Why We’re Freaking Out About Substack(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Why We’re Freaking Out About Substack
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/11/business/media/substack-newsletter-competition.html
91 comments
As someone who followed the spygate saga of Trump (I mean really followed) it became clear to me that the journalist is much more important than the outlet for credibility. Good journalists were the key to good information and writing.
Substack makes a big difference because those “10x” journalist no longer need to be tied to an outlet.
Substack makes a big difference because those “10x” journalist no longer need to be tied to an outlet.
What’re the journalists on substack that are publishing new, investigative journalism that isn’t itself linking to or reliant upon other news that got the scoop first? Genuinely asking. (I don’t want and don’t care about commentary. Commentary imo is outrage wank.)
Getting the “scoop” is something reserved for soft pieces. That’s exactly how it works. If you have bad news that’s coming out, you find sympathetic journalists who will help you frame it in a beneficial way (even if the news is damaging).
You’re going to see a lot of this with the nursing home scandal in New York over the next few months.
This was something really common throughout spygate.
You’re going to see a lot of this with the nursing home scandal in New York over the next few months.
This was something really common throughout spygate.
https://thedispatch.com/about
Here you go.
Link is to about page because I cannot remember for the life of me what is members only and what is not. They’ve got reports, fact checks, morning newsletters, weekly newsletters, podcasts (which are all non-member accessible), and guest pieces.
Here you go.
Link is to about page because I cannot remember for the life of me what is members only and what is not. They’ve got reports, fact checks, morning newsletters, weekly newsletters, podcasts (which are all non-member accessible), and guest pieces.
I googled “the dispatch political bias” and got political garbage like “ Bernie Sanders and the Rise of Woke Marxism” which took me to a real article on the dispatch website with that title. How the heck is this not political commentary? I’m explicitly asking for news that doesn’t have stuff like this.
Assume that all journalism has some from political bias, then analyze stories from different angles to develop an informed opinion. Relying on either the outlet that says "look at me, I have no bias," or the outlet that all the popular people say you can trust, carries with it a dangerous underlying assumption.
Do me a favor and read the about page. Here’s an excerpt:
“ We don’t apologize for our conservatism. Some of the best journalism is done when the author is honest with readers about where he or she is coming from, and some of the very worst journalism hides behind a pretense of objectivity and the stolen authority that pretense provides.”
Aptly describes my exact problem with most “news” publishers: they’re less than upfront and honest about their own biases and everyone has them, and it shapes the institution’s biases as a whole.
The meat and potatoes is the Morning Dispatch and Weekly Dispatch, but they also publish opinion pieces. You’re not always going to agree, just as I don’t always agree, but you asked. Check it out or don’t.
“ We don’t apologize for our conservatism. Some of the best journalism is done when the author is honest with readers about where he or she is coming from, and some of the very worst journalism hides behind a pretense of objectivity and the stolen authority that pretense provides.”
Aptly describes my exact problem with most “news” publishers: they’re less than upfront and honest about their own biases and everyone has them, and it shapes the institution’s biases as a whole.
The meat and potatoes is the Morning Dispatch and Weekly Dispatch, but they also publish opinion pieces. You’re not always going to agree, just as I don’t always agree, but you asked. Check it out or don’t.
I don’t give a flip what political angle they have I don’t want that political angle in my reporting. Why is that so hard to ask for earnestly?
There is a level of this that is reasonable, which is that what is presented in the writing be factual and not sensationalized. I imagine The Dispatch believes they meet this bar (I have no idea, I just heard of them now).
But there is a level of this that is impossible, which is avoiding prioritizing some aspects and not others. Merely choosing what to put in a headline vs first paragraph vs 5th paragraph is making a subjective decision about what is most important.
Even more subjective is choice of words for complex phenomena that defy simple summary. For example, were the activities of last summer protests, or were they riots? Most people have an opinion on which word is a better fit, but there is no way to deny that both have a basis in objective fact. So, writers choose one or the other depending on their own biases and what they want to emphasize.
Finally, there is the "file drawer" source of bias, which is simply not covering some things that you don't think are important. You're not lying or misinforming anyone, but you are making a subjective decision about what people should be thinking about.
I personally think it's best if a publication is open about how it's going to be making these various subjective decisions. And I think it's dishonest for someone to claim their news reporting can be purely objective.
But there is a level of this that is impossible, which is avoiding prioritizing some aspects and not others. Merely choosing what to put in a headline vs first paragraph vs 5th paragraph is making a subjective decision about what is most important.
Even more subjective is choice of words for complex phenomena that defy simple summary. For example, were the activities of last summer protests, or were they riots? Most people have an opinion on which word is a better fit, but there is no way to deny that both have a basis in objective fact. So, writers choose one or the other depending on their own biases and what they want to emphasize.
