Are newsletters the future of truth?
The results of The Ink's future-of-media survey
Join us live today, Tuesday, June 10, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern, when we’ll speak to journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson about Joe Biden and the future of the Democratic Party. You can watch our Live events on your desktop at The Ink or on your phone or tablet with the Substack app. We’ve got more great conversations coming up this week — see below for details on those, and for an important note on The Ink Book Club’s move to Zoom.
Are newsletters the future of media? Will A.I. lay waste to the truth? Who do you trust more — individual journalists or institutions? Do you want the unvarnished truth, or what validates your beliefs? Should publications like this hold back from certain subjects to avoid damaging good causes? Can billionaire-owned media be relied on?
These are some of the questions we raised in The Ink’s first ever future-of-media survey. Seven hundred fifty of you — by definition, consumers of new media, among other things — shared your preferences, insights, and analyses. We are grateful.
We asked you about what kind of news and analysis is important for making sense of the world today, what the new media world of newsletters and podcasts and streaming video provides (and what it misses), and why and how and when the legacy outlets — the newspapers, magazines, cable channels, and radio stations we’ve all depended on for years — are still meaningful to you.
What we found over all is that we’re living in a period of uncertain transition, where new forms are vying not just for attention but for authority, and doing so in a political environment in which trust is difficult to earn, made more difficult by the rise of A.I. and the presence of mis- and disinformation campaigns. Legacy media is still a big part of the media world for readers of The Ink, and newsletters like this one (along with audio and video formats) are still finding their place, mostly alongside newspapers and magazines for now, rather than as replacements. The new media offers depth and context, and something distinctly different from social media.
But the shape of the next media isn’t yet clear. What comes after the newsletter revolution will have to continue offering that additional depth, while matching the breadth and scope and accessibility of newspapers and magazines, in a form we can’t quite predict.
Read on below for more of our findings.
What is the news for?
I want to know who’s informing me - why Substack is great. A historian, then an economist, then a pro-tech. I learn their personalities. I can depend on them to teach/inform in their own specialties
A vast majority — 94 percent of you — told us that the main thing you’re looking for from the news is to stay informed. But for many of you it goes further than that. Fully 82 percent of you said you want the information you get from news media to be useful, information you can act on.
Should the media be social?
Wouldn’t touch “social media” in the interests of world peace.
We are a big brain, and so I can influence the blogosphere in small but important ways. We are growing something here.
Relatively few of you — just 18 percent — are looking at news as a place to connect socially, or primarily to participate in discussions or chat or comment threads. Readers reported that they shared news articles, email newsletter posts, or other content primarily with friends and family: 20 percent did so daily, and 38 percent weekly. Fewer were motivated to share publicly on social media: only 13 percent shared daily, and 30 percent told us they never shared news at all on social platforms. Most who did — 70 percent — told us they did so out of a sense of civic duty, to amplify important information.
Without fear or favor
A significant majority — 83 percent of readers polled — think the news media needs to stay committed to presenting the truth, regardless of consequences. Very few — just 7 percent of respondents — thought publications should consider the political impact of their work when choosing stories to cover. And 70 percent of you look to the news to bring you new and unfamiliar viewpoints, regardless of where they come from along the political spectrum.
It may not always seem that way in the chat, LOL, but we take you at your word!
Is the press biased?
It depends on which media sources one is consuming. Many have sadly capitulated. I’m glad the responsible, good journalists have gone over to Substack. I don’t watch Fox, MSNBC has lost their best reporters due to pressure to conform or firing. ABC and CBS are being too careful due to lawsuits. The Washington Post is becoming more conservative and leans to the right. The AP is fairly balanced, but doesn’t go into enough depth. The Atlantic, Zeteo, Ground News, and Wired are my most consumed SECOND to Substack. I’m choosy about who I follow on Substack.
Here readers had more mixed feelings. A slim majority — 51 percent — told us that ideally they expected a news publication to be balanced on the whole and overall, with different writers covering issues from different political positions, rather than editorially tilted right or left, or adopting a neutral “news from nowhere” position, which only 23 percent of respondents endorsed.
That said, few felt today’s media outlets lived up to the responsibility. 81 percent thought that “bothsidesism” remained a problem, while 75 percent felt that media outlets were still too biased overall. This cuts both ways, however, with 61 percent telling us the mainstream media did too much to defend Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and other Democrats last November, and 93 percent saying they enabled Donald Trump.
