I've seen Walter name-dropped quite a bit recently, some in praise for "County Highway" (especially the un-paylled article on Minnesota fraud), others in various year-end reviews as a source of general wisdom and a few X-quotes.
Matt gets consistent mentions at places like Instapundit for articles on Racket, always emphasizing that he is a serious (not so-called) journalist who is constantly digging into hard questions and doing invaluable reporting.
So maybe swan about the studio a bit, take a bow or little victory lap today. You deserve a wider audience.
They actually have quite a wide Substack audience.
Someone like Michael Shellenberger gets only 25-40 comments on any of his widely-spaced Substack articles (which are becoming repetitive and old hat). While Matt and Walter average over 500 comments per article, several times a week.
Does that say something about us as readers/commenters, or about them as writers? Perhaps both.
I don't know how things are measured in the new media economy, but is Matt now at the point where something like a chair or seat at the table on a regular show on CNN or MSNOW or FOX would be a step DOWN? In terms of audience, not to mention prestige, dignity and $$$. ?
Matt's wired differently. Scott gets his cookies off by tangling with the bloviating boors on CNN and Matt's more thoughtful and reflective. I've seen him get dismantaled by the likes of that Hasan guy and Bill Maher b/c they come at you fast and loose and that's just not the way he's built.
Jenning LOVES that kind of shit. He's a football lineman, or a hockey player, and Matt's a hoopster or tennis guy. It just ain't his style, and that ain't his arena.
Furthermore; MSM makes its coin on shoutin' and screamin' in these sorts of panels. People tune in to watch the fights the way they used to with that Jerry guy back in the 90's.
I know what you mean. I prefer written debate to verbal debate because the writing gives me time to think it over. Quickly reactive answers are not always the best.
There is less oversight on new media such as Substack. None, in fact. In some ways, it is the Wild West. That cannot last forever. There are already cracks appearing in this format.
If there is a lull in the upcoming comments, I will add an OFF-TOPIC comment or two about the psychology behind the Jews as scapegoats of their Middle Eastern neighbours (and their allies) for several thousand years.
Maybe Michael Tracey could join the pod. Gypsy v pedophile nuance master could compete in a good old fashioned debate about whether Israel is gods chosen country or simply god.
I wonder who would interrupt more.
Stay the course, boys. Just in case the FBI arrested a patsy in the Kirk thing. The real killers may still be on the loose. 🤣🤣🤣
Nick Shirley's video has now become a meta-media story, in that the video itself and its 100M views are a huge news story in itself and at some point the MSM has to report at least on that aspect of it, not to mention the subtance of Shirley's investigation.
But, with the exception of the NYPost, crickets. It's so astonishing that the Minneapolis Star-Tribune just published their "Year-in-Review" and there was NOTHING about any fraud prosecusions in MN, didn't make the top 50 news stories according to them.
I have few complaints about this show, but the only quibble is lack of real response to the comments here at Racket, instead reading off hot-takes from live YouTube zinger-jockeys.
I get it -- as David Foster Wallace wrote about, talk radio (which is what this essentially is) is a strange medium where there is almost zero real-time feedback. That's why hosts like live callers, while producers think they are boring or of low utility.
Guys, for a book, cover either "Host", or DFW's piece for Rolling Stone on the 2000 John McCain campaign. Both are startingly prescient and also devastatingly funny.
I've seen Walter name-dropped quite a bit recently, some in praise for "County Highway" (especially the un-paylled article on Minnesota fraud), others in various year-end reviews as a source of general wisdom and a few X-quotes.
Matt gets consistent mentions at places like Instapundit for articles on Racket, always emphasizing that he is a serious (not so-called) journalist who is constantly digging into hard questions and doing invaluable reporting.
So maybe swan about the studio a bit, take a bow or little victory lap today. You deserve a wider audience.
They actually have quite a wide Substack audience.
Someone like Michael Shellenberger gets only 25-40 comments on any of his widely-spaced Substack articles (which are becoming repetitive and old hat). While Matt and Walter average over 500 comments per article, several times a week.
Does that say something about us as readers/commenters, or about them as writers? Perhaps both.
I don't know how things are measured in the new media economy, but is Matt now at the point where something like a chair or seat at the table on a regular show on CNN or MSNOW or FOX would be a step DOWN? In terms of audience, not to mention prestige, dignity and $$$. ?
A more concise way to ask: Matt, if you could trade places with Scott Jennings, would you?
Matt's wired differently. Scott gets his cookies off by tangling with the bloviating boors on CNN and Matt's more thoughtful and reflective. I've seen him get dismantaled by the likes of that Hasan guy and Bill Maher b/c they come at you fast and loose and that's just not the way he's built.
Jenning LOVES that kind of shit. He's a football lineman, or a hockey player, and Matt's a hoopster or tennis guy. It just ain't his style, and that ain't his arena.
Furthermore; MSM makes its coin on shoutin' and screamin' in these sorts of panels. People tune in to watch the fights the way they used to with that Jerry guy back in the 90's.
Neither Matt nor Walter are built that way.
I know what you mean. I prefer written debate to verbal debate because the writing gives me time to think it over. Quickly reactive answers are not always the best.
Two different talents though some are good at both. Matt is a writer.
There is less oversight on new media such as Substack. None, in fact. In some ways, it is the Wild West. That cannot last forever. There are already cracks appearing in this format.
The new media rules and structure are being made-up as they go along, it seems.
If there is a lull in the upcoming comments, I will add an OFF-TOPIC comment or two about the psychology behind the Jews as scapegoats of their Middle Eastern neighbours (and their allies) for several thousand years.
Hi Jim,
Wishing you and your wife a happy holiday season and a good New Year!
Maybe Michael Tracey could join the pod. Gypsy v pedophile nuance master could compete in a good old fashioned debate about whether Israel is gods chosen country or simply god.
I wonder who would interrupt more.
Stay the course, boys. Just in case the FBI arrested a patsy in the Kirk thing. The real killers may still be on the loose. 🤣🤣🤣
Better talk about Nick Shirley's reporting on the Somali day care fraud and Tanpon Tim's involvement.
Nick Shirley's video has now become a meta-media story, in that the video itself and its 100M views are a huge news story in itself and at some point the MSM has to report at least on that aspect of it, not to mention the subtance of Shirley's investigation.
But, with the exception of the NYPost, crickets. It's so astonishing that the Minneapolis Star-Tribune just published their "Year-in-Review" and there was NOTHING about any fraud prosecusions in MN, didn't make the top 50 news stories according to them.
The "Minnesota Nice" old-stock population seems to be just as prone to being hit by Cluster-B types as the Dudley Do-Right Canadians and the Jews.
The Goodists in co-dependency to the Bad-ists. (Yes -- take a long slow breath and consider for a moment what that means).
My only true listen you guys.
I have few complaints about this show, but the only quibble is lack of real response to the comments here at Racket, instead reading off hot-takes from live YouTube zinger-jockeys.
I get it -- as David Foster Wallace wrote about, talk radio (which is what this essentially is) is a strange medium where there is almost zero real-time feedback. That's why hosts like live callers, while producers think they are boring or of low utility.
Guys, for a book, cover either "Host", or DFW's piece for Rolling Stone on the 2000 John McCain campaign. Both are startingly prescient and also devastatingly funny.
Looking forward to more Epstein hand waving and nose holding- check Drop Site News for actual reportage!
Yay, I can watch this one live!