Finally, there is the "file drawer" source of bias, which is simply not covering some things that you don't think are important. You're not lying or misinforming anyone, but you are making a subjective decision about what people should be thinking about.
I personally think it's best if a publication is open about how it's going to be making these various subjective decisions. And I think it's dishonest for someone to claim their news reporting can be purely objective.
You can ask for it; finding it is the real problem.
If I thought it existed, I would be in your shoes right now. My compromise with reality is to prefer publications which are upfront, honest and generally reasonable as determined by the body of their work, not one headline found on Google.
They do reporting, they do opinions, they do newsletter and podcasts which mix both. I can live with that as long as I know where they’re coming from, what their scope is, and as long as they’re not pretending to be something they’re not.
Having read The Morning and Weekly Dispatches from the beginning, I haven’t been disappointed. I also enjoy the G-File and Vital Interests (both part of the Dispatch). Based off your preferences, you might actually enjoy Vital Interests if you are interested in foreign policy, but I can say for certain that you probably don’t want the G-File because that is unapologetic political wonkery, and to Jonah’s credit, he doesn’t sell that as anything but what it is.
That’s one of the nice things about old-style publications: they try to offer some variety and don’t mix reporting with opinion pages.
So to repeat my recommendation: check out The Dispatch, specifically check out the Morning Dispatch, the Weekly Dispatch, maybe Vital Interests.
It might not be your cup of tea, or it might.
If I thought it existed, I would be in your shoes right now. My compromise with reality is to prefer publications which are upfront, honest and generally reasonable as determined by the body of their work, not one headline found on Google.
They do reporting, they do opinions, they do newsletter and podcasts which mix both. I can live with that as long as I know where they’re coming from, what their scope is, and as long as they’re not pretending to be something they’re not.
Having read The Morning and Weekly Dispatches from the beginning, I haven’t been disappointed. I also enjoy the G-File and Vital Interests (both part of the Dispatch). Based off your preferences, you might actually enjoy Vital Interests if you are interested in foreign policy, but I can say for certain that you probably don’t want the G-File because that is unapologetic political wonkery, and to Jonah’s credit, he doesn’t sell that as anything but what it is.
That’s one of the nice things about old-style publications: they try to offer some variety and don’t mix reporting with opinion pages.
So to repeat my recommendation: check out The Dispatch, specifically check out the Morning Dispatch, the Weekly Dispatch, maybe Vital Interests.
It might not be your cup of tea, or it might.
Thanks for the recommendation. I just checked the latest Dispatch Weekly and am pretty disappointed by the reporting there, as a lot of the summaries still read more like political commentary and wankery than reporting facts, and the long essay about some reporters child is completely unnecessary. Is that normal for that newsletter?
I put up a temporary email address in my profile. Email me there, I’ll be removing it tomorrow.
Don’t expect a response before 6PM Pacific, I’ll try to get back to you sooner than that, I’m still working right now.
Don’t expect a response before 6PM Pacific, I’ll try to get back to you sooner than that, I’m still working right now.
Pretty much all reporting has bias. As they say, they're at least being honest with you. You can't avoid it, because people are inherently biased. They can strive to remove it from the writing, but that doesn't mean they succeed.
The "confrontational libertarian" Glenn Greenwald, who ironically switched to substack because the intercept, tried to meddle with his reporting about the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was censored by facebook and twitter.
EDIT: I guess some people think this a controversial take, hence all the down votes.
EDIT: I guess some people think this a controversial take, hence all the down votes.
I've been reading his stuff after his "Why I left the Intercept" got posted here.
I've gotta say, I agree with lots of what he's saying about journalism nowadays. The whole article about journalists using the language of victimhood [0] to protect themselves really struck a nerve. I've seen this attitude and behaviour first-hand.
Commercial journalism is a mess, and getting messier. The business model is broken, and journalism is trashing what's left of its reputation trying to save it. I don't know if Substack is the answer. It might just be the final nail in the coffin. But something has to replace this mess.
[0] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-attack-the-powe...
I've gotta say, I agree with lots of what he's saying about journalism nowadays. The whole article about journalists using the language of victimhood [0] to protect themselves really struck a nerve. I've seen this attitude and behaviour first-hand.
Commercial journalism is a mess, and getting messier. The business model is broken, and journalism is trashing what's left of its reputation trying to save it. I don't know if Substack is the answer. It might just be the final nail in the coffin. But something has to replace this mess.
[0] https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-attack-the-powe...
