Waking Up To Independent Journalism (Podcast)

00:35
and other government work in a way that many other outlets neglect. “Wake Up To Politics” reaches more than 45,000 daily readers and spun off a year-long podcast series back in 2020. Gabe, welcome to the program. So nice to have you.

Gabe Fleisher
Thanks so much for having me.

Amy Laburda
I'm also welcoming back Palisades Hudson's founder and president, Larry Elkin. Before his career in financial planning, Larry worked as a reporter and editor for The Associated Press from 1978 to 1986, which

01:02
I strongly suspect, will be relevant to our conversation today. Thanks for joining us, Larry.

Larry Elkin
Thanks so much for having me back, Amy. And Gabe, it's a pleasure to meet you face-to-virtual-face after knowing one another remotely for many years.

Gabe Fleisher
For sure.

Amy Laburda
Gabe, before we dive in properly, as we record this, you've just come back from the

01:20
DNC in Chicago. How was your time at the Democratic National Convention this year?

Gabe Fleisher
It was very exciting. It was my first time covering a national convention, after watching many on TV. So it was exciting to be there in person. It was an exhausting week, but full of a lot of different side events and obviously a lot of speakers, but I got to kind of spend a lot of time running around the United Center, interviewed a bunch of senators, governors, House members. And so it was really cool to kind of be there right in the action and cover it, and hopefully give my readers something of an inside peek to the events.

Amy Laburda 01:50
As one of those readers, I could say it was very exciting, and I was very glad you were expending all that energy, and not me.

Gabe Fleisher
That's what I try to do for my readers.

Amy Laburda
So backing all the way up, long before you had press credentials or were getting all these interviews, you launched “Wake Up To Politics” in 2011, if I understand correctly, for your mom?

Gabe Fleisher
That's correct, yeah. She was my first subscriber. I was 9 years old,

02:12
and subscriber number one, and then it's been like 13 years now. So obviously, it's grown a lot and it's been an exciting ride.

Amy Laburda
So for listeners who aren't already familiar with you, how did you get started growing from your mom to those 45,000 daily readers?

Gabe Fleisher
It was really, it was kind of slow and very organic. I've never really advertised the newsletter or done very much promotional, paid promotion or anything for it.

02:38
It was pretty organic. It's kind of, you started just kind of from my mom to my dad, so not too far, and then kind of friends and family, and kind of people forwarded it to other people, and kind of grew like that for a long time. I've certainly been helped along the way, you know, being covered in certain kind of major media outlets, which certainly kind of helped with the growth at certain key points, whereas kind of profiled by different news outlets and the audience would kind of grow from there. But a lot of it has just been kind of people forwarding it to other people, just saying, like, “This is a really helpful way I get my news. You might like it too.”

03:08
And that's been the main vehicle of growth, which I hear every day from people that are just, “So and so sent me your newsletter. And I'm excited to see it and see if I like it for myself.” And that's just how it's kept going.

Amy Laburda
Yeah, I can say Larry actually sent me your newsletter initially. So we've proved your theory here on the podcast today.

Larry Elkin
So Gabe, in a circumstance of art imitating life, there's actually an Apple TV series going on

03:36
right now called “Home Before Dark,” about a 9-year-old journalist. Everybody takes her seriously, which is probably not real life. But in your case, even as a reader, one could sense that there was a point where not just subscribers but news sources started to take you seriously, and you went from just aggregating news in your bedroom in the morning to reporting and covering news. That process is not

04:04
complete, obviously, because the DNC gave you convention credentials and you wrote that the RNC did not.

Gabe Fleisher
That is true.

Larry Elkin
So the process is ongoing. But when did people, from your perspective, start to take you seriously as a journalist?

Gabe Fleisher
That's a good question. I don't know if there was any one point. I think it's kind of been an evolution over time. I do think one thing is true. I think we're in a point in the media where it is a fairly democratized space at this point. There is a lot of access points where you can kind of

04:32
start something like I did, a newsletter, or a podcast, or all sorts of different media people can start. And so I think the bar for entry is very low, but I think it's true that the bar for taking seriously remains very high. And I do think it is important. You do have to show your work, and you just have to keep doing it again and again. And I think just what I've proven over 13 years now is just a level of consistency and reliability, I hope, at least, that's just continued over time, not just some one-off thing that I did in my bedroom for a few years and then gave up.

