The Substack vs Traditional Media War: Why Newsletter Writers Are Winning

There is a war happening right now, and most people do not even realize they are in the middle of it. On one side: traditional media, newspapers, TV news channels, and big magazine companies.

On the other side: independent writers on platforms like Substack, putting out newsletters directly to subscribers. And guess what? The independent writers are winning.

If people have been on Substack lately, they have probably noticed the conversation is getting real spicy about this. Established journalists are leaving their fancy newspaper jobs to start newsletters.

Readers are canceling their newspaper subscriptions and paying for individual writers instead. And traditional media companies are freaking out about it.

Here is what is actually going on: people are tired of being told what to think. Traditional media has editors, publishers, and advertisers all influencing what gets published and how it is presented. Substack has none of that.

It is just a writer, their keyboard, and their subscribers. No corporate boss saying “writers can’t write about that.” No advertiser is threatening to pull funding if the coverage is too critical.

Sounds great, right? Freedom of the press, direct connection to readers, writers getting paid directly for their work instead of newspapers taking most of the money. What could go wrong?

Well… a few things, actually.

The Hidden Risks of Total Freedom

The beauty of traditional media (when it works properly) is that there are checks and balances. An editor reviews the work. A fact-checker verifies claims.

Legal reviews make sure there is no accidental defamation. With Substack, writers can publish whatever they want with zero oversight. That is liberating, but it is also risky.

There have already been cases where Substack writers have published unverified information that turned out to be false. No one caught it before publication because there was no one to catch it.

The writer hit “publish,” thousands of people read it, shared it, and believed it. By the time the correction came out (if it came out at all), the damage was done.

This creates an interesting problem: how do readers know what is reliable? At least with The New York Times, people know there is a whole team reviewing articles before publication.

With “Bob’s Political Newsletter,” there is no idea. Maybe Bob is a former investigative journalist with impeccable standards. Maybe Bob is making stuff up in his basement. Who knows?

The controversy really heated up when several high-profile Substack writers got caught in factual errors or ethical violations that a traditional newsroom would have caught before publication. Suddenly, the “freedom from editorial oversight” did not seem quite so appealing.

Then there is the echo chamber problem. When people subscribe to Substack newsletters, they are choosing exactly what perspectives they want to hear.

No surprises, no opposing viewpoints unless they specifically seek them out. Traditional media (at least in theory) exposes people to different perspectives, even ones they disagree with. Substack lets people live in a bubble of their own choosing.

Is that good or bad? Honestly, it is both. It is good because people can avoid sensationalized garbage and focus on thoughtful analysis. It is bad because democracy kind of requires people to at least occasionally encounter viewpoints different from their own.

Who’s Really Succeeding on Substack?

But here is where the conversation gets really interesting: some of the most successful Substack writers are not the ones without journalistic training. They are experienced journalists who left traditional media because they wanted more freedom while maintaining high standards. They do their own fact-checking.

They are transparent about their sources and methods. They correct errors publicly. Basically, they brought the best parts of traditional journalism to Substack and left the frustrating corporate parts behind.

Are the writers struggling? The ones who confuse “being independent” with “not needing any standards at all.” The ones who publish first and fact-check later (or never). The ones who have forgotten that with great platform comes great responsibility.

And when these writers get in trouble, publishing something defamatory, spreading misinformation, or causing other PR nightmares, they suddenly realize that “I’m just an independent writer” does not protect them from consequences. In fact, it often makes things worse because they do not have a legal team or crisis PR department backing them up.

A Smart Shield for Independent Voices

This is where many independent writers are getting smart and working with PR professionals proactively. Services like Brands2Life PR review help connect writers (and small media companies) with PR agencies that specialize in protecting reputations in the digital age, including B2B startup PR strategies tailored for emerging voices.

Whether a person is a solo newsletter writer or a major media corporation, the same rules apply: accuracy matters, ethics matter, and how mistakes are handled matters.

The future probably is not traditional media OR independent newsletters. It is likely some combination of both. Traditional media is already adapting, allowing more individual voices and direct reader relationships. Substack writers are developing better standards and accountability measures. Everyone is figuring this out as they go.

But one thing is for sure: the conversation about truth, journalism, and who gets to tell stories is far from over. It is actually just getting started. And if people are participating in this new media landscape, whether as a writer, publisher, or reader, they had better understand the responsibilities that come with it.

Because in 2025, everyone has a platform. But not everyone knows how to use it responsibly. The ones who figure that out will thrive. The ones who do not will become cautionary tales. Choose wisely.