logo
Life on the other side: Refugees from 'old media' flock to the promise of working for themselves

Life on the other side: Refugees from 'old media' flock to the promise of working for themselves

NEW YORK (AP) — Six months ago, Jennifer Rubin had no idea whether she'd make it in a new media world. She just knew it was time to leave The Washington Post, where she'd been a political columnist for 15 years.
The Contrarian, the democracy-focused website that Rubin founded with partner Norm Eisen in January, now has 10 employees and contributors like humorist Andy Borowitz and White House reporter April Ryan. Its 558,000 subscribers also get recipes and culture dispatches.
In the blink of an eye, Rubin became a independent news entrepreneur. 'I think we hit a moment, just after inauguration, when people were looking for something different and it has captured people's imaginations,' she says. 'We've been having a ball with it.'
YouTube, Substack, TikTok and others are spearheading a full-scale democratization of media and a generation of new voices and influencers. But don't forget the traditionalists. Rubin's experience shows how this world offers a lifeline to many at struggling legacy outlets who wanted — or were forced — to strike out on their own.
Tough business realities, changing consumer tastes
The realities of business and changing consumer tastes are both driving forces.
YouTube claims more than 1 billion monthly podcast views, and a recent list of its top 100 shows featured seven refugees from legacy media and six shows made by current broadcasters. Substack, which launched in 2017 and added live video in January, has more than doubled its number of paid subscribers to participating content creators to 5 million in less than two years.
Almost immediately after he was cut loose by ABC News on June 10 for an anti-Trump tweet, Terry Moran headed for Substack. Two former hosts of NBC's 'Today' show — Katie Couric and Hoda Kotb — announced new media ventures on the same day last month.
'I think you've seen, really in the last six months for some reason, this whole space explode with people who are understanding that this is a really important way to convey information,' says Couric, who's been running her own media company with newsletters, interviews and a podcast since 2017 and recently joined Substack.
Among the most successful to make transitions are Bari Weiss, the former New York Times writer whose Free Press website celebrates independent thought, the anti-Trump Republicans at Bulwark and ex-MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan, who champions 'adversarial journalism' on Zeteo.
Television news essentially left Megyn Kelly for dead after her switch from Fox News to NBC went bust. She launched a podcast in 2020, at first audio only, and SiriusXM picked it up as a daily radio show. She added video for YouTube in 2021, and gets more than 100 million viewers a month for commentary and newsmaker interviews.
This year, Kelly launched her own company, MK Media, with shows hosted by Mark Halperin, Maureen Callahan and Link Lauren.
While they thrive, the prospect of layoffs, audiences that are aging and becoming smaller and constant worry about disappearing revenue sources are a way of life for legacy media. Moving to independent media is still not an easy decision.
Taking a deep breath, and making the leap
'If I'm going to jump off a cliff, is there water or not?' former 'Meet the Press' moderator Chuck Todd says. 'I didn't know until I left NBC. Everybody told me there would be water. But you don't know for sure until you jump.'
It takes some adjustment — 'At first I was like, 'do you know who I used to be?'' Couric jokes — but some who have made the jump appreciate the nimbleness and flexibility of new formats and say news subjects often respond to the atmosphere with franker, more expansive interviews.
Jim Acosta, who traded a CNN anchor desk for a video podcast he does from his home after deciding not to make a move he considered a demotion, says he's been surprised at the quality of guests he's been able to corral — people like Hakeem Jefferies, Pete Buttigieg and Sean Penn.
Many podcasters succeed because they communicate authenticity, former Washington Post editor Marty Baron said in an interview at the George W. Bush Presidential Center. Traditional journalists trade on authority at a time people don't trust institutions anymore, he said.
Couric has seen it in some of the feedback she gets from subscribers.
'There's some disenchantment with legacy media,' she says. 'There are certainly some people who are frustrated by the capitulation of some networks to the administration, and I think there's a sense that when you're involved in mainstream media that you may be holding back or there may be executives who are putting pressure on you.'
Is there an audience — and money — on the other side?
Substack says that more than 50 people are earning more than $1 million annually on its platform. More than 50,000 of its publishers make money, but since the company won't give a total of how many people produce content for the platform, it's impossible to get a sense of the odds of success.
Alisyn Camerota isn't making money yet. The former CNN anchor left the broadcaster after she sensed her time there was running out. Blessed with a financial cushion, she's relishing the chance to create something new.
She records a video podcast, 'Sanity,' from her basement in Connecticut. A former Fox colleague who lives nearby, Dave Briggs, joins to talk about the news. 'It's harder than you think in terms of having to DIY a lot of this,' Camerota says, 'but it's very freeing.'
Different people on the platform have different price points; some publishers put everything they do behind a pay wall, others only some. Acosta offers content for free, but people need to pay to comment or discuss. Zeteo charges $12 a month or $72 a year, with a $500 'founding member' yearly fee that offers access to Mehdi.
The danger for independent journalists is a market reaching a saturation point. People already stress over how many streaming services they can afford for entertainment. There's surely a limit to how many journalists they will pay for, too.
'I hope to make a living at this,' Acosta says. 'We'll see how it goes. This is a bit of an experiment. I think it's a valuable one because the stakes are so high right now.'
A strong point of view is one route to success
To succeed in independent media, people need a strong work work ethic, self-motivation and an ability to pivot quickly to deal with changing markets, says Chris Balfe, founder of Red Seat Ventures. He has created a thriving business ushering conservative media figures into the new world, including Kelly, Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan.
Balfe's clients all have strong opinions. That's a plus for consumers who want to hear their viewpoints reflected back at them.
'I think you need a point of view and a purpose," Rubin says. "Once you have that, it helps you to organize your thinking and your selections. You're not going to be all things to all people.'
That's one of the things that concerns Acosta and Todd. They're looser, and they certainly say what they think more than they felt free to do on television; a remark Acosta made on June 17, while appearing on Rubin's podcast, about Trump marrying immigrants was criticized as 'distasteful' by the White House. But at heart, they consider themselves reporters and not commentators. Is there enough room for people like them?
Todd has a podcast, a weekly interview show on the new platform Noosphere and is looking to build on an interest in improving the fortunes of local news. He believes that opinion can help someone build an audience quickly but may ultimately limit growth.
As Rubin did, they will find out soon enough.
'As it turned out," she says, 'what was on the other side was much more exciting and successful and absorbing than I could ever have imagined.'
___

