I took a look at Tablet's coverage of Russiagate and it's deeply misleading, suggesting they never bothered to read the Mueller and Senate Intel Committee reports.
And her inclination to see a conspiracy of silence in the media leads me to think she's closer to Bret Weinstein than Walter Cronkite. She is no different from those in her cohort who have a suspicious enthusiasm for Camp of the Saints and Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
I think Alana Newhouse not knowing how UATX is having it's own free speech issues is interesting. She didn't approach how the right started to be in media silos in the 2000s. How the left media silos are a response to that. There were interesting ideas in this interview, but it was mostly unsatisfying to me. In part she was dancing around issues and in part not engaging in what she really thinks.
A round table about the media bias around Israel and Palestine would be very interesting. Like why it gets so much attention from US media outlets.
Interesting interview, but I found Alana's response on Gaza lacking. Like Meghan, I'm unsure what to believe based on the multiple sources I read. Why is Alana so certain that she's right? Does she have access to the "truth" based on inside sources in Israel/Gaza? My sense is that biases are skewing coverage from both sides and that there are no good guys in this fight.
Regarding building new institutions, I think in medicine in particular (a profession subject to no small amount of scorn from these people), it is a completely different question than it building a media company.
Private practice medicine is rapidly disappearing thanks to the ACA, so most physicians, even very good ones, are employed and answer to an HR department, which works about the same as most HR departments. In addition to that, we have a tangled web of administrative bodies controlling what's on board exams, what insurance companies pay for, what we can be sued for etc. etc. And in general, these administrative bodies are staffed by people who are highly educated, but not bright enough to make it as professionals themselves.
I have some ideas about medicine of course, but the situation is very, very bad, and I can't just go found a new hospital, medical board, or insurance company on my own.
Her anecdote about a Gen Z wanting tangible sources of print news media they can physically hold on to (lending them greater authority) rings true and ultimately jives with Gen X’s anti-authoritarian leanings. If any generations are willing to recognize such new alternatives to “the wallpaper of the Internet” and to financially support them if possible, it’s these two.
1. Alana is right that any brand new organization like UATX is going to hit some proverbial "bumps in the road". I did read about the controversy where a major donor objected to an affiliate institution making statements about DEI. ( And I remember a couple advisory board members leaving. I don't think we should declare the sky falling - as Alana noted, think how quickly they went from idea to "butts in seats." Let's revisit the topic in say, 2030.
2. At the elite schools, trustee boards are useless, in large part because the majority of seats are held by administration appointees, rather than by direct alumni election. Moreover, the election process is either very onerous
Also, candidates at these schools are expressly forbidden from issuing campaign platforms or statements. The rationale is that the Boards don't want members beholden to a certain constituency.
Would you wan to vote in an election in which candidates are not allowed to state their views?
Meghan, what is confusing about Gaza? Honest question. Why is it hard to formulate opinions about it at this point? How are media people acting like this is hard to parse?
If I wanted people to ignore mass murder of civilians I might also say, “oh gee, I really can’t comprehend whyyyy there is so much coverage of this tiny strip of land.” 🤔 AIPAC, US tax dollars flowing to Israel, a strategic alliance for geopolitical reasons. Why play dumb?
Nice interview. I agree on the issue of "Russiagate" with DJ. There was a there there, but I liked her. And dammit, I subscribed! As if I need another one...
I think, historically, things have been cyclical. That said, we have never had the juggernaut of capitalism in the past. It's not self-correcting; it's about a profit motive. Climate change will worsen - nothing indicates that we are up for that task that we face and, in fact, much indicates we aren't (though, yes, some are trying); nothing indicates that we are up for the task of dealing with alignment issues of AI (and I LOVE AI, but we seem screwed); nothing indicates that we can deal - in a capitalist world - with the population collapse that is coming. Maybe, we can go post-capitalist; maybe AI will solve all our problems. But this isn't the normal cycle in history. Capitalism is basically Thelma and Louise driving towards the edge of the cliff. Could they pull up and not fly over the cliff? Maybe. But don't bet on it. So when you pull back and look at the big picture, realize that optimism about this as just another historical cycle is, I believe, really an unhelpful lens.
I took a look at Tablet's coverage of Russiagate and it's deeply misleading, suggesting they never bothered to read the Mueller and Senate Intel Committee reports.
And her inclination to see a conspiracy of silence in the media leads me to think she's closer to Bret Weinstein than Walter Cronkite. She is no different from those in her cohort who have a suspicious enthusiasm for Camp of the Saints and Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
For all of the NYT’s flaws in 2020, was it less trustworthy/reliable than The Free Press in 2025?
