Novara Media

Amusing that a Novara thread has turned into an LRB thread - I feel like Mark S would have a theory for this, viz. "all threads are ultimately about the LRB and Perry Anderson" or the like.

ru thinking of this?

the moral arc of an ilx thread can be long, but it bends toward rory mcgrath

Quite.

Though my own arc, as you know, is usually towards Perry.

Except many of these writers go on social media and say they would never write for The Mail.

Well one we weren't talking about "many of these writers", we were talking about one writer in specific.

But also there is an obv difference between the two, as the Mail is unlikely to publish lenghty pieces of leftist analysis. Flattening it so they are equally bad doesn't scan to me.

If Butler should worry about squaring his politics with writing for it, shouldn't those of us who buy and read it also make that calculation?

I don't intend to flatten them (though I did pull out "the tons of right-wing guff" bit), but given we are talking about a leftist project I am wondering about where a founder goes onto another ship that can publish that Grenfell piece. This is where the people coming from it aren't trustworthy.

this is moralising shitlib nonsense alph

Yeah, looking at the UK media landscape I do think that the only place he could go that hasn't done far far worse than the LRB is unemployment.

Still unsure as to why leftists buying and reading the LRB is ok in that case tho?

I am not the one pushing guff like Luxury communism.

no you're just talking brainless anti-politcal nonsense

I am not the only one in the thread pushing the "they only want a seat in the media table" angle here. Sorry if this offends.

https://novaramedia.com/2022/10/05/trusss-conference-speech-heckled-by-greenpeace-update-on-chris-kaba-killing/

Tysky Sour this Wednesday. Bastani unusually in the anchor role. Dalia Gebrial quite good.

Good factual analysis of Truss speech and its lies. I hadn't realised it had been so awful - predictable as that sounds.

Funny rhetorical thing about Tysky Sour is that whenever they disagree they say "I'm going to push back on that slightly".

you would love the rhetorical convolutions of the office workplace pinefox. 'That generated some pushback' = 'people disagreed with what we/they/i said'.

couldn't sleep and actually got up because i thought i had something to say on this thread, but it turns out i don't.

...a few minutes pass...

so anyway.

mark's comment upthread on the pp of soc-med making tactics and strategy harder was nagging away at me, and i'd like to get into that a bit more, but it turned into a tangle of content distribution, the economics of journalism and epistemic health in my head, and now i'm too tired to untangle.

i did think at one point 'how do you solve a problem like comrade alph'. sorry not sorry though because what i was actually wondering is what is the publication model that works for xyzzzz here. I think 'loud twitter account with a mario avatar' is a good baseline, and to xyzzzz's point, if your content doesn't get above that floor, then what's the point. Also I can legit see that Novara doesn't pass that test for alph (or me for that matter, probably for slightly different reasons), tho Sarkar is good not bad and boils the piss of the right people, even if it is a bit of a gig, and Butler's writing and thinking is good enough in other places to pass that test.

that 'other places' needs testing in 'the content publication and distribution model that works for xyzzzz' world.

assuming briefly a very compressed narrative

• newspapers were more or less congruent and part of the liberal project (this is open to argument, i think mainly on the edges though, and it seems to me obvious, socially, technologically, to such an extent that i find 'how can x publication present content of different editorial positions!' a bizarre... or maybe better, a very *modern* criticism.)
• i was going to say: despite self-perception, their market value turned out to be in the distribution model, not the editorial model, but that's not fair. that *was* where their value was, and the internet smashed the distribution model and broke the editorial+ads commercial value *and* the self-perceived (by journalist, editor *and* reader) value of the newspaper*. subscriptions are a fairly desperate and unsustainable attempt to manage this (you never had a model before where you tried to buy a paper and they said sorry you've got to pay for a year).
• content creation rapidly unbundles, with writers and readers able to have a direct relationship
• the commercial model across content creation and distribution, of writers being able to sell their articles directly to readers while still retaining the rights, is still turbulent however - the most popular writers ('a steady output of journalism for which readers are willing to pay') are able to make far far more than they ever would as part of a newspaper (someone estimated that, say, Bill Bishop Sinocism newsletter on China: 70,000 subscribers, $1 million dollars per year as a writer). But of course there is no cross-subsidisation of writers in that model. if you don't want to read other writers, that's a good thing - you're not paying for them - but equally it reduces the range you're able to access for your dollar.
• medium, substack, still haven't shown themselves to be durable models for content.

