>The Economist doesn't have bylines because that wasn't really the norm at the time when they started out.

A position they held steadfast to when newspapers unionized and it became the norm. Their reliance on surprisingly young journalists (kind of like consultancy bodyshops that recruit out of uni) is one reason they were able to avoid them.

Newspapers have often been threatened by their more popular contributors leaving and taking subscribers with them.

They'd therefore never introduce bylines if they had the leverage relative to their journalists to avoid it just as McDonalds wouldnt offer free daycare if it werent struggling to hire and tech wouldnt offer free food and lavish comps.

>Your point--that reporting shouldn't be primarily about individual credibility

That doesnt seem like a point I would ever make.

I mean, you can justify it "in principle" however you like, the economics boil down to the relative leverage of management and journalists. Bylines function as an asset (reputation) that journalists can, in a sense, capitalize and gives them the leverage to take subscribers elsewhere allowing them to negotiate a greater share of the newspaper revenue (lowering profits).

How many people can name a single hard news reporter (as opposed to opinion writer or editor) at the New York Times? I couldn't and I subscribe.

Interestingly they've been shrinking their byline font size throughout the years.

I can't say I've made a study of the New York Times specifically. But there was definitely a period in the mid-2000s when it was trendy to play up the individual personalities and work of journalists, analysts, etc. At some point, organizations came to realize this wasn't mostly doing the organization any favors and this sort of thing was mostly pulled back.

They always "knew" that it hit them in the profit margin but the journalistic talent had more leverage back then, newspaper margins weren't as thin and growth prospects werent as meager.

If tech has a bad decade no doubt theyll suddenly "realize" that free breakfasts arent doing them any favors and scale them back.

The model works for you for streaming, and the same logic will apply here.

I can easily get “the news” like you have access to TV or YouTube with similar content to streaming sites. But if you want niche subjects or specific voices, then sub stack subscriptions for the niches you care about makes sense

Historically, there were (and to some degree are) a ton of physical magazines and sometimes newsletters catering to sometimes very niche content. I subscribed to a folding kayak newsletter at one point as well as various cooking/backpacking/etc. magazines.

But Substack content seems to be much more about "voices" as you put it and that I'm far less interested in.