I looked into Glenn Greenwald but as I said before I’m not looking for political commentary, just the facts, from reporters who aren’t just re-reporting something that some other journalist already found.
This makes me both anxious if those independent journalists will be able to keep high quality. Sure, they can do opinions, but if there's a big event, NYT gets a pass - will they? NYT has resources they can move around, independents don't.
On the other hand being able to subscribe to specific quality writers and not sponsor the package deal with crap included (reminds me of cable packages) feels great.
On the other hand being able to subscribe to specific quality writers and not sponsor the package deal with crap included (reminds me of cable packages) feels great.
Do you really care about that big event? I mean to the extent that you optimise your daily news reading to accommodate it?
This isn't meant to say that you won't really. (You may say that I do — I've subscribed to a staid broadsheet for most of my life and get a thick wad of paper delivered every morning.) It's meant to make you ask the question of yourself. Do you want something that'll get that pass, do you want those clueful commentators, or what do you want? ("Want" so much as to pay for it.)
This isn't meant to say that you won't really. (You may say that I do — I've subscribed to a staid broadsheet for most of my life and get a thick wad of paper delivered every morning.) It's meant to make you ask the question of yourself. Do you want something that'll get that pass, do you want those clueful commentators, or what do you want? ("Want" so much as to pay for it.)
I wonder if Substack subsumed newspapers and other aggregated media would we be in a better or worse position?
For me at least Substack presents a solid wall with very little to help discovery. Who do I subscribe to and why? The website is awful at showing me interesting writing. Right now they seem heavily reliant on the writer already having a platform and there is no opportunity for serendipitous discovery.
I've also got the sinking feeling that it won't reduce the proliferation of low quality content for clicks because that business model is perfectly feasible in the subscription world. It might even speed it up as people gravitate towards paying for content that they agree with or tickles them.
I'm also concerned about what this paywalled, atomisation of information and ideas does to society. Looking at the subscription rates it looks very expensive to maintain a rounded view or even to subscribe to more than a handful of writers. If we're going to complain about newspapers and journalism losing their way (in a value to society sense) does the model of Substack actually fix it or is it just a way for a minority of writers to find financial success?
For me at least Substack presents a solid wall with very little to help discovery. Who do I subscribe to and why? The website is awful at showing me interesting writing. Right now they seem heavily reliant on the writer already having a platform and there is no opportunity for serendipitous discovery.
I've also got the sinking feeling that it won't reduce the proliferation of low quality content for clicks because that business model is perfectly feasible in the subscription world. It might even speed it up as people gravitate towards paying for content that they agree with or tickles them.
I'm also concerned about what this paywalled, atomisation of information and ideas does to society. Looking at the subscription rates it looks very expensive to maintain a rounded view or even to subscribe to more than a handful of writers. If we're going to complain about newspapers and journalism losing their way (in a value to society sense) does the model of Substack actually fix it or is it just a way for a minority of writers to find financial success?
> I've also got the sinking feeling that it won't reduce the proliferation of low quality content for clicks because that business model is perfectly feasible in the subscription world. It might even speed it up as people gravitate towards paying for content that they agree with or tickles them.
Agree. One of the functions of major news outlets in the past was to be gatekeepers, but in a good sense: they would not countenance a journalist going off on flat earth conspiracy theories, for example, because their editorial process filters out stuff like that. Of course there are the negative aspects of gatekeeping; nothing's perfect.
Substack will likely see the day, if it hasn't happened already, where a content creator is pushing bogus information and Substack will come under public scrutiny. It's another variation on the 8chan situation: if you allow anyone to publish, you're gonna get a lot of illegal or harmful content.
Agree. One of the functions of major news outlets in the past was to be gatekeepers, but in a good sense: they would not countenance a journalist going off on flat earth conspiracy theories, for example, because their editorial process filters out stuff like that. Of course there are the negative aspects of gatekeeping; nothing's perfect.
Substack will likely see the day, if it hasn't happened already, where a content creator is pushing bogus information and Substack will come under public scrutiny. It's another variation on the 8chan situation: if you allow anyone to publish, you're gonna get a lot of illegal or harmful content.
> For me at least Substack presents a solid wall with very little to help discovery. Who do I subscribe to and why? The website is awful at showing me interesting writing.
This is by design, because if they did recommend "controversial" people, they'd be accused of being a [bad thing.]
This is by design, because if they did recommend "controversial" people, they'd be accused of being a [bad thing.]
That sounds quite conspiratorial. Are you saying the majority of popular content on Substack is actually just "controversial" people rather than quality journalism?
Nobody is arguing that the majority of popular content on YouTube is controversial, but there have definitely been arguments that YouTube radicalizes people.
