06-reference

stratechery interview jeremy stern zuckerberg profile

2026-09-24·reference·source: Stratechery·by Ben Thompson

"An Interview with Colossus EIC Jeremy Stern About Profiling Mark Zuckerberg" — Ben Thompson with Jeremy Stern

Stratechery Interview, 2026-09-24. Thompson interviews Jeremy Stern — editor-in-chief of Colossus, the Patrick O'Shaughnessy-founded business/tech magazine — about Stern's recent Zuckerberg profile, his path from Army EOD officer and State Department foreign-policy writer to the preeminent tech profile writer, and Colossus's business model.

Why this is in the vault

A rare inside look at both profile-writing craft (how you get 40 sources including a famously guarded subject's parents) and a small editorial operation's economics (ad-supported, not paywalled, breaking even on a print product in 18 months) — the second is a live, concrete comparable for Sanity Check's own positioning question.

The core argument

Stern's path and method: Stern split undergrad between Kenyon and a year-plus in Russia studying language and literature, then did a tour as a U.S. Army explosive-ordnance-disposal officer and State Department stint before writing foreign-policy pieces (his Jake Sullivan piece for Tablet — done without the subject's cooperation — was his profile-writing debut). He stumbled into celebrity/business profiles almost by accident and joined Colossus after O'Shaughnessy liked his Palmer Luckey piece.

On the Zuckerberg profile: Started as an off-the-record lunch; Stern was initially indifferent to Meta's products and mildly hostile to Zuckerberg personally. Talked to almost 40 sources — including Zuckerberg's parents and Priscilla Chan — over five to six months. He opened with the parents (an unplanned, spontaneous choice within minutes of the interview) and closed with Chan answering "why does he keep doing this." Stern's stated method: present extreme, contradictory opinions about the subject without showing his own hand — profiles should read like a short story where the author's verdict stays ambiguous.

Stern's revised take on Zuckerberg: Came in believing social media is probably net-harmful but resisting the urge to personally blame Zuckerberg for all of modernity's ills (Thompson adds the Girardian-scapegoat framing — odd that no one on Meta's own board, including Peter Thiel, connected that dot). Came out seeing Zuckerberg as more coherent and "ideologically unconfused" than AI-era peers like Sam Altman and Dario Amodei — appreciating him as a classic American industrialist figure even while disagreeing with his products' effects. Both affirm Great Man theory in the closing exchange: individuals in the right circumstances do bend history, for good and ill, and that's "the price of being the great man."

Other profiles, fast: Scott Wu (Cognition) — sourced as the search for a likable, grounded AI founder amid broader founder-unlikability discourse. Shyam Sankar (Palantir) — a defense-tech ecosystem piece against the backdrop of ~$200B in VC poured into the category. Josh Kushner (Thrive) — an American-dream-is-still-real counter-narrative via the Kushner family arc from Holocaust survivors to OpenAI's largest outside VC backer. Neil Mehta (Greenoaks) — the rare VC who "isn't the main character," notable for a $500M bet on Safe Superintelligence while staying skeptical of frontier-lab business models.

Colossus, the business: Grew out of O'Shaughnessy's Invest Like the Best podcast network (which also carries David Senra's Founders). Launched a one-off 1,500-copy print issue in late 2024 that sold out; now a full quarterly print magazine. Explicitly ad-supported, not paywall-gated — "everything online is free" — and broke even on the print product alone after 18 months. Editorial thesis: business/tech people are this era's culturally central figures (the way novelists were in the '60s-'70s or physicists in the '40s-'50s), and Colossus is chasing a 1960s-Esquire/1950s-New-Yorker prose aesthetic applied to that subject matter.

Mapping against Ray Data Co

The concrete connection: Colossus is a live proof point for the exact model Sanity Check has already committed to and hasn't yet tested. Per [[2026-09-20-sanity-check-premium-positioning-membership-vs-prestige]], RDCO's own strategy doc commits Sanity Check to "monetized via sponsorships not paywalls (per open-knowledge-sharing principle)" — a decision made in the abstract, with zero paid subscribers and no issue shipped since October 2023 to test it against. Colossus is the same bet, already run: fully free online distribution, ad-supported, and a print product that reached breakeven in 18 months — not through scale (they call the print ceiling "relatively low") but through a distinct, uncompromising editorial aesthetic that a "core group of sponsors" wants to be associated with. That's the missing data point the Patagonia/Biver research brief was reasoning about in the abstract: a third, already-working configuration (open access + sponsor-funded + taste-as-moat) that isn't values-membership or prestige-scarcity.

Secondary, weaker hook — profile-subject narrative control. Stern's account of why subjects sit for profiles (institutional trust, not vanity) and his method of presenting contradictions without resolving them is interesting craft but doesn't map to anything RDCO currently does; Ray/Ben doesn't run a profile operation and forcing a "founder narrative-shaping" parallel here would be exactly the derivative reach the Sanity Check discipline warns against. Left out of the core mapping.

Not mapped: the Great Man theory discussion and the Zuckerberg/Girard framing are good editorial texture but don't connect to an active RDCO decision, SOP, or bet — noted for completeness, not filed as a hook.

Related