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.