So... I think there are two seperate things here, besides ownership of the prestige word "journalism." One is "reporting," which involves fact-checking, corro

So... I think there are two seperate things here, besides ownership of the prestige word "journalism." One is "reporting," which involves fact-checking, corroborating source statements and such. This is, I agree, something that generally needs an organisation. The other is investigative journalism. This can be done independently & can't be scooped, but it is an incredibly inefficient way of putting ink on paper. Investigations take weeks, months or years and not every investigation finds much worth reporting. This is incredibly important, but god only knows hows its supposed to be funded. Where it is done, its subsidized, cross subsidized, snuck in or done unpaid. This is as much an issue at NYT as it is on substack. There's no known general solution to this problem. All that said, most of what most people read, listen to and watch is neither of these things. It's commentary and rhetoric. Those aren't bad, they're just overabundant, everywhere... not just substack. In fact, if you take a glance at politically fringe publications like Breitbart, Jacobin, Democracy Now, etc.... You will find that most of it is such content. News first published elsewhere, with new commentary. Its like this everywhere: left, right, centre, establishment, dissident, corporate, independant. If there's intelligent life on mars, I reckon their papers will be full of it too.