05:01
It's something I've worked at for a long time. And I think people in Washington, other journalists and media and political people have noticed that. It hasn't gone away and it's kept growing. And I think that has enabled it to be taken seriously. So I don't know that there was one key point. I think back in 2019, I was a junior in high school. I scooped Bill de Blasio, then the mayor of New York, his presidential run. I think that was a big moment. That was an early, I guess, scoop, which I think certainly,

05:28
in journalism — I wouldn't say my work is necessarily super scoop heavy. That's not necessarily the work that I'm most focused on doing. But obviously it does help you gain credibility. I think things like that. I think the more different Washington journalists are reading it, I mean, “Oh, this person actually does have interesting insights, interesting things to say, not just a kid spouting off.” I think every little bit of that helps to show that you're hopefully doing something real and not just superficial.

Amy Laburda 05:55
If you're comfortable saying, how did that de Blasio scoop come to be? That sounds like kind of an interesting “in” point for you.

Gabe Fleisher
It is interesting for me. It's kind of, it's not as exciting a story as it sounds, but it's basically… You know, a big part of my newsletter has always been at the end, I try to include kind of the schedules, just of what the president, members of — what [the] president, Congress, Supreme Court and, during a campaign, presidential candidates are doing, just to try to be kind of a...

06:23
a gathering place to show what our elected representatives are doing with their time. And because I'm trying to provide a place, that there isn't really one other, and so that can take a lot of time and tons of research. During the campaign, this is the 2020 campaign, that meant a lot of poking around very random websites and stuff. Basically, the way I was able to find out and then confirm

06:47
his presidential announcement was, I stumbled upon an event announcement on the Woodbury County, Iowa Democratic Party’s Facebook page, which announced that the first stop on Bill de Blasio's presidential announcement tour would be coming to Woodbury County, Iowa. He had not at that point announced his presidential campaign. So I was able to kind of catch that, reach out to the state party in his campaign for confirmation. And then basically my tweeting out that event announcement, that his campaign had told certain major media organizations under embargo that he was announcing.

07:17
But because I tweeted out, that broke the embargo, and then all these other news organizations reported it 12 hours before he wanted it out and messed up his launch. And so it's a backdoor scoop a little bit, but was able to discover it before they wanted out and shook up the beginning of his campaign.

Larry Elkin
And I'm sure to this day, Mr. de Blasio blames you

07:39
for the fact that that campaign failed to launch.

Gabe Fleisher
Perhaps. I think there was a few other reasons. There was a few other reasons there. If he wants to blame me, that's fine.

Amy Laburda
As a New Yorker, I'm going to say “no comment” on that particular one. So you eventually ended up heading to Georgetown University, from which you've recently graduated. Congratulations.

Gabe Fleisher
Thank you.

Amy Laburda
At the same time, as your newsletter was growing, you moved from solely aggregating the news to the original

08:02
reporting. We've talked just a little bit about what that was like, but was that a thing you knew going into college you wanted to do? Were you pretty sure that was the way you wanted to grow the newsletter, or did it kind of more happen by fits and starts?

Gabe Fleisher
No, I mean, for sure. I mean, that was a big reason I came here to D.C. That was kind of always my dream, to kind of move to D.C. and hopefully do it for college. So I was very happy to come to Georgetown and be able to kind of grow the original reporting side of the newsletter. Got a little hampered and slowed down: My freshman year was COVID, so that was kind of messed up a little bit. And obviously it was a little bit harder to gain access

08:31
to certain places, just because obviously everything was shut down. But still, even in freshman year, I was actually there at the White House Rose Garden for the kind of famed super-spreader event, the Amy Coney Barrett announcement that people might remember. So even during COVID, and literally with COVID right there, I was able to do a little bit of original reporting. But yeah, that was definitely the plan about coming down here and hoping to kind of be right in the action at the White House, Congress, Supreme Court, being able to cover them all. And [I’ve] been really proud to kind of grow that part of the newsletter to, exactly like you said, make it not just aggregation,

09:01
but also be offering original reporting and insights to my readers.

Amy Laburda
Very cool.

Larry Elkin
You know, as the gray-haired, old, long-ago journalist in the group, because my career started in the ’70s, I just want to point out for an audience that doesn't know that, Gabe, your independent journalism has a long tradition in the field. The way it's delivered may be different, but the process that you're doing...

