Why You Should Be Reading Substacks Instead of News Sites
2024-09-18 · 5 min read
Legacy news sites are caught in a death spiral of declining ad revenue, clickbait headlines, and content designed for engagement metrics rather than understanding. Meanwhile, Substack and similar newsletter platforms have quietly become the best place to find writing that actually informs rather than inflames.
The structural advantage is alignment of incentives. A news site makes money from clicks, which means every headline is optimized for outrage. A paid newsletter makes money from subscribers who value the writing enough to pay for it. When your income depends on reader satisfaction rather than advertiser impressions, quality improves.
The depth available on newsletters is unmatched. Matt Levine at Bloomberg's Money Stuff writes 3,000-word breakdowns of financial topics that make derivatives trading comprehensible and entertaining. Slow Boring by Matthew Yglesias offers policy analysis with a wonky depth that cable news couldn't attempt in a 24-hour cycle.
Niche expertise thrives in the newsletter format. Craig Mod writes about walking through Japan and the future of books. Garbage Day by Ryan Broderick chronicles internet culture with anthropological rigor. Emily Nunn's Department of Salad covers food, culture, and grief with a voice entirely her own.
The criticism is valid that newsletters create echo chambers since you only read people you've chosen to follow. But that's also true of every media consumption habit. At least with newsletters, the curation is deliberate rather than algorithmic. You're choosing your information diet consciously.
Start with free subscriptions to get a feel for different voices. Most writers offer enough free content to evaluate before committing financially. Build a reading stack of five to seven newsletters that cover your interests, and you'll find yourself better informed than anyone doom-scrolling through traditional news sites.