But to take xyzzzz's baseline as a starting point.

if your platforms are free publication (mario avatar), then you have a problem of curation, gatekeeping and epistemic health - a fairly significant burden on the individual. it also gives you problems of increasing your knowledge at the margin - you may be able to curate your core interests successfully, but what's your quality filter for adding to that - i guess this is sometimes referred to as the bubble, though that is really used politically rather than epistemically. editorial bundling is/was ofc in theory a higher grade solution to that quality problem.

ultimately soc-med/twitter to me doesn't seem to me desirable for mainly for reasons of its unhealthy mimetic and memetic dynamics, which I think play directly into the mark s point that was nagging away at me.

there's also the vexed question of platform 'we're not publishers!' responsibilities, which I imagine will become very visible if Musk's purchase of twitter goes through. Right now, the same opprobrium isn't levelled at twitter in the way, say, it would be at any publication that shared similar content.

so, let's see if there's a model we can run which enables us to get above that unsatisfactory (to me, maybe not to xyzzzz) baseline.

let's assume the basic unit of value in this unbundled world is the article (accepting this may need to include 'tweet or twitter thread' though it's extremely rare that any of these of value don't refer to content outside of twitter). the question then becomes 'what articles would xyzzzz pay for?'. If the answer is 'none' then, sorry writer of cogent left-wing analysis and mobilising principles, to Daniel RF's point, you're unemployed, or see you at the LRB, Tribune or Guardian or whatever. And accepting the soc-med challenges above, it's game over - there's no model that works for our Beloved Comrade.

If the answer is 'I will pay price of a cup of coffee (or whatever) for articles on certain subjects, or by certain writers', then ok, we can move on, turn to page 254 etc.

there are organisational challenges (this I think is the flip side to mark s's tactics/strategy point) in the unbundled model. particularly from a political point of view. so the next question becomes, what organisational/aggregation editorial model of publication would create a sufficient level of article quality density for xyzzzz to pay for either a subscription or the regular purchase of a publication. We know it's not Novara - that doesn't have any density of quality that breaks the mario avatar baseline, (apart from maybe the China Mieville piece). Tho he, as has been pointed out correctly, sucks. One model *might* a political organisation with a sufficiently strong set of editorial principles that would make sense in terms of 'politcal donation + editorial output' value for xyzzzz. I liked xyzzzz's point about something that would interest him would be if the shouting 'I am a communist!' at Piers Cunt got expanded. So let's assume that's its editorial principle. Tho 'whatever the viewing figures' caveat to that is surely the problem here.

I'd like to think it is actually a reasonable assumption that with sufficiently low production costs there is enough interest in teh UK and beyond to generate enough cash to sustain this as a viable model. After all, and Mark S will set me straight here, left-wing publications have either had extremely low production costs, and still relied on content creator goodwill, or have had patronage (the LRB model) that enables them to endure.

However, given the baseline, the problem of generating income across bundled content is far far harder than it's ever been, and requires consistent levels of quality that are hard to achieve. I think at most we tap out at individual article purchases, which leaves organising principles a big challenge. Probably time to dig out the copy of Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest that I never read. Mainly, I think we're stuck with Novara for the foreseeable.

* i guess one view much of the journalist as campaigning, investigative corrector of social justice floods out from this loss of self-perceived value, leaving a scum of journalistically self-satisfied opinion on social justice correction.

oh look, dawn.

Fizzles: it's not that I am unfamiliar with 'pushback' or 'pushing back' in general, just that in Tysky Sour's case it is the *default* term for 'disagree', to a possibly amusing extent.

As you can tell, I don't share your view of Novara Media. I think it's good. While other media organizations do indeed have historic crises of funding, etc, it doesn't currently appear that Novara shares this problem, and I think that's good too.

We need to genuinely consider the possibility that the Tories are now actively trying to lose. https://t.co/bWNN1PZMjF

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) October 7, 2022

Dr Bastani makes identical observation to ILX.

ILX expresses contempt for Dr Bastani's judgment.

It was already reported on the bbc that some Tory MP's at the conference expressed the opinion that the party might benefit from a period of opposition to rebuild their brand. They might well be preparing to lose and perhaps some on here might agree. That doesn't mean when Bastani starts telling people that it may be a stark choice, but they HAVE to vote for Kieth he will be any less of a wanker!

There are many opinions on ilx. ILX doesn't think one thing, for one.

I don't think they are trying to lose. A wing of the Tory party that doesn't care for veterans has taken over.

"That doesn't mean when Bastani starts telling people that it may be a stark choice, but they HAVE to vote for Kieth he will be any less of a wanker!"

I think that's a reasonable statement, but it's hypothetical - he hasn't said it yet.

What he has repeatedly said is that he will vote for a party that promises PR, and not for one that doesn't. He has also said that KS would never introduce PR.

He is not always reliable so may change his stance in some way, I agree.

