In the past five years, independent newsletters have exploded, as journalists and other writers look for new ways to monetize their work in the face of layoffs and shrinking outlets for reporting and critical or personal essays. Some of these newsletters are 100 percent reader supported, while others monetize through ads and sponsorships, and still others recoup revenue through consulting or speaking work. But outside the framework of established institutions and expectations for how writers interact with the people funding their work, these writers are usually left on their own to sort out any ethical conundrums that might arise.
What do you do when the newsletter platform you use also supports people whose positions you fundamentally disagree with? What if the person you fundamentally disagree with now owns that newsletter platform? How do you handle the perception — and arguably, the reality — that these platforms in general are power plays less interested in fostering journalistic, critical, and creative work than advancing their own financial and ideological agendas and circumscribing the public sphere? It’s all the issues we’ve faced with social media, crowdfunding platforms, and big publishers and their corporate owners, but somehow (like the new journalism models it fosters), more concentrated and more direct.
What do you do when your readers — now your direct patrons — are also part of a community that you have to moderate? What do you do when they demand a particular style of writing or a particular slant to your coverage (usually more positive, more critical, or maybe more relevant to their own interests)? Now, suppose that patron is an advertiser or sponsor — one whose products or services might be covered in your newsletter or who competes with those who are. What lines do you draw and how do you stick with them? Suppose an independent newsletter owner employs another journalist to act as an editor, fact-checker, community moderator, podcast producer, etc. How do they relate to that employee (typically also an independent contractor) without exploiting them as much or more than a larger organization would?
This doesn’t even touch on some of the murkiest ethical issues affecting independent journalists. Here’s a lightly redacted anecdote. For four years, I’ve written a newsletter about Amazon and the media, tech, and commerce industries. I consider myself a fair critic of Amazon, but definitely more of a critic and user than a booster or a take-no-sides reporter.
Last year, I was approached by a firm representing an unnamed client who was offering a large sum of money to support my newsletter, under the understanding that I continue to write stories critical of Amazon. Nothing proposed was anything other than factual, and not significantly different from the writing I was doing, but they had specific requests for areas I could focus on. They’d found an ideologically aligned writer with a reputation as an independent voice, and wanted to underwrite that work. But I could not disclose the sponsorship or even be told the identity of who the ultimate client was. I did not take this assignment, but I had to wonder who else was being made an offer like this, and who would ultimately accept.
This is not a scenario that a reporter in a traditional newsroom is permitted to consider, at least without violating many standards of professional ethics. But for a single newsletter writer, this can be an offer too good to refuse. I would also say it bleeds uncomfortably into the already accepted domains of patronage and disclosed sponsorship that already fund many independent newsletters. I would say in fact that independent newsletters are ripe ground for this kind of astroturfed activism, and there are many actors in many industries who know it.
For these reasons and more, I think a discussion about ethical guidelines for independent newsletters is far overdue. We have to talk about standards of who we work for, who we work with, and how we get our work done. It is not nearly so simple as saying that a direct financial relationship with your readers solves all your problems. It just poses new ones. In 2023 and beyond, we have to do better at recognizing and grappling with these problems before we’re overrun by them.
Tim Carmody writes about media, technology, art, and culture.
In the past five years, independent newsletters have exploded, as journalists and other writers look for new ways to monetize their work in the face of layoffs and shrinking outlets for reporting and critical or personal essays. Some of these newsletters are 100 percent reader supported, while others monetize through ads and sponsorships, and still others recoup revenue through consulting or speaking work. But outside the framework of established institutions and expectations for how writers interact with the people funding their work, these writers are usually left on their own to sort out any ethical conundrums that might arise.
What do you do when the newsletter platform you use also supports people whose positions you fundamentally disagree with? What if the person you fundamentally disagree with now owns that newsletter platform? How do you handle the perception — and arguably, the reality — that these platforms in general are power plays less interested in fostering journalistic, critical, and creative work than advancing their own financial and ideological agendas and circumscribing the public sphere? It’s all the issues we’ve faced with social media, crowdfunding platforms, and big publishers and their corporate owners, but somehow (like the new journalism models it fosters), more concentrated and more direct.