But, overall, relatively few felt the major legacy news organizations were biased primarily right (14 percent) or left (11 percent). Rather, 44 percent felt they were focused on the interests of elites and out of touch with Americans. In other words, the real division is not left or right but up or down. And only 12 percent felt that there had been any real effort to address the issue since the November election, which, perhaps, is why a sizable majority — 70 percent of readers — told us that they trust news outlets less than they did in the past.
Who do you trust?
You are first on my list. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Malcomn Nance, Phil Ittner, Timothy Snyder are ones I will make a point of watching. Politician-wise I like to hear from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Bernie Sanders, and AOC. More legal minds: Laurence Tribe, Neal Katyal, Dahlia Lithwick, Elie Mystal...there's more but you get the idea.
I trust the BBC (radio) and the Guardian (print). I trust NPR for the most part, but I still find flaws in their reporting. Also, certain Substack newsletters are at the top of my "trusted" list.
Media ownership matters, for the 40 percent of our respondents who told us that a newspaper can’t be honest if it’s owned by a billionaire. Luckily, at The Ink, we’re not.
Readers do have strong attachments to news organizations, and to individual analysts, commentators, writers, and reporters — with many naming long lists of Substackers along with television and legacy media figures and political figures. Why? For 35 percent of readers, it’s because they feel these people and organizations call it like they see it.
I think they are honest, even if they are biased
That above quote seems to capture something important in the zeitgeist. Many legacy news organizations are so worried about being biased that they hold back from telling the stark, unvarnished truth. That has created space for a new wave of publications that worry less about being biased and worry more about telling it like it is.
Misinformation concerns
Extremely concerned especially now with AI
Both concerned but confident I can recognize it. But also worry many people cannot recognize it.
AI is a great tool. But it has already been abused. It caught me enough to fact check on my own. Most people will believe what they see.
Oligarchic control and partisan bias aren’t the only issues that worry our readers about the future of journalism. 78 percent of readers expressed concern over fake news — and only 12 percent of them are confident that they can always spot it, an enormous warning for us all. More readers — 26 percent — feel that they can pick out A.I.-generated content from the real thing, and 60 percent of them feel A.I. use is already degrading the news, contributing to the rise of mis- and disinformation.
No pivot to video?
Listen but not much is concise in audio so while it would be nice, I rely almost exclusively on reading.
No preference really, although I do find myself listening more these days because I can work at the same time.
Reading is still fundamental for most respondents. 39 percent reported they prefer to read news, only 7 percent preferred audio, and only 5 percent preferred video. Those who have adopted podcasts and video appreciate that they can multitask while staying informed.
The future of journalism
Added a necessary, missing perspective from mainstream publications.
I’m finding a balance…I use NYT for breaking news, and independent media for analysis and context building.
Who would fund investigative reporting if legacy media bureaus went away?
Newsletters have not replaced legacy publications for most of our readers (only 15 percent mentioned that they’ve swapped the new media for the old). Rather, they’ve added new perspectives. 31 percent of readers told us that newsletters would need to be easier to access and less dependent on apps or platforms. 24 percent wanted more original reporting, and 22 percent felt that cost was still a barrier. For most of our readers, for newsletters to replace newspapers or magazines, they would, so far as today’s readers might envision, have to be more like newspapers or magazines.
What newsletters have done, above all, perhaps, is add meaning- and context-making to the mix. And the fearlessness of the small in an age of capitulation by the big.
If you appreciate the work that goes into The Ink and haven’t already done so, we hope you’ll become a supporting subscriber.
Your support is how we keep the lights on, pay our writers and editors a fair wage, and build the new media we all deserve. And when you subscribe, you help us reach more people.
Join us today, or if you are already a member, give a gift or group subscription.
More Live conversations this week!
Join us today, Tuesday, June 10, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern, when we’ll speak to journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson about Joe Biden and the future of the Democratic Party. Tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern, we’ll meet with The Ink Book Club (This week’s conversation is moving to Zoom; details at the bottom of this post for Book Club members). And on Thursday, June 12, at 12:30 p.m. Eastern, we’re back with political sage Anat Shenker-Osorio.
To join and watch, download the Substack app (click on the button below) and turn on notifications — you’ll get an alert once we’re live, and you can watch, chat, and even participate in the conversation during our Book Club meetings from your iOS or Android mobile device. If you’re using a computer, you can also watch (and ask questions in the text chat) on our homepage.
Book Club update
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to The.Ink to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.