CNTI’s new report on indie info providers in the US is an insightful look at this movement and the challenges they face. This group is more able to innovate, represent diverse communities, and tell stories that might escape institutional newsrooms — stories we need more than ever. But independence, it turns out, is not so simple.
Reading the findings of the report, two conclusions became apparent. First, these providers left their employers seeking independence, but then quickly rebuilt a new dependence on tech companies that might not be aligned with their goals and values. (Not all indie info providers started out in newsrooms, but they are all facing the same issues of dependence). Second, they have been tackling similar business challenges in isolation from one another, when these problems would be much more effectively solved if they joined forces.
The internet is in a period of flux for publishers. AI-generated instant answers at the top of search results mean that referrals to news websites are plummeting. Social media itself, crucial for reaching audiences, has fractured in the wake of new ownership and political headwinds. Every journalist going out on their own must rely on platforms to host, publish, and share their work — but choosing which to trust can feel like a minefield.
A Spectrum of Creator Independence
Every platform exists on a spectrum of creator independence. On one side of it, centralized services offer the promise of an easy turnkey solution. Services like Substack and Beehiiv are vertically integrated: journalist publishing workflows, subscriber relationships, and revenue all flow through their parent company’s decisions. Beehiiv defaults to disabling open distribution channels like RSS, limiting a publication’s reach. Substack has of late prioritized “follows” over subscriptions, but only the latter can be exported by a publication if it wants to move platforms. These decisions benefit vendors over the publications and communities they serve. In some cases, there is an existing community for creators to tap into, which may constrain their platform choices; in others, creators need to bring their own audience, who then also may be locked in.
On the other side of the independence spectrum, open source platforms like Ghost and WordPress champion publisher choice. A decade ago, choosing open source meant accepting a substandard user experience, but modern platforms require no such compromises. Ghost has made hundreds of millions of dollars for publications, and WordPress powers 47% of the web. Each has its own first-class, fully-managed subscription (Ghost Pro in particular is worth taking a look at), but publishers have a choice: if you aren’t satisfied with their business model or decisions, you can easily choose another vendor and take your content and relationships with you).
Social Media’s Unequal Playing Field
The same dynamics exist for social media platforms themselves. At one end of the independence spectrum sit the traditional sites. X, formerly Twitter, has prioritized far-right content and suppressed external links, a problem now shared by TikTok. (Organizations like NPR have, quite reasonably, quit X completely.) Instagram is well-loved but doesn’t translate into real subscriptions or revenue; “link in bio” is not a sustainable strategy. Facebook has long charged for access to a publisher’s own audience.
But at the other end of the spectrum sit open source social media platforms that are significantly more promising for indie journalists. Bluesky and Mastodon have smaller user numbers overall but have more engaged user bases. Bluesky in particular routinely eclipses other networks in importance at newsrooms I’ve seen. They don’t suppress links, and users there are more likely to read journalism and pay for it.
The Case for Collaboration
Journalists shouldn’t need to have a technical background to go independent, but they do need access to technical expertise, and to begin to build their own. They also need to be able to learn from the experiences of their peers. That means building an accessible network of experts and stronger community structures for mutual support.
The same goes for other business-side functions. Indie info providers are each solving the same problems from scratch: ad sales, legal review, health insurance, accounting, taxes. Some of these can be tackled through peer learning, but there’s much to be gained by establishing more formal structures. In particular, creator cooperatives offering shared back-office functions, technical expertise, and legal resources would address these problems directly.
One interviewee put their challenges starkly: “Writing for a wealthy group of people is the only way at this point, as far as I can tell, to run a media business.” This is where collaboration, more access to experts, and more value-aligned platforms and networks can help bridge the gap. Co-operatives reduce overhead so the revenue threshold is lower; open platforms don’t suppress a provider’s work, allowing them to reach more people; and more engaged networks of communities are more likely to pay and share.
The Path Forward
There is precedent for this: the Colorado News Collaborative, for example, facilitates editorial collaboration across its home state. The Freelancers Union provides advocacy, education, and benefits to independent workers who would otherwise have to go it alone. In contrast, when Beehiiv offers health insurance stipends and Substack offers legal support, they’re filling real needs — but tying essential worker protections to platform choice recreates the institutional dependence these creators left newsrooms to escape.
Independence that depends on a platform’s continued goodwill isn’t independence at all. The individuals in this report already know that instinctively. They need the tools, the structures, and the funding to act on it.
Ben Werdmuller is Senior Director of Technology at ProPublica. He sits on the boards of A New Social and Tiny News Collective, and writes about pro-social technology at werd.io. Guest essays reflect the views of their authors, not CNTI. We welcome perspectives from across the field. If you’re interested in contributing, reach out at info@cnti.org.
Share
