Like all debates about "the media" this current one is operating in totally bad faith. VC's claim that journalists are "threatened" because anyone can be a journalist is maybe true from a pure distribution standpoint. But it's dishonest.

There's not enough medium posts and clubhouse chats in the world that would make them as happy a single positive story in NYT, WSJ, Bloomberg The Information etc. It's why the pitch us. We're a part of their business plan. More critically, we feed their ego.

And it's why any (slight) increase in critical stories has them so emotionally unsettled. It fucks up the daisy chain. And it makes them feel bad--I get it!

But also journalists are--per usual--too defensive and probably not honest about our motivations. All good (and even not very good) journalists I know try to be fair. But we're also driven by agendas, usually apolitical ones, that gravitate toward scandal.

It's the way our brains are tuned. And there's reinforcing feedback that "big" stories drive sourcing, gets attention, and makes us feel smart and righteous. For maybe a few minutes; then we go back to our miserable lives. This cycle also produces a lot of good.

(The economic argument, that we do it to sell ads feels off to me. Maybe the guiding hand of capital is more mysterious I give it credit for, but reporters are too far from that flywheel. And you'd be shocked to realize how little most understand about how the business works.)

People like @balajis @Jason should talk to more journalists; they lack the basic understanding of how reporting works. Critical stories come about because people tell us things, in the best cases, because they're unhappy about how things are and want them to change.

There's probably some self reflection both sides could have. But that won't happen, this is Twitter. Which, by the way, is none of our jobs.

Lastly, the treatment of @TaylorLorenz is barely masked harassment, and borderline obsessive. She's a great reporter, whose stories you all read and enjoy. Log off and calm down.