There is an obvious, intentional flight among journalists and others from working at a news organization to producing a newsletter. Many use the platform Substack, yet there are others. They all can attract viewers, and importantly, have a subscription component that can generate revenue. What they do not do is replace the collaboration of working for a newspaper. Substackers are on their own.
On the road to perdition, this seems the next evolution of journalism. It is littered with potholes and pavement cracks. It has all the aspects of a do-it-yourself, one-person start up. There usually is no editor except the author, unless one is lucky enough to join with others to build some basic, on-the-cheap infrastructure. Call it a newspaper, only without union employees or a big fancy building like the Des Moines Register used to occupy. If a writer misses an issue, they may not get paid, yet there is no blank front page to be concerned about. Newsletters are not redemption for the failings of news organizations. They fracture and fragment news gathering and reduce it down to one-person experiences broadcast on a semi-regular basis. There is value in that, yet it’s not the same by a distance.
Ana Marie Cox wrote on Monday, “Some of the best writing out there is from writers striking out on their own.” That may be so, yet what the proliferation of newsletters has done is enable focus on writers readers like to learn from and leave the rest behind. It is easy to build a silo out of newsletters we like, further breaking down the view that a diversity of writers and opinions is of value. The pressures of today’s society and the changing role of media makes us hunker down into our silos and that is not a positive thing.
“(The exodus from legacy journalism) has created something that it is so personality- and brand-driven, so geared to the success of one person at a time, it scares me,” Cox wrote. “Newsletters are atomizing. They incentivize speed and volume. The newsletter ecosystem isn’t built to support doing big things, or doing things slowly, or doing things collectively. Or doing big things collectively, slowly.”
I get most of my news from one of four sources: newspapers, newsletters, emails, and the social media platform BlueSky. Importantly, I seek news sources that are grounded in the human experiences of the author. Such experience comes at a cost, and newspapers seek to drive out costs by using content from sources like The Associated Press, or in some cases by using artificial intelligence to fill a page. When cost concerns trump personal experience, what is called news becomes less engaging, less worth following.
Newsletter writers try to make it on subscriptions, yet it can be a tough row to hoe. Writers know they need more than a newsletter on their financial platform to live a life. Part of the risk of writing an article is it can be a dud. Without the infrastructure of a news organization, that means less pay for the time spent on the article. As a long-time blogger, I realize the benefit of producing posts with 400 to 1,000 words. They can be produced in an hour or two with less investment of time gathering new experience or information. A seasoned news professional knows the ropes and can survive a dud on a newsletter platform. However, there is a need to produce content on a recognizable, regular basis. To be successful (i.e. generate enough income) a writer must produce engaging volume for their followers. That’s tough to do when an article is based on one person’s experience.
I made a few posts in my Substack account and they get a lot more views than my posts on WordPress. Part of that is how they count a “view.” They explain the same reader may count for multiple views while reading an article. I will continue to post unique content there to see what it does. I doubt I would move this blog to a newsletter format because that is already available to subscribers via email. Too, if there was potential to earn a decent income, I would consider more newsletter content. I don’t see that path as viable at present.
Freelancing has been part of the gig economy since long before we called holding portfolios of income producing jobs as such. Freelancing benefits the news organization because there is a fixed price for each piece of work, and because the number of freelancers can surge or be cut back depending on needs. I produced 100 newspaper articles as a freelancer and I neither felt part of an organization nor like I was paid enough for the investment in time. The idea of a gig economy sounds positive until one has to live in it.
I haven’t talked about “content creators” yet. Maybe that is a topic for a different post.
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.