“It really says something when Bari Weiss’ Substack is more interesting than the newspaper she used to write for”, a friend said to me recently when I referenced the former New York Times editor in a conversation. Weiss is one of a growing number of prominent journalists who are taking to Substack to share and monetize their writing with astonishing success. Substack allows writers to share their work in an email newsletter for free or a fee (usually $5 US a month). This model gives writers complete control over the content they put into the world. While a lot can be nice about self-publishing, it’s also a lot of work to be your own research, editing, and marketing team. Additionally, if you’re not already a household name, gaining a following is likely to be a challenge outside of a respected publication. So, why are so many reputable and upcoming writers going out on their own?
The long and short of it is that the news has changed.
When my parents were growing up, there were three channels. The news was read during the news hour. Newspapers were delivered in the morning or the evening. People, by and large, believed the paper of record, and efforts to make the news into a form of entertainment were limited. In my lifetime, we have CNN.
The news now doubles as a form of entertainment. You can tune in to hear the news delivered and debated from more perspectives than anyone can keep track of at every hour of the day. The infotainment nature of modern journalism was never more present than during the Trump presidential campaign when CNN spent a disproportionate amount of time early in the race airing footage of Trump rallies because the shockingly outlandish nature of the content was good for ratings - and, as they would find out, exposing voters to questionable ideas. The response has been to hand over power on both the Left and the Right to a radical and vocal minority. Voices that fall in the centre, those in an earlier era would have been viewed as asking reasonable questions about the new norms imposed from either side, are now considered too controversial or potentially offensive to reach any audience.
I spent two summers during my undergraduate career working as a reporter for The Telegram in St. John’s, Newfoundland. During that time, I would frequently find myself conducting an interview or writing a story and thinking how much power I had. As a journalist, it was entirely up to me - and then my editor- how stories were told and how the people involved were portrayed. Objectivity in my writing was a skill I worked hard to develop there, one I regularly and consciously shirk here.
Slowly, and then suddenly, the power I felt over the narratives of others has been leveraged beyond the confines of opinion columns. Prominent writers such as Matt Taibbi, have commented that the news has developed an edge: stories - the “news” part of the newspaper - are told in such a way as to present information while simultaneously leading the reader to the “correct” conclusion. Long gone are the days when the news, particularly television and radio news, was required to allow equal time for each side. We are now in an era where even our opinion columns are cautious of contrarian voices on a growing list of emotionally and ideologically charged subjects. Stories that subvert the hegemonic perspective on the left and the right were relegated first to niche papers and magazines. And as these outlets became increasingly cautious of Twitter vitriol, important stories calling into question the moral superiority of the loudest voices found themselves in a state of homelessness.
Enter Substack.
Substack is not, by any means, a perfect solution. As previously mentioned, it is a lot of work to be running your own show, and for emerging voices, landing on the right ears is infinitely more difficult when you cannot rely on the established distribution networks of a major newspaper. A flaw that should not go unacknowledged is that on Substack, there are no fact-checkers or editors. When I write for a newspaper, my stories are edited. If someone isn’t sure about the accuracy of a claim, they ask to see my source or conduct their own research before going to print. On Substack, I am in control of the accuracy of the information I include in each piece, and while this is a burden I take seriously, I am limited by time and the sources to which I have exposed myself. Much like how Reddit can be a really good place to learn what you should ask before buying a refurbished cellphone and also a perfect place to be indoctrinated as a neo-Nazi, Substack has some dark corners of misinformation that the mainstream media have understandably rejected. But for all of its flaws, Substack has created a platform where writers can share their analysis of the issues without fear of censure.
Opinion columns have long been to challenge readers to think deeply about a topic by presenting an argument they may or may not agree with. This should involve recruiting knowledgeable commentators, sometimes holding contrarian views, to share their opinions, and allowing readers to draw their conclusions, just as they should have the opportunity to do with objective news articles. To do this, news outlets should take a cue from well-known writers publishing commentary on Substack that would no longer appear in their pages. They should embrace and accept that sometimes a story or opinion that makes us uncomfortable is one that, regardless, needs to be shared. To do this, would be an opportunity to soothe the divisions that have developed in where we get our information.
The success of popular writers exploring unpopular opinions on Substack should signal to traditional media outlets that they have moved too far, too fast in the direction of homogeneity of perspective. While certain voices, particularly those of the new moral orthodoxy on the Left, are deafeningly loud, it does not mean they represent the best interests of the readership at large. Readers followed particular writers to a relatively unheard of platform, and paid to hear a perspective that challenged the one presented in the outlets those writers left behind. They did this either because they agree with the writer or because readers know there is another side to the story, and they want to expose themselves to it. Either way, the readership has spoken, and they have decided that these are the stories they want to hear.
Being challenged in what we think is an integral part of healthy civil discourse. Relegating opinions that divest from the imposed moral norms out of newsprint and onto platforms like Substack pushes readers away with them. News outlets should look at the popularity of Substack as a sign to reintroduce a diversity of perspectives on sometimes sensitive issues to their pages and recognize that diversity of opinion is something that the silent majority continue to value.