If they can say that for YouTube, why not for Substack if it implements similar discoverability?
If they can say that for YouTube, why not for Substack if it implements similar discoverability?
It doesn't have to be the majority of popular content.
If they actively recommend anyone, they will end up recommending people that are controversial to some groups, and they will be attacked as curators and 'platformers' of these people.
If they actively recommend anyone, they will end up recommending people that are controversial to some groups, and they will be attacked as curators and 'platformers' of these people.
They're going to get that anyway for hosting people. And if you read their writing on the subject they do want to improve discovery as well as giving direct support to specific writers:
https://blog.substack.com/p/substacks-view-of-content-modera...
"At the same time, while we take a hands-off approach with who may use the platform, we will continue to take an active approach in helping and promoting promising writers. We are doing this by improving discovery on the platform and building programs, such as fellowships, grants, and mentorship, to support writers. Our partnerships team will also continue to work with high-revenue and high-potential writers."
So I'm not sure this claim about avoiding recommendations is actually true.
"At the same time, while we take a hands-off approach with who may use the platform, we will continue to take an active approach in helping and promoting promising writers. We are doing this by improving discovery on the platform and building programs, such as fellowships, grants, and mentorship, to support writers. Our partnerships team will also continue to work with high-revenue and high-potential writers."
So I'm not sure this claim about avoiding recommendations is actually true.
No. I can't find the original post, but I do remember reading a Substack post (by the founders) saying that they deliberately don't like using content recommendation systems.
Does the “average” Substack writer really pull that much traffic?
Unlikely. As in book publishing, music, and TV network shows, the hits subsidize the rest.
Also as in those other industries, nobody knows what will be a hit until they're well on their way up, so a thriving business needs to be willing to experiment.
Also as in those other industries, nobody knows what will be a hit until they're well on their way up, so a thriving business needs to be willing to experiment.
Maybe these journalists creating high quality content should combine forces into a sortof aggregate publication where stories from multiple people on multiple topics are published.
/s
The legacy media companies are freaking out because they sold themselves out. Instead of creating value by writing high quality, factual investigative or informative pieces, they tried to extract as much of the existing value as possible by writing terrible, anti-factual lies or gossip pieces (which are cheap).
They have now run out of value to extract. So they’re freaking out.
On the other hand: people on substack are in the value creation phase. Consumers see this and give them money for the value that they are creating.
/s
The legacy media companies are freaking out because they sold themselves out. Instead of creating value by writing high quality, factual investigative or informative pieces, they tried to extract as much of the existing value as possible by writing terrible, anti-factual lies or gossip pieces (which are cheap).
They have now run out of value to extract. So they’re freaking out.
On the other hand: people on substack are in the value creation phase. Consumers see this and give them money for the value that they are creating.
> Maybe these journalists creating high quality content should combine forces into a sortof aggregate publication where stories from multiple people on multiple topics are published.
You joke, but I think people on substack might do this eventually -- there is something to be gained from banding together, and as soon as substack has some sort of "groups" feature I'm sure we'll see some alignment/clustering.
What would be even more interesting to me is if Substack actually started offering print versions of certain mailing lists for people who move slower. Has anyone commoditized publishing infrastructure yet? Could someone create infinitely remixable and customizable magazines?
You joke, but I think people on substack might do this eventually -- there is something to be gained from banding together, and as soon as substack has some sort of "groups" feature I'm sure we'll see some alignment/clustering.
What would be even more interesting to me is if Substack actually started offering print versions of certain mailing lists for people who move slower. Has anyone commoditized publishing infrastructure yet? Could someone create infinitely remixable and customizable magazines?
I thought this was an interesting take [1]:
<< I’m a blogging dinosaur, which makes me a little sad about the rise of Substack. Back in the day, the virtue of blogging was that everyone could talk to everyone. Later, when many bloggers (including me) went to work for magazines, our work was still freely available. We could link back and forth and our readers always had the option of clicking those links if they wanted more details or just wanted to check and make sure we were quoting each other fairly.
I’m not really willing to rack up a whole bunch of $60-per-year subscription fees for individual writers, which means I’ll never know what they’re saying. And even if I did, you’d never know what they’re saying unless you’re coincidentally a subscriber too. This means we have a growing circle of writers who are influencing the political conversation but doing it semi-privately. The rest of us will only get hints here and there, the way you might have heard snatches of gossip from acquaintances who had been invited to an 18th century salon. >>
[0] https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/11/is-the-substa...
<< I’m a blogging dinosaur, which makes me a little sad about the rise of Substack. Back in the day, the virtue of blogging was that everyone could talk to everyone. Later, when many bloggers (including me) went to work for magazines, our work was still freely available. We could link back and forth and our readers always had the option of clicking those links if they wanted more details or just wanted to check and make sure we were quoting each other fairly.
