Reviewing Neutrality and Editorial ‘Cancel’ Culture after Weiss/Sullivan
In this piece: (1) clearing up some confusion as to whether or not publishers have to be neutral; (2) addressing the talked-to-death Andrew…
In this piece: (1) clearing up some confusion as to whether or not publishers have to be neutral; (2) addressing the talked-to-death Andrew Sullivan/Bari Weiss employment changes; (3) a new definition of ‘free speech absolutist.’
In the Niagara of words to follow high profile editorial changes over the last month, one newsletter hot take found its way to my inbox and caught my eye.*
In the piece, the author walks through Andrew Sullivan’s departure from New York Magazine, also mentioning Bari Weiss, before pivoting to her real argument: that Substack, where Sullivan is hanging his hat these days, is beginning to look a lot like a publisher.
Ah, the old publisher or platform query! (When I signed up for journalism I had no idea it’d require so much legal background.)
The thrust of the piece is that level of involvement and, by insinuation, lack of neutrality can make a platform a publisher, and that this has “editorial implications.” Substack has said it wants to cultivate “independent writers” and has forecasted its intention to provide infrastructural support to these writers above and beyond software. In an email to Study Hall, they reportedly said they are already working on legal support, and that they are “looking into” (that wonderfully corporate-sounding phrase which makes it hard to gauge intentions) healthcare, taxes, and work space support. The Substack defense is that the support is handled through third parties, making them a “facilitator”.
If we’re taking sides, the newsletter writer, Allegra Hobbs, has my vote.
Of course, a separate question here is whether or not lack of neutrality makes a platform a publisher. The answer, according to my favorite lawyer friend, is no. This is worth reviewing as it was a confusion I had. The legal standard — so far as I can surmise from a one-off background conversation — is that the distinction between a publisher and a platform is direct payments to the writers/editors. This is what distinguishes a Twitter thread from the New York Magazine’s “Intelligencer” section, and what gives the magazine a responsibility to, say, not leave up libelous pieces.
Neutrality is also not really relevant. As a publisher, New York Magazine could, in principle, decide they’ll only publish takes from left-handed writers, or writer’s whose favorite color is fuchsia, if they wanted to. So could a platform, for that matter. Corporations can set corporate policy, so long as it’s not illegal, on a whim.
The other tranche of the argument holds more promise. Do the services provided by Substack make it a publisher? On this standard, I’m tempted to argue, yes, Substack should be considered a publisher because legal protections, and if they follow through on their promise healthcare, tax support, and work space support, might constitute consideration in the legal sense. Perhaps. This is for the lawyers to figure out, I suppose. But Hobbs claim— that this is an example of them trying to have things both ways— is interesting.
Other notes on the situation
The connection between Weiss and Sullivan is commonly drawn. A Vox article, for instance, argues that these two cases embody a conflation “free-speech” advocates make between the right to free speech and the question of who delineates the boundaries of speech, culturally. This question is more pernicious than it might appear. The new understanding of “free speech absolutist” is someone who believes that there should be protections for interventions from government and corporations. In that sense, I’m an absolutist. Applied to editorial standards the question is not terribly concerning, and certainly a lot of this conversation is very sloppy. Applied to corporate life in general, however, these trends could be concerning.
I object slightly to Weiss and Sullivan being lumped together, though. Weiss’ piece, published on her site, was obviously hypocritical given her record (and the fact that she admits she quit, she wasn’t “forced out” is another difference). Weiss “cancelled” herself. In the case of Weiss, the real question is whether what she went through constitutes a hostile workplace environment, something she suggests in her exit letter. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a suit, she gets more from the appearance of martyrdom, brand-wise, than she would from an actual suit, but if one comes we’ll let the courts decide. In the case of Sullivan, I would argue, this is simply defensible editorial direction. Punditry is a volatile field. If Sullivan found himself at odds with the powers that be at his home publication that sucks but it is understandable. It is hard to tear up because a pundit lost a meal ticket. Sullivan himself seems to get this in a way that Weiss does not. Sullivan’s piece read more like an ad for his attempt to bring back The Dish, anyway. I look forward to seeing Sullivan’s work as he continues.
It seems like the writer of the newsletter wants to have it both ways, ironically. On the one hand, she references the state of the “crumbling industry.” On the other, she mocks Sullivan’s comment that he’s a “luxury they don’t want to afford”. It seems to me, from the outside of all this, that probably the budgetary concerns are a valid and probably meaningful component to all this, given the state of the industry.
Some consensus exists, apparently, as to whether Sullivan’s views on critical theory played a role in his exit. Sullivan mentions this as a plausible cause, and Hobbs mentions it in the Study Hall newsletter, recoding it as his views on “aka race science.” I read Sullivan’s piece in the Intelligencer after the newsletter take. Frankly, I’m not familiar enough with his positions on critical theory/race science to comment on whose misrepresenting the record here, so I’ll leave it there. But this seems like a very plausible area of the disagreement to me. Sullivan always seemed to embody a more conservative end of the gay rights movement and so it is not terribly surprising that he would fall out in left circles.
Note: I think I may be prevented from republishing according to the newsletter’s rules, so I just summarized relevant points to be on the safe side. If you’re interested in the original subscribe to Study Hall. Incidentally, it is a useful newsletter and I highly recommend any would-be freelancers sign up, and no, I don’t have a marketing agreement with them. The newsletter in question was written by Study Hall staff writer Allegra Hobbs.