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Warning for Trump as Surprise Poll Offers Harsh Verdict on Iran Strike
Warning for Trump as Surprise Poll Offers Harsh Verdict on Iran Strike

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Warning for Trump as Surprise Poll Offers Harsh Verdict on Iran Strike

If any political commentators or Democratic politicians are tempted to see the political battle over President Trump's bombing of Iran through the prism of the run-up to the Iraq War two decades ago, here's a tip: Don't. For politicians and pundits of a certain age, it's normally assumed that military action will unleash a 'rally around the flag' effect, leading the public to reflexively approve of the decisions by the 'commander in chief'—particularly if he's a Republican—and automatically see criticism of him as unpatriotic. But it's unlikely that we'll see a similar dynamic this time around. A surprising new CNN poll shows why. It finds that 56 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump's bombing of Iran, while only 44 percent approve. Strikingly, 60 percent of independents disapprove, suggesting the middle of the country is not with Trump on any of this. On Tuesday, while leaving for the NATO Summit, Trump erupted at Israel and Iran for violating a ceasefire he'd announced on Truth Social, fuming that they 'don't know what the fuck they're doing.' Iran launched a strike after the ceasefire. But Israel's response appeared deliberately limited, suggesting both countries want a lasting truce, which Trump highlighted to claim victory. Trump's anger—combined with the new CNN poll—illustrates a complicated tension about this moment. On the one hand, if the truce holds, it's very possible that the CNN polling (which was conducted before the ceasefire) could flip and the public may end up approving of his handling of the situation. Yet the poll also constitutes a clear warning to Trump. Majorities have zero appetite for any kind of drawn-out conflict, and it's likely that this partly is rooted in perceptions that on complicated national security matters, well, Trump has no bleeping idea what the bleep he's doing. Note the CNN poll's remarkable finding that 55 percent of Americans don't trust Trump to make the right decisions on the use of force in Iran. This includes 62 percent of independents. That's a stunning verdict on public perceptions of Trump's competence, or lack thereof. (Meanwhile a Reuters poll finds only 36 percent back the bombing.) It's no accident that the CNN poll also finds that 58 percent of Americans say Trump's bombing will make Iran more of a threat to the U.S. Those two things may be connected: Voters appear unwilling to reflexively grant deference to the commander in chief's declaration that military force is essential to preserving the security of the homeland. Especially if that commander in chief is Donald J. Trump. This will surprise those who were snakebit by George W. Bush's popularity in the run-up to the Iraq War and Karl Rove's political warfare at the time. The grounds for that war were visibly thin. Yet it's hard to convey to people who didn't live through it how unshakable Bush's grip on public opinion seemed after September 11, 2001; how rampant war fever and rank Islamophobia were in this country; and how deeply it all penetrated into every crevice of American life. It's not hard to see why things are different now. Obviously, we've lived through two 'forever wars' since then, and this time, there was no September 11 to rally the public. But there are other reasons too. Bush was more popular (due to September 11) than Trump is now. And public skepticism of Trump's fitness to make decisions like these—again, 55 percent seem skeptical, per the CNN poll—runs so deep that he is ascribed little credibility on these matters, leaving no room to maneuver on them. That latter dynamic probably won't change much even if the truce holds. Consider the run-up to the bombing: Trump's own intelligence officials said Iran's nuclear program didn't pose an imminent threat, which he impulsively dismissed. His warmongering tweets in real time likely alerted Iran in ways that allowed it to move and secure its enriched uranium. As national security analyst Jeffrey Lewis usefully details, the stated American objective of