at least glance at each post. On the other hand, multiple posts appeal to readers looking for a particular focus, whether refugees or protecting the Constitution.
So your once-a-week post is a highlight for me. But please, post again if the situation requires it. I read everything on your page, whether I have time to comment or not. Any former journalist like me knows how much work is required to research an issue and deliver cogent commentary. Be kind to yourself.
Your second question is equally important. I rely on your wisdom concerning anything related to journalism. So your weekly commentary is essential. However, you're an omnivore reader of all news because of your background – so if you find something of burning interest, the rest of us will want to know about it.
Which serves as a bridge to this deeply obnoxious news from Oklahoma. I had not heard that the state will teach kids lies about the 2020 election. What's next? That OK didn't steal land from First Peoples?
And finally, thanks for the reminder about the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The First Amendment is in trouble under 47, and all of us need to remember that.
I like once a week, but as a WNY’er, I feel I am duty bound to read whatever you write ;)
My biggest fear about the future is how to “break through” the disinformation bubbles on the right. I think the MSM has been derelict in its work for many decades. I imagine all your readers are intelligent and savvy so you are kinda preaching to a choir. I think the real challenge is convincing the “tuned out” people that Trump is seriously dangerous. Tips on how to do that would be great!
I just started publishing on Substack, so I'm no expert. But two problems: 1. I find it hard to search for writers covering topics I'm interested in, e..g., those talking about how the Dems need to reform govt. to win back working class voters. 2. The entire independent publishing initiative will only harden the silos of info. Who can afford subscribing to dozens of newsletter @ $84 a pop? I'll never charge for my posts, but I understand that writers need to make a living. But the fractured newsletter environment will not make us broadly knowledgeable.
You do make a good point about silos. The remedy could be for contributors to avoid simply echoing ideological outrage in their content, but that's a big ask when anyone can post whatever they want.
About frequency: I always open your substacks early on, so that means I value your content. I think you and your readers are in a bind: for those of who are watching the collapse of the old model of big journalism, substacks have become invaluable -- and trusted as far as they go. But getting any kind of overview is work that used to be fairly reliably done for us by the big media - NYT, Wapo, LAT, etc. Now many of us try to piece our information diet together. You serve as a piece.
Some substacks serve the purpose that journalism used to of providing coherent, reliable information; I think of Legum, Radley Balko, some of the legal ones like Chris Geidner. Others are closer to opinion. If I find people's opinions interesting or intriguing I read some of those. You are usually in that category.
Meanwhile so many of the substackers turn to podcasts which I find don't help me because I read so much faster than I listen. I also retain more detail from the written work, I think.
Wow, Janinsandran! Thanks for that. I, too, find reading far preferable to listening to podcasts (if nothing else, I have to remove my hearing aids to put in Bluetooth earbuds, and it's just a pain in the ass). But seriously, Margaret, I'll try to read whatever you write, general and specific, but do prefer 1x or 2x a week (so I can keep up).
Twice a week,please, if you can manage it. And half and half: one general article, one on media would be my preference . As you say, it's impossible to cover the constant slew of outrages and you need a minute of self care to stay in good form. Sincerely, Jessie Kingston, Rhode Island
Perhaps a guest contributor once a week, in addition to your newsletter? To be brutally honest, as a paid subscriber who pays a similar subscription price for other Substack content, one piece a week is a little thin. That being said, I think your critique of the media is a very important part of any discussion of politics right now. So I value whatever contribution you can make. I would like some concrete suggestions in your newsletter about what those of us who are not journalists can do to improve media coverage in such perilous times. Thanks!
I respectively disagree with the notion of guest contributors; those folks probably have their own substacks already and I, like most of us, am already swamped with material to read. When I see that a post by Margaret Sullivan is available, I want to read what Margaret Sullivan has to say. I also strongly favor a written column rather than a podcast, which I won't spend the time listening to.
Once a week is great. I’m overwhelmed by all I feel I need to read and understand from smart and trusted sources. I never want your newsletter to go unopened! Thank you.
It was a relief to read "Big protest, but not not big news". Without your and other significant commentary (notably Rachel Maddow's) the reality of the size and scope of the anti drumpf protest was shuffled to the background.
Without the fourth estate and the judiciary our descent into fascist would proceed unchecked. Thank you for your work.
You and Heather Cox Richardson are my two favorites so don’t reduce frequency, please. And don’t make me choose between your column topics. Write what speaks to you. We’ll read it.
Was going to say I'm overwhelmed by the emails and substacks too, but totally agree that anything Margaret writes(and Heather Richardson, and Parker Molloy, and Judd Legum) is worth reading! I will defer to your muse, and however many times it moves you to write! Thank you for your invaluable insights.
Need to add another one: Marisa Kabas. I hope everyone here is reading Marisa's posts. She is exactly what independent journalism should be!
Yeah, really like Parker Molloy. Throw Joyce Vance in there, and Krugman.
See, this is part of the problem. Thoughtful readers have just mentioned a half-dozen or so to check on. Those plus items from NYT, Guardian, Economist, etc. plus personal correspondence can take up a lot of time each day. I will always read commentaries from Margaret Sullivan (which I did when she was at the Post), however often she writes, and Heather Cox Richardson. For Sullivan, may 2-3 times a week, but whenever she writes is a must-read for me.
Ditto!
It's unanimous!
Alan, I always appreciate your posts and your careful read. Thanks!
John Robinson expressed my sentiments exactly!
Mine too!
Agree completely. Keep the frequency and write what moves you.