What do you do when your readers — now your direct patrons — are also part of a community that you have to moderate? What do you do when they demand a particular style of writing or a particular slant to your coverage (usually more positive, more critical, or maybe more relevant to their own interests)? Now, suppose that patron is an advertiser or sponsor — one whose products or services might be covered in your newsletter or who competes with those who are. What lines do you draw and how do you stick with them? Suppose an independent newsletter owner employs another journalist to act as an editor, fact-checker, community moderator, podcast producer, etc. How do they relate to that employee (typically also an independent contractor) without exploiting them as much or more than a larger organization would?
This doesn’t even touch on some of the murkiest ethical issues affecting independent journalists. Here’s a lightly redacted anecdote. For four years, I’ve written a newsletter about Amazon and the media, tech, and commerce industries. I consider myself a fair critic of Amazon, but definitely more of a critic and user than a booster or a take-no-sides reporter.
Last year, I was approached by a firm representing an unnamed client who was offering a large sum of money to support my newsletter, under the understanding that I continue to write stories critical of Amazon. Nothing proposed was anything other than factual, and not significantly different from the writing I was doing, but they had specific requests for areas I could focus on. They’d found an ideologically aligned writer with a reputation as an independent voice, and wanted to underwrite that work. But I could not disclose the sponsorship or even be told the identity of who the ultimate client was. I did not take this assignment, but I had to wonder who else was being made an offer like this, and who would ultimately accept.
This is not a scenario that a reporter in a traditional newsroom is permitted to consider, at least without violating many standards of professional ethics. But for a single newsletter writer, this can be an offer too good to refuse. I would also say it bleeds uncomfortably into the already accepted domains of patronage and disclosed sponsorship that already fund many independent newsletters. I would say in fact that independent newsletters are ripe ground for this kind of astroturfed activism, and there are many actors in many industries who know it.
For these reasons and more, I think a discussion about ethical guidelines for independent newsletters is far overdue. We have to talk about standards of who we work for, who we work with, and how we get our work done. It is not nearly so simple as saying that a direct financial relationship with your readers solves all your problems. It just poses new ones. In 2023 and beyond, we have to do better at recognizing and grappling with these problems before we’re overrun by them.
Tim Carmody writes about media, technology, art, and culture.
Mael Vallejo More threats to press freedom across the Americas
Brian Stelter Finding new ways to reach news avoiders
Taylor Lorenz The “creator economy” will be astroturfed
Michael Schudson Journalism gets more and more difficult
AX Mina Journalism in a time of permacrisis
Joanne McNeil Facebook and the media kiss and make up
Eric Nuzum A focus on people instead of power
Ryan Kellett Airline-like loyalty programs try to tie down news readers
Esther Kezia Thorpe Subscription pressures force product innovation
Jakob Moll Journalism startups will think beyond English
Alexandra Svokos Working harder to reach audiences where they are
Jim Friedlich Local journalism steps up to the challenge of civic coverage
Daniel Trielli Trust in news will continue to fall. Just look at Brazil.
