"Been done before" is a pointless criticism. Yes, "blogging" reduced to a bare bones definition, has been invented and reinvented since before it was a term. Th

"Been done before" is a pointless criticism. Yes, "blogging" reduced to a bare bones definition, has been invented and reinvented since before it was a term. That means very little though. It's subtleties, norms and culture that make these mediums what they are. If Patreon, twitch, only fans and now youtube can support a direct-to-creator subscription culture, why not journalism? In any case, the economic woes of journalism transcend medium and specific formulations of a business model. Whether the incentive is eyeballs for advertising, an enthusiastic core for patronage or whatnot... it seems to always be at odds with journalism's financially independent mission. 100 articles commenting on the commentary or covering the coverage are the same amount of work as one, important, investigative piece. If that work is genuinely important, the information will be republished hundreds of times, and that's how most people will consume it. That's where money will go, whether through subscriptions, patronage or advertising. I don't think there is a way of having good incentives in the news business. Hard journalism is always subsidized some way, whether that's government subsidies or cross subsidies. Substack is, I think, a decent place for "independent voices." Individuals respected within a clique, commenting and highlighting issues of the day. It's probably not going to fund investigative journalism, and neither is any straightforward model. Public information is a public good. It's hard to get around that.