Pivoting to Substack

[User 150927]

I'm curious, have you incorporated as an LLC to protect yourself from liability? Are you planning on carrying any insurance, or you not going to write anything controversial? I'm not trying to be snarky but these are protections that you have when you work for a newspaper that you really don't think about. And I was just wondering if you had thought about them?

 

[JayFarrar]

Through my area's small biz development center, I got (FREE!) legal and accounting advice and will continue getting some as needed.

An LLC is in the plans, but I haven't flipped that switch yet. A sole proprietor gives me some flexibility an LLC doesn't.

Let me tell you a fun story about comingled funds and LLCs vs. SPs, but anyway, LLCs good but I'm not there yet, so an SP is better for me right now.

I could always catch a nuisance suit, but as the lawyerly type told me, that's not that big of a worry. A bigger issue is getting government entities to follow FOIA and what my step is when they don't. Luckily, I have a friend who works for RCFP, so if something really big blew up, there's some resources out there that could help.

 

[cjericho]

If the Post and Times couldn't make it with an advertiser-only model, what makes you think anyone could?

I think the suits are to blame, but have to check with Frederik.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

well, actually ... gotta go

I am not cut out to be an Independent Journalist, not in the way Substack imagines them. In this respect, Substack is no different than any part of the media landscape: it favors people with privilege, has invested in writers who are already well established, profits from free and undervalued labor, and dangles the myth of the freelance hustle. Many of the more successful people on the platform have other jobs or came to the platform with startup money from Substack or had already published books or worked as staff writers at various publications. None of those things are true for me.

 

[cake in the rain]

I like Substack, but the people who are successful (i.e., well-read and profitable) could be successful on virtually any other similar platform. There's nothing magic about Substack.

 

[Severian]

but the people who are successful (i.e., well-read and profitable) could be successful on virtually any other similar platform.

At a news organization? No way.

 

[cake in the rain]

At a news organization? No way.

I guess I mean they could start their own blog, website, Medium, whatever. The people who attract their own audience are going to attract their own audience. The people who don't, aren't, no matter the format.

But, yes, Substack (for now) provides the freedom and infrastructure, but there's nothing inherent to Substack that couldn't be replicated.

 

[goalmouth]

Doesn't Substack itself provide some legal journo advice, or is planning to?

 

[goalmouth]

New theory: Substack secretly paid a group of writers to make writing for Substack look lucrative.

 

[Elliotte Friedman]

Theres no way that isn't true

 

[JPsT]

New theory: Substack secretly paid a group of writers to make writing for Substack look lucrative.

It's not even a secret.

 

[Small Town Guy]

The talk around Substack has grown incredibly asinine the past week or so as numerous writers talk about how dangerous it apparently is to let certain writers -- who people pay to read -- have an outlet. Mostly because people got mad at Jesse Singal, Greenwald, Yglesias, Michael Tracey, Freddie deBoer, Taibbi, etc. The hunt to find out who was getting money in advance had numerous writers making outright false statements, like saying Singal and Greenwald were among them (they weren't and even if they had been...so what?). Instead of, uh, asking those people, as journalists might do, they just speculate. Calceterra had an especially ludicrous post about this today, not to mention just throwing around the term "transphobe" the same way he'd toss out someone's WAR.