Nicholas Jackson There will be launches — and we’ll keep doing the work
Walter Frick Journalists wake up to the power of prediction markets
Dominic-Madori Davis Everyone finally realizes the need for diverse voices in tech reporting
Khushbu Shah Global reporting will suffer
Eric Holthaus As social media fragments, marginalized voices gain more power
Masuma Ahuja Journalism starts working for and with its communities
Bill Grueskin Local news will come to rely on AI
James Salanga Journalists work from a place of harm reduction
Larry Ryckman We’ll work together with our competitors
Laxmi Parthasarathy Unlocking the silent demand for international journalism
Kavya Sukumar Belling the cat: The rise of independent fact-checking at scale
Jim VandeHei There is no “peak newsletter”
Janet Haven ChatGPT and the future of trust
Cari Nazeer and Emily Goligoski News organizations step up their support for caregivers
Alexandra Borchardt The year of the climate journalism strategy
Gabe Schneider Well-funded journalism leaders stop making disparate pay
Amy Schmitz Weiss Journalism education faces a crossroads
Sarah Stonbely Growth in public funding for news and information at the state and local levels
Jesse Holcomb Buffeted, whipped, bullied, pulled
Christoph Mergerson The rot at the core of the news business
Joni Deutsch Podcast collaboration — not competition — breeds excellence
Christina Shih Shared values move from nice-to-haves to essentials
Basile Simon Towards supporting criminal accountability
Leezel Tanglao Community partnerships drive better reporting
Sam Gregory Synthetic media forces us to understand how media gets made
Peter Bale Rising costs force more digital innovation
Alex Perry New paths to transparency without Twitter
Al Lucca Digital news design gets interesting again
Anita Varma Journalism prioritizes the basic need for survival
Victor Pickard The year journalism and capitalism finally divorce
Sarah Marshall A web channel strategy won’t be enough
Stefanie Murray The year U.S. media stops screwing around and becomes pro-democracy
Kirstin McCudden We’ll codify protection of journalism and newsgathering
Doris Truong Workers demand to be paid what the job is worth
Upasna Gautam Technology that performs at the speed of news
Joshua P. Darr Local to live, wire to wither
Matt Rasnic More newsroom workers turn to organized labor
Laura E. Davis The year we embrace the robots — and ourselves
Wilson Liévano Diaspora journalism takes the next step
Molly de Aguiar and Mandy Van Deven Narrative change trend brings new money to journalism
Moreno Cruz Osório Brazilian journalism turns wounds into action
Cindy Royal Yes, journalists should learn to code, but…
Dana Lacey Tech will screw publishers over
Richard Tofel The press might get better at vetting presidential candidates
Andrew Losowsky Journalism realizes the replacement for Twitter is not a new Twitter
John Davidow A year of intergenerational learning
Bill Adair The year of the fact-check (no, really!)
Simon Galperin Philanthropy stops investing in corporate media
Ryan Nave Citizen journalism, but make it equitable
Martina Efeyini Talk to Gen Z. They’re the experts of Gen Z.
Jessica Clark Open discourse retrenches
Lisa Heyamoto The independent news industry gets a roadmap to sustainability
Jennifer Brandel AI couldn’t care less. Journalists will care more.
Tim Carmody Newsletter writers need a new ethics
Sam Guzik AI will start fact-checking. We may not like the results.
Gina Chua The traditional story structure gets deconstructed
Rachel Glickhouse Humanizing newsrooms will be a badge of honor
Sumi Aggarwal Smart newsrooms will prioritize board development
Shanté Cosme The answer to “quiet quitting” is radical empathy
Josh Schwartz The AI spammers are coming
Emily Nonko Incarcerated reporters get more bylines
Jarrad Henderson Video editing will help people understand the media they consume
Ståle Grut Your newsroom experiences a Midjourney-gate, too
David Skok Renewed interest in human-powered reporting
Danielle K. Brown and Kathleen Searles DEI efforts must consider mental health and online abuse
Tre'vell Anderson Continued culpability in anti-trans campaigns
Jonas Kaiser Rejecting the “free speech” frame
Eric Thurm Journalists think of themselves as workers
Hillary Frey Death to the labor-intensive memo for prospective hires
Sarah Alvarez Dream bigger or lose out
Elite Truong In platform collapse, an opportunity for community
Elizabeth Bramson-Boudreau More of the same
Priyanjana Bengani Partisan local news networks will collaborate
Surya Mattu Data journalists learn from photojournalists
Alex Sujong Laughlin Credit where it’s due
Nicholas Diakopoulos Journalists productively harness generative AI tools
Johannes Klingebiel The innovation team, R.I.P.
