I’m a big fan of newsletters. Of course I am! It seems as if I spend half my day reading newsletters and the other half writing one.
Newsletters have become the hot thing in journalism over the past several years and are an inventive way for journalists to connect with readers in — if it’s done right — smart, informative, entertaining and personal ways.
Or as Nicholas Thompson, CEO of The Atlantic, said, “The evolution of newsletters is one of the most important things happening in journalism today.”
That explains why The Atlantic is the latest outlet to make a big leap into newsletters. It announced Tuesday that it is launching nine subscriber newsletters.
In an editor’s note, The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg wrote, “Newsletters are conversational, unrehearsed, contingent, revelatory, humble, and entertaining, and journalism can always use more of these qualities. The Atlantic, which is already home to writers with clashing worldviews and original ways of seeing what is (as a great writer who didn’t have a newsletter once said) too often right in front of our noses, is always keen to showcase for our readers new writers, and new kinds of writing. Growing our family of newsletters dramatically seemed like one good way to better serve our readers.”
The newsletters will be written by Jordan Calhoun, Nicole Chung, David French, Xochitl Gonzalez, Molly Jong-Fast, Tom Nichols, Imani Perry, Yair Rosenberg and Charlie Warzel. (Goldberg’s note describes what each will write about.)
Goldberg told Axios’ Sara Fischer, “I wasn't looking for topics so much as I was looking for excellent writers. The important thing for me is that they are honest and interesting.”
Warzel is an interesting case. He left The New York Times earlier this year to start a newsletter on Substack. In a final post for Substack, Warzel explained his decision to move over to The Atlantic, writing, “I’m worth more to a publication as part of a package of writers/reporters/thinkers than I am on my own. This makes sense to me. I don’t break tons of news these days and my work lately has been either explanatory or analytical. That may be a harder thing for somebody to pay for individually, but as a larger stable of people, I might fit more nicely into a bundle. Makes sense to me.”
The newsletters will be free until the end of November. After that, you’ll need a subscription to The Atlantic.
The Atlantic moves into a crowded space with other newsletters, but Goldberg doesn’t seem concerned about that, telling Fischer, “We have a powerful brand name, and we have an extraordinary collection of journalists already. What's attractive is the affiliation itself. We are a home for great writers.”
The attack and the aftermath
In case you missed it, The Washington Post had an exceptional project earlier this week about the Jan. 6 insurrection. Called “The Attack,” it’s a three-part look at the events before, during and after the siege at the Capitol.
During an interview Tuesday with Washington Post Live, Post national political enterprise and investigations editor Matea Gold spoke with Donell Harvin, senior homeland security policy researcher with the Defense and Political Sciences Department of the RAND Corporation, and Clint Hickman, Maricopa County supervisor, about the Post investigation.
Harvin talked about the Jan. 6 threats that needed to be responded to with urgency: “Quite frankly it’s the actors. These armed militia are serious players. Their capabilities are not to be doubted. Many of them have former law enforcement or military backgrounds.”
Hickman told Gold, “The lesson to me is watching people breach the Capitol … to me it’s almost like people decided to break into a church and the church is the American democracy that they broke into. … I have a son that’s 16 and another that’s 14. I don’t want to send my son off to war to fight some foreign enemy to feel like an American again and I damn sure don’t want him fighting fellow Americans to prove just how American he is. It’s just not the way to go. So let’s get back to being American again.”
It was a compelling conversation, which you can watch here.
DOJ wants to block merger between publishing powerhouses
The Justice Department has sued to block Penguin Random House from acquiring rival Simon & Schuster because, the DOJ said, such an acquisition “would likely harm competition in the publishing industry.”
According to The New York Times’ Elizabeth A. Harris, Alexandra Alter and David McCabe, “In a publishing landscape dominated by a handful of mega corporations, Penguin Random House towers over the others. It operates more than 300 imprints worldwide and has 15,000 new releases a year, far more than the other four major U.S. publishers. With its $2.2 billion proposed acquisition of Simon & Schuster, Penguin Random House stood to become substantially larger.”
The Times added, “Rather than concerns solely over harm to consumers, the Department of Justice said the acquisition could be detrimental to producers — in this case, authors — in what is called a monopsony, as opposed to a monopoly.”
The court filing on Tuesday said the two publishers combining “would give Penguin Random House outsized influence over who and what is published, and how much authors are paid for their work.”
Penguin Random House has hired attorney Daniel Petrocelli, who successfully defended AT&T and Time Warner when the DOJ tried to block their $100 million merger.
According to CNN’s Brian Stelter, Petrocelli said the DOJ is “wrong on the facts, the law, and public policy. Importantly, the DOJ has not found, nor does it allege, that the combination will reduce competition in the sale of books. The publishing industry is strong and vibrant and has seen strong growth at all levels. We are confident that the robust and competitive landscape that exists will ensure a decision that the acquisition will promote, not harm, competition.”
So let’s check in on Newsmax