I’m not really willing to rack up a whole bunch of $60-per-year subscription fees for individual writers, which means I’ll never know what they’re saying. And even if I did, you’d never know what they’re saying unless you’re coincidentally a subscriber too. This means we have a growing circle of writers who are influencing the political conversation but doing it semi-privately. The rest of us will only get hints here and there, the way you might have heard snatches of gossip from acquaintances who had been invited to an 18th century salon. >>
[0] https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/11/is-the-substa...
I wonder how long till Substack starts aggregating writers. Subscribe to these 5 for 20% off, sort of thing.
You could aggregate writers within a niche to get a full view of that area. Or you could aggregate across topics to get something approaching a traditional newspaper.
You could aggregate writers within a niche to get a full view of that area. Or you could aggregate across topics to get something approaching a traditional newspaper.
I don’t think Substack will own the creator economy for writers, but it seems the shift is real. Why would I pay for dull news wire stuff from the mainstream media when I can get fantastic, expert, lengthy, niche content on stuff I care about via newsletters? Even better if writers start building communities too.
> Why would I pay for dull news wire stuff from the mainstream media when I can get fantastic, expert, lengthy, niche content on stuff I care about via newsletters?
I'll just tell you why I won't pay for this, but would pay for something like the NY Times or my local newspaper. I care to know what's going on, in general. I'm not a new junky, but I read headlines from a bunch of different places, and sometimes the entire article. Paying for a place with original reporting on a bunch of different topics appeals to me. What's that old saying, a mile wide and an inch deep? That works for me.
Paying to read one person write about one topic... not so much. I already get a bunch of free newsletters from a bunch of different people on a bunch of different platforms. Someone would have to be REALLY special for me to pay to read their emails. I can't imagine there's more than one person like that.
That's just me, of course, there's probably enough people out there that are willing to pay for a bunch of special emails to keep substack going.
I'll just tell you why I won't pay for this, but would pay for something like the NY Times or my local newspaper. I care to know what's going on, in general. I'm not a new junky, but I read headlines from a bunch of different places, and sometimes the entire article. Paying for a place with original reporting on a bunch of different topics appeals to me. What's that old saying, a mile wide and an inch deep? That works for me.
Paying to read one person write about one topic... not so much. I already get a bunch of free newsletters from a bunch of different people on a bunch of different platforms. Someone would have to be REALLY special for me to pay to read their emails. I can't imagine there's more than one person like that.
That's just me, of course, there's probably enough people out there that are willing to pay for a bunch of special emails to keep substack going.
Yup. Substack writers may know their niche very well but they're only going to write about what interests them. This could be a boon to things like industry media that displaces trade magazines but I can't see how they could possibly replace boots on the ground journalism thar only comes from professional newsrooms.
I'd be inclined to agree if traditional newsrooms weren't dumping their boots on the ground journalism as fast as possible. The worst thing websites like Buzzfeed did was to tell the old guard that this was an unnecessary cost center.
This is why I get my general news from the likes of Reuters and Associated Press. I've found that these have more facts and much less opinion.
Then, when I want someone's take on something, from someone I trust, I get it from substack. Eg. Matthew Yglesias on policy, Noah Smith on finance/economics, etc.
In contrast, most big newspapers seem to me to be pushing opinion masked as fact. They never actually lie, but they are selective in what they represent and imply connections where there are none.
Then, when I want someone's take on something, from someone I trust, I get it from substack. Eg. Matthew Yglesias on policy, Noah Smith on finance/economics, etc.
In contrast, most big newspapers seem to me to be pushing opinion masked as fact. They never actually lie, but they are selective in what they represent and imply connections where there are none.
Local media is suffering but substack isn't solving that. Axios is actually trying interestingly enough.
I still read NY Times as my default. They have a lot more soft news than they used to but their reporting is still top notch. They've taken a turn for being more direct in their language and not tap-dancing around political double-speak but I think it's appropriate. My other go-to is NPR and local NPR affiliates.
I still read NY Times as my default. They have a lot more soft news than they used to but their reporting is still top notch. They've taken a turn for being more direct in their language and not tap-dancing around political double-speak but I think it's appropriate. My other go-to is NPR and local NPR affiliates.
I agree with the gist of your comment but I do think that the individual efforts of those on substack (and future, similar types of pages) will eventually find that most of them will need to band together to form small networks in order to keep paying subscribers at a reasonable level--this may partially mitigate the problem you're citing by kind of re-creating online magazines / newspapers. At first, this will just be combining a number of opinion pages, but I could imagine a future where these groups can hire staff and expand into the massive hole that traditional news media has left behind with reporting.