ending Iran's nuclear program has probably not been achieved. If the ceasefire remains, paint-by-numbers pundits will forget all that and robotically declare the entire saga a smashing political triumph for Trump. But there's no need to assume up front that the public will view things this simplistically. Something big is at stake here: Trump and propagandists like Vice President JD Vance want to use this moment to show that a new Trump doctrine has taken hold, and that it will be persuasive to the public. The idea, as Politico's Nahal Toosi shows, is basically that it doesn't count as 'war' if the objective is narrowly drawn and accomplished with quick, overwhelming force and no lengthy quagmires. But the case that diplomacy as opposed to force could have achieved a more lasting solution to the deeper Iran-Israel problem, which Stephen Wertheim explained well before the bombing, remains just as true now as a week ago. So does the case that we would have been better off under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which Trump sabotaged. My suspicion is that the public will conclude something similar: That 58 percent say the bombing will make Iran more of a threat hints at a preference for diplomacy to war that will endure. The stakes are also huge here because Trump and Vance surely hope their showcasing of the Trump doctrine will also seduce voters into accepting quick military actions without congressional authorization. But the new CNN poll finds that a whopping 65 percent say Trump should seek such authorization going forward. And I'm even more persuaded that this will hold even if the ceasefire remains. Here's the bottom line: As of now, majorities don't trust Trump to make complicated national security decisions in the best interests of the country and want Congress deeply involved in them. We should hope the truce holds. But either way, the absence of a reflexive public endorsement of Trump's warmaking is a positive development—and a sign, whether he knows it or not, that he remains on a very short political leash indeed.

What Do Vets And Military Members Think Of Airstrikes
What Do Vets And Military Members Think Of Airstrikes

Buzz Feed

time10 minutes ago

  • Buzz Feed

What Do Vets And Military Members Think Of Airstrikes

On Sunday, President Donald Trump facilitated US airstrikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran without congressional approval. By Monday, Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a US base in Qatar. Considering all this, I am curious how active military members and veterans view the conflict. So I'm asking those in our BuzzFeed Community to weigh in. Maybe you're a veteran who fought in the Vietnam War, and you remember all too well what it was like to be drafted into a situation you felt was unnecessary. Now, you're hoping things don't escalate for the worse. Or maybe you voted for Trump because he campaigned on being a peace-bringer and anti-war. Now, you see his actions as antithetical to his intended presidency, and you feel betrayed. Or maybe you're an active duty soldier who sees war as necessary, even if it's not ideal. You're willing to do whatever the commander-in-chief asks of you. Whatever the case may be, active military members and veterans, please share your thoughts in the comments. Or, if you'd like to remain anonymous, use the Google Form below.

Is the Israel-Iran conflict fracturing MAGA?
Is the Israel-Iran conflict fracturing MAGA?

New York Post

time10 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Is the Israel-Iran conflict fracturing MAGA?

The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran is creating tensions within Trump's MAGA movement, testing its commitment to America First isolationism against Trump's aggressive support for Israel. President Trump is firmly backing Israel's tough stance against Iran's nuclear ambitions, leaving MAGA influencers like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon questioning whether this aligns with the anti-interventionist promises Trump made to voters. New York Post editorial board members Mark Cunningham and David Kaufman analyze whether Trump's base will follow his lead or splinter under the pressure of potential prolonged military action abroad.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store