I didn't expect this. Oliver Eagleton, on Novara, on the need for a peace deal in the Ukraine war.

https://novaramedia.com/2022/10/07/liz-truss-doesnt-care-about-stopping-the-war-in-ukraine/

Elon Musk was proposing something similar in Novara the other week

To generally answer the points Fizzles raises, and looking back over yesterday's discussion on Butler and his joining the LRB in the aftermath of Grenfell, I think the word I am looking for is...integrity.

wrt Butler he is -- as Fizzles says -- a good writer, analyst and commentator. He wrote very good criticisms of Corbyn's time at the head of Labour, and I guess since Butler joined the editorial board they haven't made as bad an error as Grenfell. I don't think (as Daniel first said) it was unemployment or LRB. They are making enough money to pay staff @ Novara, but I think that's enough speculation on one person and we all have to eat, pay rent and the like.

But overall this is where Novara fall short. In the main they really lack integrity if you look at Bastani and Walker especially they really are chancers and I think what I look for in this left-wing ecosystem is integrity, a sense that this is serious (none of the Luxuru Commnunism claptrap), that these people have things I want to read and learn from.

The folk at New Socialist (https://newsocialist.org.uk/) seem to have that except it falls down on a second criteria in that the writing and editing are just lacking. I find the pieces over-long or not organised well enough but I think the people at the helm sound really good to me. They also run collective sessions where you can talk to the board and debate/agree on future direction and content. But, they are very much crawling, by the sounds of it.

I hope that this isn't taken as cheap cynicism or the "no ethical consumption under capitalism" get out of jail free card, but I don't think I've ever expected integrity from leftist media, or at least not in the sense xyzz is using it here. Which is to say, I take it as a given that any for profit venture that has the reach/media savviness to penetrate into the mainstream (even to the very small degree Novara has) will contain its fair share of chancers and opportunists (I think this also holds true for political parties, i.e. labour under Corbyn of course still had enormous amounts of these types). So I look at left media as a tool, and judge it by how efficient it is at throwing the ideas I'd like into the mainstream; the motivations of the writers I always take as suspect, I don't think of them as my parasocial comrades.

Within that point of view, I think Novara's obviously had some success, but as per anvil I think the problem is they're blithe and complacent. They seldom manage to cut through in a way that goes beyond the (admitidely enjoyable) "get Piers Morgan angry" stunt. I can't imagine anyone who isn't already a leftist being convinced by much of what they publish, and for those who already are, I don't think they have that much to offer. I know pinefox disagrees with me on this point, but I've stopped listening to their shows because I almost never get any info or insight that I didn't already have from them; what I do get is a strong emotional charge of anger at whatever right wing fucks they're talking about on any given episode, and while that can be cathartic ultimately it just leaves me with a lot of impotent rage, which I imagine is what right wing ppl get out of LBC or whatever.

New Socialist is an interesting counterpoint because I do agree that they probably have this integrity xyzz speaks of but fail completely in terms of cutting through anywhere, really, their audience is made up entirely of those knee deep into academic leftist circles and the writing seems designed to make sure they never ever go beyond that.

I send money to both, lol.

I liked xyzzzz's point about something that would interest him would be if the shouting 'I am a communist!' at Piers Cunt got expanded.

fwiw this shows up in my recommended feed a lot. It's labelled as the kind of expansion asked for, but alas I do not think I am up for spending an hour and a half on a sunny Saturday finding out if it is indeed that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p53yVAD4n1s

re: Mieville: "He’s awful, and has somehow not been visited by the MeToo fairy."

sorry something like this needs some follow up.

There was a public accusation but I heard it was "lawyered off the internet", seen little bits about his behavior on forums but not much.

The public aren’t stupid. Labour are on course to form the next government. And as I’ve said previously Starmer has executed an effective strategy. But he comes across as dishonourable & dishonest (he is). In office that would become v toxic, very quickly. pic.twitter.com/giRXLJf3K7

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) October 8, 2022

The public aren't stupid.

lol what "effective strategy" is he talking about? he's been less than useless for 18 months and if the Truss bomb hadn't blown up the other lot there wouldn't be any serious talk about the inevitability of a Labour govt

I am assuming the effective strategy has been to sideline the left-wing of the party and (so they think) making them ok for Tories to switch.

It's odd how the focus group people can't easily say 'smarmy' and say 'swarmy'.

I think if I were being filmed for a focus group I would try to make an effort to talk clearly and incisively. I might fail. But the people who actually get filmed for these things don't even try.

it's not even worth calling a strategy if it's success is almost entirely dependant on the Tories imploding

I mean to know what he means we would have to click on and read an Unherd link which

Bastani's emphasis in that post is not that KS has been effective, but that KS is seen as dishonest and this could be a problem for him if he does get into government.

Is that true?

It appears plausible.

AB can be relied upon to say things that are hilarious as well as insightful.

Here he is seriously saying that William Shatner is "worth reading".

(He's right.)