The huge players (Sullivan, Taibbi, Greenwald, etc) may be able to continue on their own, but I just don't think there will be enough revenue for every journalist to make a good living with a personal substack.
The huge players (Sullivan, Taibbi, Greenwald, etc) may be able to continue on their own, but I just don't think there will be enough revenue for every journalist to make a good living with a personal substack.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> fantastic, expert, lengthy, niche content on stuff I care about
I wonder how you'll find out about stuff you didn't know you needed to care about. I feel like this approach pushes us all deeper into our in-groups and away from a larger sense of community.
I also wonder what will be lost in terms of collaboration and oversight.
I wonder how you'll find out about stuff you didn't know you needed to care about. I feel like this approach pushes us all deeper into our in-groups and away from a larger sense of community.
I also wonder what will be lost in terms of collaboration and oversight.
> I wonder how you'll find out about stuff you didn't know you needed to care about. I feel like this approach pushes us all deeper into our in-groups and away from a larger sense of community.
Who decides “what I need to care about”? The editors of NYTimes? I remember when they decided we needed to worry about WMDs in Iraq.
The major media businesses have built their business models around catering to in-groups. And collaboration and oversight within these organizations is focused on shaping (even policing) content for their target audience.
The eclectic tastes of individual writers - without the oversight and peer pressure - seem less likely to rigidly cater to a particular in-group.
Who decides “what I need to care about”? The editors of NYTimes? I remember when they decided we needed to worry about WMDs in Iraq.
The major media businesses have built their business models around catering to in-groups. And collaboration and oversight within these organizations is focused on shaping (even policing) content for their target audience.
The eclectic tastes of individual writers - without the oversight and peer pressure - seem less likely to rigidly cater to a particular in-group.
> I wonder how you'll find out about stuff you didn't know you needed to care about.
Hacker News
Hacker News
>> Even better if writers start building communities too.
Even even better: writers get paid with fewer middlemen, and writers can get paid proportionally to their work's readership.
The downside: sometimes the pooled model helps subsidize writers who do important work, but perhaps work that is insufficiently popular to attract paid readers...who funds that type of investigative journalism?
Even even better: writers get paid with fewer middlemen, and writers can get paid proportionally to their work's readership.
The downside: sometimes the pooled model helps subsidize writers who do important work, but perhaps work that is insufficiently popular to attract paid readers...who funds that type of investigative journalism?
I don't think anything stops a group of people to pool up in a substack?
My worry is that writers writing on popular topics get paid (good), but those doing important work (e.g. investigative journalism) but w/o popular demand dont get paid sufficiently. Traditionally, some work subsidizes other work.
A good analogy might be a university - the EMBA, CS, Applied Sciences departments end up subsidizing the humanities departments. This is good. Classics are important. So is literature.
A good analogy might be a university - the EMBA, CS, Applied Sciences departments end up subsidizing the humanities departments. This is good. Classics are important. So is literature.
People pay for what's important to them. Breaking, big exposes, they make for nice headlines, but nobody cares. What most people want is to be 'plugged in' to whatever the topic du jour is so they can emote with their coworkers at the water cooler, which helps them feel like they're 'good people.'
It's super hard for people to internalize that they actually don't care about stuff, what they care about is their appearance. The people making real impacts are non or not for profit organizations that battle corporations in court and sue them for things like pollution. Journalists are worthless.
It's super hard for people to internalize that they actually don't care about stuff, what they care about is their appearance. The people making real impacts are non or not for profit organizations that battle corporations in court and sue them for things like pollution. Journalists are worthless.
> Traditionally, some work subsidizes other work
I know news organizations like to claim they unselfishly use their money to do God's Work.
And I know some of that happened. But I also know people like to exaggerate their civic mindedness.
I know news organizations like to claim they unselfishly use their money to do God's Work.
And I know some of that happened. But I also know people like to exaggerate their civic mindedness.
This is a great point. I think the biggest problem is revenue going into a large news org, getting skimmed by non-value-add portions of the org, and writers ending up with crumbs. Though I guess that is true of most corporations, except some industries pay the producers far less. This used to be true for many tech orgs in the past, but I think that has been solved over time where the makers actually get a good share.
I haven't seen any news reporting on Substack?
There is a lot of commentary on the news, but the news itself still comes from elsewhere.
There is a lot of commentary on the news, but the news itself still comes from elsewhere.
I don't know - I've seen interviews, articles about circumstances and investigations there.
