This is a small step in shedding light on if not beginning to solve a huge problem. But cynical me hears this as disingenuous and a self-serving distraction at best. How does this solve—or fund—the absolutely essential role of service or enterprise journalism that's disappearing all over the US? (See https://www.usnewsdeserts.com to find a news desert near you; and stories of the fallout: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/reader-center/local-news-deserts.html)
How will a Substack for an enterprising local journalistic talent pay her/him to send a fleet of beat reporters out week after week to cover local officials, local policy, local hearings (endless, soul-sucking, but where the sausage is being made)? Never mind fund a Boston Globe-like "Spotlight" to slog away for years on pedophilia in the Catholic Church—this costs a fortune and may not “deliver” anything to subscribers for weeks, months, or even years. Meanwhile: office and travel expenses, press pass access, data sources, oh and rent, health insurance, etc.
A lone writer on Substack is not the same as a beat reporter (or 10) in local news deserts like Denver, Burlington, Vt. or Ferndale, Calif. with a newsroom behind them. (And don't get me started on the mortal threat of the stealth right-wing takeover of "local news" on TV & radio: see Anne Nelson, "Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right.")
Certainly better than nothing, don't get me wrong!—and there might be a few multi-talented local experts recently out of work who could make a difference—but what’s your take?
PS The American Substack co-founder dude sounds eerily like Zuckerberg.
Holley, thanks for flagging this news. I haven't had time to listen to the podcast, so these comments are limited to what the Vox story says about this idea from Substack. First, anything that subsidizes quality local journalism is better than nothing. But it's not at all clear to me that this local news plan is really a gift to intrepid local journalists. Vox says: "The terms of Substack’s local push roughly mirror the “Substack Pro” program it has been using to lure high-profile writers to the platform: Writers can get up to $100,000 in one-time payments, and can also keep 15 percent of any revenue their newsletters generate in the first year. After that, they’re on their own financially but will keep 90 percent of the fees subscribers pay them. Substack says it will also provide mentorship from other Substack journalists, as well as access to subsidized health care and other services." That sounds a lot like an advance against future earnings, and it's not clear if these local writers will get anywhere close to $100K for a year of work. After that, are they indentured to Substack's 10% take until they earn back the advance? To be sure, I'd rather that Substack pay writers than spend money on a big PR firm, but this announcement could also be read as a smart way to earn positive ink rather than something more significant.
Beyond that, no question that a solitary local reporter isn't enough to fill in a news desert, as you point out.
Thanks for this, Micah. ICYMI have a listen to the latest Recode podcast:
"Substack cofounders discuss $1 million local news plan - Vox"
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/substacks-next-target-local-news/id1080467174?i=1000517234095
This is a small step in shedding light on if not beginning to solve a huge problem. But cynical me hears this as disingenuous and a self-serving distraction at best. How does this solve—or fund—the absolutely essential role of service or enterprise journalism that's disappearing all over the US? (See https://www.usnewsdeserts.com to find a news desert near you; and stories of the fallout: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/reader-center/local-news-deserts.html)
How will a Substack for an enterprising local journalistic talent pay her/him to send a fleet of beat reporters out week after week to cover local officials, local policy, local hearings (endless, soul-sucking, but where the sausage is being made)? Never mind fund a Boston Globe-like "Spotlight" to slog away for years on pedophilia in the Catholic Church—this costs a fortune and may not “deliver” anything to subscribers for weeks, months, or even years. Meanwhile: office and travel expenses, press pass access, data sources, oh and rent, health insurance, etc.
A lone writer on Substack is not the same as a beat reporter (or 10) in local news deserts like Denver, Burlington, Vt. or Ferndale, Calif. with a newsroom behind them. (And don't get me started on the mortal threat of the stealth right-wing takeover of "local news" on TV & radio: see Anne Nelson, "Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right.")
Certainly better than nothing, don't get me wrong!—and there might be a few multi-talented local experts recently out of work who could make a difference—but what’s your take?
PS The American Substack co-founder dude sounds eerily like Zuckerberg.
Holley, thanks for flagging this news. I haven't had time to listen to the podcast, so these comments are limited to what the Vox story says about this idea from Substack. First, anything that subsidizes quality local journalism is better than nothing. But it's not at all clear to me that this local news plan is really a gift to intrepid local journalists. Vox says: "The terms of Substack’s local push roughly mirror the “Substack Pro” program it has been using to lure high-profile writers to the platform: Writers can get up to $100,000 in one-time payments, and can also keep 15 percent of any revenue their newsletters generate in the first year. After that, they’re on their own financially but will keep 90 percent of the fees subscribers pay them. Substack says it will also provide mentorship from other Substack journalists, as well as access to subsidized health care and other services." That sounds a lot like an advance against future earnings, and it's not clear if these local writers will get anywhere close to $100K for a year of work. After that, are they indentured to Substack's 10% take until they earn back the advance? To be sure, I'd rather that Substack pay writers than spend money on a big PR firm, but this announcement could also be read as a smart way to earn positive ink rather than something more significant.
Beyond that, no question that a solitary local reporter isn't enough to fill in a news desert, as you point out.
This upcoming free event just crossed my radar, Friday April 23 "Journalism Ethics and Local News Now": https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2021-conference/
Micah, Don’t be so hard on Zuck... $54 billion just ain’t what it used to be.