Agree in that “Startups” imply scale and that’s just race to the bottom clickbait with maybe a little real news on the side. However, one example here in Canada is “Canadaland”, which is profitable, funded partly by subscribers, and has investigated and broken real stories. The founder has made the point recently that journalism is not something that scales, but can be a successful business by serving an audience.

Canadaland may have been bootstrapped/helped along by its journalist founder getting some cut out of what they co-founded, “bitmoji” maker bitstrips, which was sold to Snapchat for a reported US$100m.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitstrips

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Brown_(journalist)

There are definitely people on Substack who have been able to see success doing the whole "independent non biased news" schtick, but I'm not sure if it's possible to build a NYT level of business doing that.

At the same time, maybe smaller independent news outfits that are run by at most a handful of people, that cover more local news might be able to make it work if they keep their expenses low.

I wonder are they truly selling "non-biased" news. Or is substack just platform that allows them to sell those who want to buy their specific bias. Not that it isn't the valid model in current online enviroment.

Maybe 'not corporate-controlled' is the real offer when you subscribe to an individual journalist.

> unbiased news

Even sophisticated people like paulg make comments like "why doesn't someone just make factual news".

It suggests to me that thinking about epistemology and marketing is a learned skill.

The substack realm is very iffy to me. I think there's a few really sharp thinkers, but they are almost exclusively doing analysis and opinion. It's extremely hard to get primary sources talking to a blogger. You might think you're getting a fresh perspective, but really they are just reading a load of MSM sources for you and giving you a filtered version.

What toot said. Substack is not really giving you news. It has some very good writers, but they're not out there developing sources, breaking stories, conducting investigations, or doing primary research of any kind mostly (except in the instances where a research scientist is also a writer). It's largely people with some expertise and writing skill reading the news and giving you their take. Someone still needs to actually produce the news for the writers on Substack to even have anything to write about.

Plenty of people would probably argue that Rogan has been leading the way to higher quality. It's why we now have countless of 3-5 hour podcasts where people are allowed to go through all nuances, finish their thoughts and we don't have to rely on the 30 seconds soundbites that TV and traditional media filters give us.

I mean, he's opened up the market for listening in general, but I'd still count his show as being low quality. Just letting cranks speak without interruption isn't journalism. The long-form podcasts I listen to are from professional journalists who do weeks of prep, gather sources, check facts, challenger assertions and try to present an accurate picture. Rogan just lets people lie and theorize and push agendas and he goes along with whatever so long as it's funny or engaging.

> Are from professional journalists who do weeks of prep

What you are referring to is called branding and this particular form appeals to your sensibilities.

All the top media outlets try to use a similar brand. Ultimately you are consuming a second hand synthesis woven into popular narratives, not anything more true.

What an odd take. Are you saying that professional journalism literally doesn't exist? That Joe Rogan is the same thing as James Risen? Admittedly plenty of people call themselves professional journalists that are frauds like all the folks at FOX or OAN who have been caught dead to rights lying to pander to their audiences. Or Rogan's guests like RFK and Alex Jones who only come on his show to promote their personal interests push their own utterly deceitful agendas.

But there are a great many serious people who take pride in speaking the truth and exposing reality that people don't want to hear. It's beyond cynical to think that every single one of them is fake.

> Are you saying that professional journalism literally doesn't exist

Seriousness and truthfulness are separate axis. Serious branding gives the appearance of authority.

> frauds like all the folks at FOX

You will find they have similar credentials as the outlets you enjoy. In fact, they probably used to work there.

> every single one of them is fake.

It's not they they are fake. It's that nobody has a monopoly on truth or methods of finding it.

Can journalists provide valuable information? Certainly. But they have their own systematic and personal biased. In particular, they are an extremely tight knit community performing for their peers.

Joe's podcast is obviously goofy as can be. But I actually prefer being explicit about your biases, instead of faux objectivity.

"It's not they they are fake. It's that nobody has a monopoly on truth or methods of finding it."

That's moving the goal posts into the parking lot. Joe Rogan and James Risen (as an example) are both fallible human beings capable of bias and errors, but one of them is 1000X better at eliciting and distributing truth than the other. And it's not by dint of their relative credentials, it's because one of them is smarter, more dedicated, more moral, has studied their craft, worked at it for decades, puts in hours of legwork, has the courage to risk their personal safety for the good of the reading public and the other is a drug-addled meathead who is interested in making money. Not that you're not allowed to enjoy his show, but it's purely entertainment and if you learn anything that happens to be true it's purely by coincidence.

It sounds like you have made up your mind. So I don't have anything to add.

> Just letting cranks speak without interruption isn't journalism.

I don't believe anyone sees Rogan as a journalist or anything along those lines.

The state of journalism is where Joe Rogan or whatever podcast is a step forward and refreshing.

There's a reason people prefer listening to the guest to speak instead of being taught to think and live by white journo women.

> There's a reason people prefer listening to the guest to speak instead of being taught to think and live by white journo women.

Yes: it’s confirming their priors and not challenging any preconceived notions.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Rogan is fine but it’s largely an entertainment podcast. The idea that it’s a replacement for hard news doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.