Substack makes a big difference because those “10x” journalist no longer need to be tied to an outlet.

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.

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.

“ 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.

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.

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.

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.

The Dispatch has had a custom domain since they launched at the tail end of 2019.

EDIT: I guess some people think this a controversial take, hence all the down votes.

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...

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.

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.)

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?

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.

This is by design, because if they did recommend "controversial" people, they'd be accused of being a [bad thing.]

If they can say that for YouTube, why not for Substack if it implements similar discoverability?

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.

"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.

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.