We will, yes! TY for making this plain 🩷
Same! And thank you for your valuable content!
I second this view. Very fine reporting. Keep it up. And the frequency is just right.
I agree 👍
I agree!
Dear Ms Sullivan: please keep up the good work. One post a week seems about right. Best regards, Roland de Ligny, Leiden, Netherlands
Very kind. Will do!
Once a week, more when an urgent issue arises. Focus on media and diverge when you want to. In other words, follow your sense of what’s most important. Thank you for your reporting!
I think one of your posts per week is fine, but if you wrote five, I would read them all!
I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you. I could find something to say five times a week in this era. (But won’t!)
Your two questions are timely.
First, about frequency: Like you, I just can't keep up with regular news (AP, NPR, local newspapers, NY Times and WaPo), let alone multiple posts from excellent sources such as Robert Reich. I feel as though I'm missing something unless I at least glance at each post. On the other hand, multiple posts appeal to readers looking for a particular focus, whether refugees or protecting the Constitution.
So your once-a-week post is a highlight for me. But please, post again if the situation requires it. I read everything on your page, whether I have time to comment or not. Any former journalist like me knows how much work is required to research an issue and deliver cogent commentary. Be kind to yourself.
Your second question is equally important. I rely on your wisdom concerning anything related to journalism. So your weekly commentary is essential. However, you're an omnivore reader of all news because of your background – so if you find something of burning interest, the rest of us will want to know about it.
Which serves as a bridge to this deeply obnoxious news from Oklahoma. I had not heard that the state will teach kids lies about the 2020 election. What's next? That OK didn't steal land from First Peoples?
And finally, thanks for the reminder about the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The First Amendment is in trouble under 47, and all of us need to remember that.
I like once a week, but as a WNY’er, I feel I am duty bound to read whatever you write ;)
My biggest fear about the future is how to “break through” the disinformation bubbles on the right. I think the MSM has been derelict in its work for many decades. I imagine all your readers are intelligent and savvy so you are kinda preaching to a choir. I think the real challenge is convincing the “tuned out” people that Trump is seriously dangerous. Tips on how to do that would be great!
Once a week is exactly right. But you could do special additional posts as warranted.
Makes sense, thanks!
I just started publishing on Substack, so I'm no expert. But two problems: 1. I find it hard to search for writers covering topics I'm interested in, e..g., those talking about how the Dems need to reform govt. to win back working class voters. 2. The entire independent publishing initiative will only harden the silos of info. Who can afford subscribing to dozens of newsletter @ $84 a pop? I'll never charge for my posts, but I understand that writers need to make a living. But the fractured newsletter environment will not make us broadly knowledgeable.
You do make a good point about silos. The remedy could be for contributors to avoid simply echoing ideological outrage in their content, but that's a big ask when anyone can post whatever they want.
About frequency: I always open your substacks early on, so that means I value your content. I think you and your readers are in a bind: for those of who are watching the collapse of the old model of big journalism, substacks have become invaluable -- and trusted as far as they go. But getting any kind of overview is work that used to be fairly reliably done for us by the big media - NYT, Wapo, LAT, etc. Now many of us try to piece our information diet together. You serve as a piece.
Some substacks serve the purpose that journalism used to of providing coherent, reliable information; I think of Legum, Radley Balko, some of the legal ones like Chris Geidner. Others are closer to opinion. If I find people's opinions interesting or intriguing I read some of those. You are usually in that category.
Meanwhile so many of the substackers turn to podcasts which I find don't help me because I read so much faster than I listen. I also retain more detail from the written work, I think.
Thanks for your ongoing efforts.
Same for me with preferring to read. I guess if I had a long commute …
Wow, Janinsandran! Thanks for that. I, too, find reading far preferable to listening to podcasts (if nothing else, I have to remove my hearing aids to put in Bluetooth earbuds, and it's just a pain in the ass). But seriously, Margaret, I'll try to read whatever you write, general and specific, but do prefer 1x or 2x a week (so I can keep up).
Margaret, a weekly posting is fine. I leave scope and topic up to you.
Twice a week,please, if you can manage it. And half and half: one general article, one on media would be my preference . As you say, it's impossible to cover the constant slew of outrages and you need a minute of self care to stay in good form. Sincerely, Jessie Kingston, Rhode Island
I will read anything you write. I do seek out your posts. If something inspires you, please write about it when you want.
Perhaps a guest contributor once a week, in addition to your newsletter? To be brutally honest, as a paid subscriber who pays a similar subscription price for other Substack content, one piece a week is a little thin. That being said, I think your critique of the media is a very important part of any discussion of politics right now. So I value whatever contribution you can make. I would like some concrete suggestions in your newsletter about what those of us who are not journalists can do to improve media coverage in such perilous times. Thanks!
I respectively disagree with the notion of guest contributors; those folks probably have their own substacks already and I, like most of us, am already swamped with material to read. When I see that a post by Margaret Sullivan is available, I want to read what Margaret Sullivan has to say. I also strongly favor a written column rather than a podcast, which I won't spend the time listening to.
Once a week is great. I’m overwhelmed by all I feel I need to read and understand from smart and trusted sources. I never want your newsletter to go unopened! Thank you.
It was a relief to read "Big protest, but not not big news". Without your and other significant commentary (notably Rachel Maddow's) the reality of the size and scope of the anti drumpf protest was shuffled to the background.
Without the fourth estate and the judiciary our descent into fascist would proceed unchecked. Thank you for your work.
I agree with once a week, you choose topics of importance. Thank you for valuing our opinions.