I haven't seen 'A bomb went off in xxx today, as such and such claimed responsibility,' if that's what you mean by news but frankly that comes from the AP Wire for most traditional news organizations as well
I haven't seen 'A bomb went off in xxx today, as such and such claimed responsibility,' if that's what you mean by news but frankly that comes from the AP Wire for most traditional news organizations as well
The big takeaway here is that what Substack proved (much like Onlyfans did in a different industry a few years back) that the median unit of consumed content was being produced by someone who was being heavily underpaid by the existing industry.
The big name bloggers and journalists were competing in an industry where entry level salaries are dirt cheap, because from a business perspective "anyone" can do journalism and there are always more people to hire. But what readers actually "want" isn't the generic journalism, it's Yglesias or Greenwald specifically. So people like that can do much better.
But... where does that leave the actual journalism? Now not only are the journalists underpaid by the media, they now know that the path to elite success is actually in a different career path entirely. I can't help but think that Substack is the wrong solution to a real problem, and is making things worse and not better.
The big name bloggers and journalists were competing in an industry where entry level salaries are dirt cheap, because from a business perspective "anyone" can do journalism and there are always more people to hire. But what readers actually "want" isn't the generic journalism, it's Yglesias or Greenwald specifically. So people like that can do much better.
But... where does that leave the actual journalism? Now not only are the journalists underpaid by the media, they now know that the path to elite success is actually in a different career path entirely. I can't help but think that Substack is the wrong solution to a real problem, and is making things worse and not better.
I remember when I first saw an internet newspaper in the late 90s, I thought that this was the beginning of the great unbundling. Instead of subscribing to a newspaper with a curated set of contributors, someday I could subscribe to the contributors à la carte, curating my own paper.
With blogs that's been happening gradually over the intervening years, but now it's accelerating. I think it's a great thing that the editorial intermediaries are being circumvented. Those writers I enjoy can speak more freely, while enjoying a larger slice of the rewards (along with the risks) at the same time. So I'm more basking in the glory of the rise of Substack than freaking out about the decline of the gatekeepers.
With blogs that's been happening gradually over the intervening years, but now it's accelerating. I think it's a great thing that the editorial intermediaries are being circumvented. Those writers I enjoy can speak more freely, while enjoying a larger slice of the rewards (along with the risks) at the same time. So I'm more basking in the glory of the rise of Substack than freaking out about the decline of the gatekeepers.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is fundamentally different, technically or business model-wise from, say Medium?
Is it just that substack is grabbing a bigger mind share?
Is it just that substack is grabbing a bigger mind share?
I don't know but I've paid for a couple substacks in the past few months, I've not paid for a newspaper in 20 years.
It's like getting someone to cook just for you - hyper targeted content. A newspaper is like a buffet, and these days a not very nutritious one.
It's like getting someone to cook just for you - hyper targeted content. A newspaper is like a buffet, and these days a not very nutritious one.
Sure, I understand the appeal (and I even use substack, but just free tiers tbf).
Just trying to understand why is traditional media scared of substack and, apparently, not scared of other similar sevices.
Just trying to understand why is traditional media scared of substack and, apparently, not scared of other similar sevices.
On Medium you pay for access to all premium content with a single subscription and the writers get paid a portion of that based on their reader count. On substack you subscribe to individuals and they get your entire sub payment (minus fees).
Which probably means the writers get paid more but is more expensive for the consumer. As Medium seems to be dying out, this is probably a more viable business model. I'd expect Medium to pivot to this eventually.
Medium actually has tried at least twice to exercise traditional editorial functions, with branded publication "sections" including multiple writers -- the second such experiment just ended the same way as the first, with formerly high-profile hires losing jobs.
Aside from that, the obvious difference is better execution. That matters.
Aside from that, the obvious difference is better execution. That matters.
[deleted]
Many/most of the columnists for major papers (NY Times, especially) are rather mediocre. They aren't terrible, but they aren't really a draw unto themselves, either.
I can't see them commanding much of an audience if forced to exist alone on Substack, away from the Times branding. Hence the hostility.
I can't see them commanding much of an audience if forced to exist alone on Substack, away from the Times branding. Hence the hostility.
> Keep reading The Times by creating a free account or logging in.
The absolute irony here has so many levels.
The absolute irony here has so many levels.
Reader mode to the rescue!
That is a fundamental shift where in theory companies like record labels and publishing houses are not necessary anymore. I think for established journalists it should be easy to bring "their" audience to a new platform.
In general, we should be working towards an established middle class of content creators.
I wonder if they had an article "Why We’re Freaking Out About Blogs" back around 2000? (That sounds snarky, it's not meant to be). This discussion sounds almost exactly like the ones we were having about 20 years ago when blogs first got started. It doesn't seem like Substack is much different.
