Post

I did not enjoy writing this; it can't even serve as an ad for my newsletter, which I've suspended due to an overbilling situation that has me almost regretting leaving Substack. But, you know, it's evidence for the piece I just didn't get to include. talkingpointsmemo.com/tpm-25/patro...

talkingpointsmemo.comPatron-Supported Journalism Can’t Be the Future of NewsWriting about the failure of patron-supported journalism is itself a kind of...

185 reposts593 likes

That bit about the left being "intolerant of hearing things it doesn’t want to hear" hit hard because I recently unsubscribed to two newsletters for that reason. In my defense, incl subs to trad media like The New Yorker & SF Chronicle, I spend an avg of $300/mo which is a lot for me.

I don't demand 100% agreement, but I do draw lines, and I get plenty of info from sources I disagree with. The loss of the Washington Post & NY Times for reliable national reporting has been devastating, and the RW owns the billionaires. So the system IS broken. Wish I had an answer for you.

I just realized another thing piece should have also included (in addition to me writing it while sick, suspending my own newsletter, and my podcast about economic precarity!): MY TIP JAR: paypal.me/anamariecox I will take your money! My house flooded last November and I'm still off repairs.

paypal.mePay Ana Marie Cox using PayPal.MeGo to paypal.me/anamariecox and type in the amount. Since it’s PayPal, it's easy and secure. Don’t have a PayPal account? No worries.

This is also an excellent article about the economy writ large. I identify , but as an artist who used to make a decent income but now give away my creations because there is no market for them anymore. Corporate capitalism ate up all the smaller venues, while destroying our purchasing power.

On its face I’ve always liked the micro-payment notion where readers pay per-item. Obviously no idea if it pencils out, what price would need to be, and assumes it’s frictionless enough to appeal. No getting around the economics of subscriptions maxxing out fast. I don’t recall a serious attempt.

Spot on. I was a news reporter before my daily closed 30 years ago. Wound up good for my career but there's no way for news to survive anymore and society is paying the price. We are flooded with propaganda and few know the difference.

I've been saying this for some time - and it doesn't just apply to journalists, but musicians, artists, games developers and a host of other small businesses and creatives. We've been forced into either cents-per-view or private patronage. Two extremes, neither of which serve creators or consumers.

There are other business models (by which I mean: ways that people can directly reward good journalism, artists, creators with minimum friction), but we've not yet had that "BlueSky moment" where someone commits to building a new ecosystem and way of thinking about supporting creators.

The harsh reality is that there isn't a guaranteed single right answer, the existing incumbents are directly opposed to competition, and doing the experiments to find out what works as an alternative is expensive, time consuming and risks public humiliation.

Until and unless someone does what they did with BlueSky and invests in a serious alternative, we will remain in a system where the attention economy rewards a small handful whilst wringing the life out of those that we need to nurture and grow into the next generation of voices.

Plus, Substack is the platform for Nazis (they send nazi push notifications ffs!). Ideally everyone would move off the platform but because the readership is siloed, as you say, moving is extremely risky. Slightly less so if you have your own domain, of course.

Something like Nebula, but for writing, maybe? Not as tightly curated as a digital magazine, but still a collective of creators with some minimum threshold of quality and likely audience overlap. Maybe add in a tip feature for one-off thanks or something.

I’d like to see a follow up discussion that begins with the last paragraph of this essay. I have no idea what is being suggested in that paragraph- in the context of unregulated media consolidation, propagandistic social media algorithms, & suppression from the federal government & wealth hoarders.

We are still holding on to the notion that good journalism can be a path to wealth & fame, It may not even be able to produce a living wage for most people. Journalists, like most artists & musicians, need to find other avenues for income to support their journalism. Or find rich benefactors.

My optimism died last November. I’m working on it, but I’m old, sick, & tired. Living with HIV for 41 years - and a fascist uprising for the past decade- I apologize for my cynicism and despair in the waning years of my life. Been reading & listening to you since Wonkette -when we were all bloggers.

The current model doesn’t work for readers any better than it works for writers. I’ve been thinking about this problem for a long time and have an idea for a potential solution that I’d like feedback from someone more experienced in the ecosystem. Would it be ok to dm a brief description to you?

You hit on two things that ring true for me. 1) how long can you personally support 10 to 20 authors. Notice I said personal, not subs that get paid by your company. Again, not talking here a solo company. These add up very fast, faster than movie channels or music streaming.

2) a collection of authors is a way to protect against one piece turning off people who then cancel their subscription. In a group setting, think magazine/newspaper there are many different viewpoints, which is good. The NYT survives bc of that reason. Canceling bc of one article doesn't happen.

Why some people get wilding sucessful is never easy to provide an answer. In the software world my company built a product just like Groupon, but before them. We did not survive. Why.. I put it up to luck and timing. Not features or advertising.

"The question we need to consider is not just “how does good journalism survive” but how can journalism model survival? Personally, I believe the way forward looks like collectives and worker-owned publications. " Here's a good starter pack for y'all: go.bsky.app/2Fq4P6e

Our news outlet @thexylom.com is fiscally sponsored by the Alternative Newsweekly Foundation, which allows us to take tax-deductible donations, memberships, and grants. From my POV, the downside of Wikimedia Foundation is that Wikipedia is susceptible to anonymous vandalism and "edit wars"

A group funded non profit is not the same as a billionaire's vanity project. You are going to have to have some sort of recognized and sanctioned financial reporting. So if not a non profit what structure would you suggest.

The main question I have, as we see increasing worker ownership, is how to avoid the "now I got mine" of it all? I've yet to see a truly inclusive model, in the sense of attempting to support all who would put their effort behind the project rather than the select in-group.

I've been saying since last Trump administration at least, that we need public money to bring back the local paper, and local TV stations. There needs to be some level of local indendence, but tasked with Federal standards for being actual News and not Opinion.

We need to approach the problem differently. I believe that there is an audience of tens of millions willing to pay $5/mo for an independent journal providing coverage similar to that the NYT once did. Ten million at $60/yr is $600 million. That is easily enough to make such a venture viable.

And one problem I've found is that several newsletters I *want* to pay for have only "pay nothing" or "pay way more than I can afford" as options. I appreciate the need to set a floor for any kind of survivability, but from my end the effect is that I'm paying nothing at all rather than *something*.

See, people are reinventing magazines and calling them newsletters... but they're just never going to scale. What we need is UBI and nationalized health care and government grants for artists and writers?

Another model you don't mention in the conclusion that I think is very worthwhile is community-owned journalism. While the idea is full of failed attempts at community ownership, I'm a huge fan of the pretty darn successful @inquirer.com / @lenfestinstitute.org model. 3/4

lenfestinstitute.orgThe Philadelphia InquirerThe Lenfest Institute for Journalism is the nonprofit, non-controlling owner of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Thx for writing this. I understand that a small (in the hundreds) of reporters / commentators have successfully gone to solo newsletters, but the ecosystem becomes so small. A recent person got fired, started a newsletter: it's $70/yr. I'm supposed to pay that for 1 person's views in just 1 area?