i think short newsletters (perhaps with links) are better as it lets me read in chunks when I can. I subscribed to this to show my gratitude for your great reporting, not necessarily expecting you can or should crank out 5 newsletters a week.
I prefer the weekly variety of newsletter or the one that comes out every two weeks or when you have something to actually report. Just doing your 'duty' serves no purpose to you or the reader. A daily newsletter is for the NY Times itself, not an individual writer. And, like you stated, the high output writers on sub stack are operating in a different atmosphere with much different expectations and a base of people subscribing to nod along to something, not necessarily for 'news' or real reporting.
I like what you do and like the newsletter as it stands. I think one issue may be people who read your work simply don't know about it.
I like your newsletters the way they are, and I don't think they need to be significantly longer. Your reporting on a variety of topics is very detailed and expands upon many of the themes you touch on briefly in the newsletter - it's actually a model I sometimes wish other journalists would emulate in their newsletters. But I also enjoy reading your insights on various topics, so if you felt like you had the capacity to include more of those from time to time, I would read them!
I like your current newsletter but I think a longer one could be good too. I don't think it needs to come out more frequently because that sounds stressful. You definitely have a lot of good stuff on Twitter that I think could be included. For example, your amazing American Prospect article about the research on COVID-19 transmission in schools created a ton of discussion! It was really interesting to see how people like Chris Hayes, Eliza Shapiro, and Jonathan Chait responded to your critiques by openly admitting that it is worth putting teachers at risk to re-open schools. I don't think I would need the other bells and whistles (book recommendations, etc.). I also think you should include links to your media appearances in there such as your interview on The Majority Report and the EWA panel you're hosting.
Anyways, I would subscribe no matter what because your work is that good. Thanks for everything!
I like your format because I do want to read your longer pieces--and this way I catch ones I missed, like the story about Anthony Smith. I subscribe to two newsletters, WTFJHT which aggregates news stories focused on politics; and Tangle. I value both of them as a daily check in on what's happening. But I prefer your approach for your work.
I like it as is. (but I am a total freeloader)
Short newsletters > long newsletters
Browsability (to find the 1 of X articles you wrote recently I’m most interested in) is good.
Infrequent, sporadic > frequent, predictable
(And I’ll subscribe for money now and stop freeloading.)
Thanks for shining a light, Rachel!
For me, the value is seeing links to your work that I might have missed, so short and sweet works best for me. Thanks
i think short newsletters (perhaps with links) are better as it lets me read in chunks when I can. I subscribed to this to show my gratitude for your great reporting, not necessarily expecting you can or should crank out 5 newsletters a week.
I prefer the weekly variety of newsletter or the one that comes out every two weeks or when you have something to actually report. Just doing your 'duty' serves no purpose to you or the reader. A daily newsletter is for the NY Times itself, not an individual writer. And, like you stated, the high output writers on sub stack are operating in a different atmosphere with much different expectations and a base of people subscribing to nod along to something, not necessarily for 'news' or real reporting.
I like what you do and like the newsletter as it stands. I think one issue may be people who read your work simply don't know about it.
I like your newsletters the way they are, and I don't think they need to be significantly longer. Your reporting on a variety of topics is very detailed and expands upon many of the themes you touch on briefly in the newsletter - it's actually a model I sometimes wish other journalists would emulate in their newsletters. But I also enjoy reading your insights on various topics, so if you felt like you had the capacity to include more of those from time to time, I would read them!
I prefer shorter newsletters--and I appreciate your work. Thanks.
I like your current newsletter but I think a longer one could be good too. I don't think it needs to come out more frequently because that sounds stressful. You definitely have a lot of good stuff on Twitter that I think could be included. For example, your amazing American Prospect article about the research on COVID-19 transmission in schools created a ton of discussion! It was really interesting to see how people like Chris Hayes, Eliza Shapiro, and Jonathan Chait responded to your critiques by openly admitting that it is worth putting teachers at risk to re-open schools. I don't think I would need the other bells and whistles (book recommendations, etc.). I also think you should include links to your media appearances in there such as your interview on The Majority Report and the EWA panel you're hosting.
Anyways, I would subscribe no matter what because your work is that good. Thanks for everything!
I like your format because I do want to read your longer pieces--and this way I catch ones I missed, like the story about Anthony Smith. I subscribe to two newsletters, WTFJHT which aggregates news stories focused on politics; and Tangle. I value both of them as a daily check in on what's happening. But I prefer your approach for your work.