I have a weird habit that whenever someone tells me not to read something, or that something is bad or subversive, or they’re not real journalist, that makes me want to read them more. Perhaps I’m a radical: I think people should be free and encouraged to express their views as much as they want.
It's not radical, it's just contrarianism.
Publishers are middlemen between writers and readers and are terrified of losing that rent seeking position.
The gatekeeping function value, though. You can argue whether they charge too much for those services, or not. But the role of the editor, and the desire to protect a valuable brand, is real and valuable.
Why is the brand the middleman?
I read a writers words, and follow reporters as the true brands. Writers can hire editors without a publisher.
The value they could offer of being a gatekeeper and keeping out bad content is expensive and the advertising is counter to the readers desires.
It’s a broken business model.
I read a writers words, and follow reporters as the true brands. Writers can hire editors without a publisher.
The value they could offer of being a gatekeeper and keeping out bad content is expensive and the advertising is counter to the readers desires.
It’s a broken business model.
OK, then. Who vouches for the quality of a name you've never seen before? I doubt you're in favor or freezing the current pool of good reporters, nor spending the time needed to read all the new writers to see which ones are worth your time.
Unfortunately, it seems that newspapers themselves don't think the role of the editor and the desire to protect the brand is all that valuable.
Substack does have a lot of quality writing on it, and I think the legitimacy of that writing has come to be associated with its publishing model, whether deserving or not.
It reminds me of the MySpace => Facebook shift. MySpace was pretty much a cesspit, and by comparison Facebook seemed clean and intellectual. But reality ignored our first impressions, and the failure modes of the model were borne out over time.
Thus I think we should be wary and critical of Substack, however superior it may first seem to that which it replaces.
[edit for clarity]
It reminds me of the MySpace => Facebook shift. MySpace was pretty much a cesspit, and by comparison Facebook seemed clean and intellectual. But reality ignored our first impressions, and the failure modes of the model were borne out over time.
Thus I think we should be wary and critical of Substack, however superior it may first seem to that which it replaces.
[edit for clarity]
I think it's telling that writers and social media figures that would otherwise take a stronger stance against some of the content on substack are happy to coexist with that content if they are making significant amounts of money.
This feels like an imperative for substack -- ensure that some of their most formidable critics have a personal stake in the platform as a means to deflect criticism. Money speaks.
This feels like an imperative for substack -- ensure that some of their most formidable critics have a personal stake in the platform as a means to deflect criticism. Money speaks.
The NYT model has been obsolete for along time, but, for a brief while, they were dominant in the new paradigm. Then they started censoring anything that disagreed with them, and then disabling comments altogether. Imagine the meetings they had.
IT: “90% of our engagement and revenue comes from the comments section.”
VP: “If we shutdown comments, we will get 10x growth in revenue share from articles.”
CEO: “Perfect. Shut down the comments.”
IT: “90% of our engagement and revenue comes from the comments section.”
VP: “If we shutdown comments, we will get 10x growth in revenue share from articles.”
CEO: “Perfect. Shut down the comments.”
There appears to be an implied threat that if you leave the media proper farm, you will get blacklisted, e.g.
> "I turned down an offer of an advance well above my Times salary, in part because of the editing and the platform The Times gives me, and in part because I didn’t think I’d make it back — media types often overvalue media writers.)'
> "I turned down an offer of an advance well above my Times salary, in part because of the editing and the platform The Times gives me, and in part because I didn’t think I’d make it back — media types often overvalue media writers.)'
Why the Times is freaking out about Substack is that they believe, probably correctly, that there are limited funds being spent by a finite number of people on news and information sources, so people paying Substack for access to a given mailing list means less money spent on, for example, the Times.
I really want to give substack a shot, but couldn’t get past recaptcha to sign up. Maybe I’m impatient or not good at identifying crosswalks, cars, bikes and buses. Kudos to all the publishers who made it …
Perhaps Substack is the next step in the evolution of syndicated journalism. A self-syndication platform without editorial control, selling directly to readers rather than a newspaper or magazine.
The New York Times should absolutely worry about losing its paying members to Substack and other channels for news and ideas. I really don't care to see it saved.
Minus the collaborative catfights because it was a more solo venture didn't we already hear much of this already for writers of different formats with print on demand books and eBook publishers? Most overlapping with news are "blog books" but well that depends upon staying power for the type of blog for if people will pay for yesterday's news as it were.
You are freaking out about Substack because wrongtinkers circumvented the gatekeepers and can make some money. And they seem to be finding audience and have the audacity of getting a decent paycheck.
I highly recommend this post from ferddie de boer https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/its-all-just-displaceme...