Exactly. The Free Press has turned into what it originally railed against.
Perhaps they're sour about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/17/opinion/gen-x.html
I think Alana Newhouse not knowing how UATX is having it's own free speech issues is interesting. She didn't approach how the right started to be in media silos in the 2000s. How the left media silos are a response to that. There were interesting ideas in this interview, but it was mostly unsatisfying to me. In part she was dancing around issues and in part not engaging in what she really thinks.
A round table about the media bias around Israel and Palestine would be very interesting. Like why it gets so much attention from US media outlets.
Interesting interview, but I found Alana's response on Gaza lacking. Like Meghan, I'm unsure what to believe based on the multiple sources I read. Why is Alana so certain that she's right? Does she have access to the "truth" based on inside sources in Israel/Gaza? My sense is that biases are skewing coverage from both sides and that there are no good guys in this fight.
Regarding building new institutions, I think in medicine in particular (a profession subject to no small amount of scorn from these people), it is a completely different question than it building a media company.
Private practice medicine is rapidly disappearing thanks to the ACA, so most physicians, even very good ones, are employed and answer to an HR department, which works about the same as most HR departments. In addition to that, we have a tangled web of administrative bodies controlling what's on board exams, what insurance companies pay for, what we can be sued for etc. etc. And in general, these administrative bodies are staffed by people who are highly educated, but not bright enough to make it as professionals themselves.
I have some ideas about medicine of course, but the situation is very, very bad, and I can't just go found a new hospital, medical board, or insurance company on my own.
Israel doesn't need to do press; they have AIPAC.
Her anecdote about a Gen Z wanting tangible sources of print news media they can physically hold on to (lending them greater authority) rings true and ultimately jives with Gen X’s anti-authoritarian leanings. If any generations are willing to recognize such new alternatives to “the wallpaper of the Internet” and to financially support them if possible, it’s these two.
Dearest Meghan,
Excellent interview, as always.
Just two quick notes on higher education:
1. Alana is right that any brand new organization like UATX is going to hit some proverbial "bumps in the road". I did read about the controversy where a major donor objected to an affiliate institution making statements about DEI. ( And I remember a couple advisory board members leaving. I don't think we should declare the sky falling - as Alana noted, think how quickly they went from idea to "butts in seats." Let's revisit the topic in say, 2030.
2. At the elite schools, trustee boards are useless, in large part because the majority of seats are held by administration appointees, rather than by direct alumni election. Moreover, the election process is either very onerous
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2024/02/28/judge-rules-in-favor-of-yale-corporations-right-to-end-alumni-petition-process-alumni-likely-to-appeal/
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/1/31/harvey-silverglate-overseers-candidate/
or governed by an opaque nominating committee https://paw.princeton.edu/article/choosing-trustees-requires-greater-transparency
Also, candidates at these schools are expressly forbidden from issuing campaign platforms or statements. The rationale is that the Boards don't want members beholden to a certain constituency.
Would you wan to vote in an election in which candidates are not allowed to state their views?
Meghan, what is confusing about Gaza? Honest question. Why is it hard to formulate opinions about it at this point? How are media people acting like this is hard to parse?
If I wanted people to ignore mass murder of civilians I might also say, “oh gee, I really can’t comprehend whyyyy there is so much coverage of this tiny strip of land.” 🤔 AIPAC, US tax dollars flowing to Israel, a strategic alliance for geopolitical reasons. Why play dumb?
Love the description of the gen z reader and relationship to print. <3
Nice interview. I agree on the issue of "Russiagate" with DJ. There was a there there, but I liked her. And dammit, I subscribed! As if I need another one...
I think, historically, things have been cyclical. That said, we have never had the juggernaut of capitalism in the past. It's not self-correcting; it's about a profit motive. Climate change will worsen - nothing indicates that we are up for that task that we face and, in fact, much indicates we aren't (though, yes, some are trying); nothing indicates that we are up for the task of dealing with alignment issues of AI (and I LOVE AI, but we seem screwed); nothing indicates that we can deal - in a capitalist world - with the population collapse that is coming. Maybe, we can go post-capitalist; maybe AI will solve all our problems. But this isn't the normal cycle in history. Capitalism is basically Thelma and Louise driving towards the edge of the cliff. Could they pull up and not fly over the cliff? Maybe. But don't bet on it. So when you pull back and look at the big picture, realize that optimism about this as just another historical cycle is, I believe, really an unhelpful lens.