“Grief”. This is worth reading by Shatner on his flight to space.

I think it’s likely any attempted colonies on Mars or the Moon would create a renewed sense of how extraordinary our planet is, & how we have a duty to protect it. Analogous to seeing Earth from Space as a moment. https://t.co/7YzVnOyld9

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) October 9, 2022

I mean to know what he means we would have to click on and read an Unherd link which

― Daniel_Rf, Sunday, 9 October 2022 bookmarkflaglink

Not really, he's not like a deep thinker. Quite happy to assume based on his tweets.

Deep thinkers are the only ppl you should assume the positions of without reading them, actually.

That's right

"There was a public accusation but I heard it was "lawyered off the internet", seen little bits about his behavior on forums but not much."

I read the wayback archive of the essay that was removed and TBH, it is practically incomprehensibly overwritten, and at no point does it seem to actually outline what I think the courts would call 'abuse'. it sounds like he was dishonest and perhaps fucking around. maybe I'm missing something.

Good post. AB often strong on housing.

The thing driving unaffordability is rent-seeking by the ultra rich who, in a context of low returns elsewhere, view real estate as the golden goose. This mindset below just ends up basically accepting slums and doss houses. https://t.co/9974HDHdwr

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) October 9, 2022

All we need to do is fix the tax codes lol

Tax cuts which save ordinary people a few hundred quid but the ultra rich a few hundred thousand don’t leave everyone better off.

Why? Because the rich put that money into assets, which appreciate in value, and make ordinary people comparatively poorer. pic.twitter.com/1eIBYQGqIg

— Aaron Bastani (@AaronBastani) October 9, 2022

Strangely Novara also hosts this recurring audio series about ... music? ACFM. I don't know what it stands for.

https://novaramedia.com/2022/10/09/acfm-trip-27-magic/

Not my scene but demonstrates how much Novara Media offers.

ACFM is a podcast: FM is the old-tiems radio frequency indicator, AC apparently stands for "Acid Corbyinism"

Getting back to the parallel CM discussion:

"There was a public accusation but I heard it was "lawyered off the internet", seen little bits about his behavior on forums but not much."

I read the wayback archive of the essay that was removed and TBH, it is practically incomprehensibly overwritten, and at no point does it seem to actually outline what I think the courts would call 'abuse'. it sounds like he was dishonest and perhaps fucking around. maybe I'm missing something.

― akm, Sunday, October 9, 2022 7:38 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Serial headfuckery probably isn't illegal but it's still wrong, and people that do it need to be called out otherwise they just continue making other's lives a misery. Assuming it's true of course, which I'd guess it is.

A tweet on Eagleton's piece (I'm not reading it).

I think this is a really crass and insensitive piece to have run. I'm aware that many of the dissenting responses are from liberal/centrist types, so it makes this seem like an issue of left versus centrist. I think it's worth saying (as a left voice) that's not what this is https://t.co/v1tR3roBB7

— Rachel Connolly (@RachelConnoll14) October 10, 2022

Sarkar will broadcast from Mexico.

I’m back on #TyskySour (reporting from Novara’s unofficial Oaxaca City desk) tonight! Tune in from 7pm, as me and @michaeljswalker dissect the day’s biggest news. pic.twitter.com/pspC1UorWm

— Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) October 10, 2022

Not my style generally to say things like this, but I write for this outlet too occasionally and frankly I'm embarrassed by the association

oof! I'm not interested if British people have strong opinions on the Ukraine War and the support they are getting from the UK govt. I'd be more interested in what people who live there have to say.

zombie brezhnevism in the guise of anti-imperialism vs imperialism in the guise of liberal humanitarianism is such a dismal debate to be trapped in and the left needs to do *much* better (because the right/centre never will)

for a start forget about what "britain needs" for a moment ffs

Serial headfuckery probably isn't illegal but it's still wrong, and people that do it need to be called out otherwise they just continue making other's lives a misery. Assuming it's true of course, which I'd guess it is.

This is essentially what happened and the person who it happened to was once a very close friend, so I did not appreciate ~boys~ weighing in on how my old friend wrote about the way she was unwillingly turned into this creep’s victim, and the fallout that continues to haunt her interactions to this day. His MO seems to be to target women who are intellectual or professional equals and then act to diminish them. Another friend of a few of us here who knows him but who has never been involved with him *like that* said, after I mentioned knowing his victim, ‘that’s how he rolls…’

Looks like a good demolition of Eagleton Jr.

This is complete shit. Yes there are pro-NATO liberals in a tizzy about it, but this doesn't detract from the mundane realpolitik liberalism of the article itself which barely, if at all, sets out an anti-war perspective. https://t.co/JGOOuj7gRN

— libcom.org (@libcomorg) October 10, 2022