Sue Robinson Engagement journalism will have to confront a tougher reality
Ayala Panievsky It’s time for PR for journalism
Karina Montoya More reporters on the antitrust beat
Julia Angwin Democracies will get serious about saving journalism
Francesco Zaffarano There is no end of “social media”
Alan Henry A reckoning with why trust in news is so low
Megan Lucero and Shirish Kulkarni The future of journalism is not you
Michael W. Wagner The backlash against pro-democracy reporting is coming
Eric Ulken Generative AI brings wrongness at scale
David Cohn AI made this prediction
Amethyst J. Davis The slight of the great contraction
Mario García More newsrooms go mobile-first
Dannagal G. Young Stop rewarding elite performances of identity threat
Ben Werdmuller The internet is up for grabs again
Mariana Moura Santos A woman who speaks is a woman who changes the world
Kaitlyn Wells We’ll prioritize media literacy for children
Don Day The news about the news is bad. I’m optimistic.
Errin Haines Journalists on the campaign trail mend trust with the public
Raney Aronson-Rath Journalists will band together to fight intimidation
Paul Cheung More news organizations will realize they are in the business of impact, not eyeballs
Mauricio Cabrera It’s no longer about audiences, it’s about communities
Anika Anand Independent news businesses lead the way on healthy work cultures
Gordon Crovitz The year advertisers stop funding misinformation
J. Siguru Wahutu American journalism reckons with its colonialist tendencies
Julia Beizer News fatigue shows us a clear path forward
Sarabeth Berman Nonprofit local news shows that it can scale
Brian Moritz Rebuilding the news bundle
Jacob L. Nelson Despite it all, people will still want to be journalists
Kathy Lu We need emotionally agile newsroom leaders
Snigdha Sur Newsrooms get nimble in a recession
Ryan Gantz “I’m sorry, but I’m a large language model”
Jenna Weiss-Berman The economic downturn benefits the podcasting industry. (No, really!)
Anna Nirmala News organizations get new structures
Mar Cabra The inevitable mental health revolution
Jody Brannon We’ll embrace policy remedies
Zizi Papacharissi Platforms are over
Jessica Maddox Journalists keep getting manipulated by internet culture
Anthony Nadler Confronting media gerrymandering
Jaden Amos TikTok personality journalists continue to rise
Joe Amditis AI throws a lifeline to local publishers
Jennifer Choi and Jonathan Jackson Funders finally bet on next-generation news entrepreneurs
Valérie Bélair-Gagnon Well-being will become a core tenet of journalism
Cassandra Etienne Local news fellowships will help fight newsroom inequities
Kerri Hoffman Podcasting goes local
Tamar Charney Flux is the new stability
Sue Cross Thinking and acting collectively to save the news
Cory Bergman The AI content flood
Andrew Donohue We’ll find out whether journalism can, indeed, save democracy
Sue Schardt Toward a new poetics of journalism
A.J. Bauer Covering the right wrong
Delano Massey The industry shakes its imposter syndrome
Pia Frey Publishers start polling their users at scale
Felicitas Carrique and Becca Aaronson News product goes from trend to standard
Rodney Gibbs Recalibrating how we work apart
Emma Carew Grovum The year to resist forgetting about diversity
Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper Mission-driven metrics become our North Star
Nikki Usher This is the year of the RSS reader. (Really!)
Ariel Zirulnick Journalism doubles down on user needs
Kaitlin C. Miller Harassment in journalism won’t get better, but we’ll talk about it more openly
Nicholas Thompson The year AI actually changes the media business
Susan Chira Equipping local journalism
Juleyka Lantigua Newsrooms recognize women of color as the canaries in the coal mine
Parker Molloy We’ll reach new heights of moral panic
Barbara Raab More journalism funders will take more risks
Peter Sterne AI enters the newsroom
Burt Herman The year AI truly arrives — and with it the reckoning