09:28
goes all the way back to people like Dorothy Dix and Paul Harvey, and broadcast Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, and their “Washington Merry-Go-Round” column. I pulled out something to show how far back that goes. Dorothy Dix — her real name was Elizabeth Meriwether Gilmer, and she was born in 1861 on a slaveholding farm on the Tennessee-Kentucky border. She became a columnist for the New Orleans Picayune in 1888,

09:57
and was a major figure in journalism through the first half of the 20th century. In 1898, she wrote a column called “The Selfishness of Men,” and it was after an ocean liner disaster, the sinking of a ship called the Bourgogne. And this is what she wrote about it: “Of the 300 women on board the ill-fated Bourgogne, which sunk at sea a few days ago, only one woman was saved. Of the 200 people who came out alive,

10:26
only one was a woman. Survivors tell how women, struggling to reach the boats, were beaten down and trod upon, how those who succeeded in getting on rafts were pushed off and thrust under the water with boat hooks, how the little white hands of women and children, clinging to life lines, were hacked off with knives.” It's a story of ferocious brutality. Fourteen years after that, another ship sank. That was the Titanic. Seventy-five percent of the women aboard survived.

10:55
Half the children survived. Only 20% of the men. I would guess that while it may not have been the only factor, Dorothy Dix's observations may have had something to do with the better survival of women and children on the Titanic. So independent journalism has a long and very highly regarded place in the field.

Gabe Fleisher
It does. And I appreciate you kind of sharing that excerpt. I mean, I think independent journalism is important. I think mainstream media is important.

11:25
But I think it's also important to have, I mean — All journalists are supposed to be independent and objective. That's always kind of the hope. But even within that kind of media space, I think it's important to have a whole other group of people who are kind of holding the mainstream media's feet to the fire as well, and kind of giving just like, you know, in that excerpt you read, you know, different perspectives. I think for me, you know, starting out as kind of like a young kid in Missouri, like it's not like there's like a lot of mainstream media organizations rushing to kind of hire someone like that. But I think there are important perspectives that a lot of people can have, whether that's, you know...

11:54
outside the Beltway and in other places like that; whether it's a young person's perspective, that's something I've always tried to bring to the newsletter, not something you'll find a lot of mainstream media organizations talking really frankly and openly about young people and asking politicians questions about those issues. So I think it is really important. I think the media ecosystem has space for a lot of different voices. I think a lot of more-established organizations play important roles too, but I think you're exactly right. There's a long tradition in American journalism,

12:24
of independent voices. I think we're in a really cool moment right now. Like you say, we're like — there are — it's easier than ever. There's platforms like Substack, which I'm on now, that make it really easy to kind of lift up those voices. So I think that's only going to continue and kind of grow to be an even more important part of our media ecosystem as the years goes on, which I think is for the better.

Larry Elkin
I think we're going to get back to that observation you made that coming from Missouri gives you a different perspective. So,

12:51
I think that's worth some follow-up, but I'm going to wait for us to get to that point in the conversation.

Amy Laburda
I definitely am going to bring up Missouri again. But first, I actually wanted to touch on your point about mainstream media and independent media by bringing us back to — I mentioned in the intro that you did a podcast. And my understanding is you teamed up with St. Louis Public Radio to do that in 2020, during that lockdown and that election year. What brought that about and how was that experience for you?

Gabe Fleisher 13:17
Yeah, it was a really great experience. I loved being able to work with them. And exactly like you say, I kind of straddle a space between having a foot in independent media, but also kind of working with a more established media organization. They're the NPR affiliate of my hometown of St. Louis. Yeah, I mean, that came about — they reached out to me and kind of expressed interest in doing a podcast like that together. I was very proud to do it throughout the election year, kind of just each episode, just breaking down kind of a complex kind of system or process in American politics that people might not understand.

13:45
I was able to interview a lot of expert guests and hopefully kind of help explain American politics to a lot of people. It was really fun to work with them. Certainly something I'd be open to in the future, doing some sort of podcast partnership like that with another media outlet. It was really great working with them and definitely learned a lot.

Amy Laburda
Similarly, on the note of bigger organizations, that time you were sort of teaming up, it was a production of NPR and you. Back

14:10
in 2017, you appeared on “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee,” which I know because Larry forwarded me that appearance, and it's how he first discovered your work. But in that interview, you mentioned, as a high schooler, imagining working for The Washington Post, The New York Times, some of these bigger, established media properties. Fast forwarding to: You've graduated from Georgetown. You decided to go independent with your newsletter and make that your full-time job. What really shifted your thinking on that, between looking for those sort of jobs and deciding to go your own road with the independent journalism?

Gabe Fleisher 14:38
I wouldn't say it was a shift in thinking necessarily. I mean, it's something I've always kind of gone back and forth between, for a long time. I think I always kind of knew that that was something that I might want to do. But I think as I was graduating college, I definitely, I talked with a lot of editors at a lot of different publications, including the ones you mentioned, thinking about whether that, there might be a place for me in those organizations. I think ultimately, I think it is hard to kind of give up something that you've grown. It's something I've been doing a long time now. It's something I've really been proud to grow. I think I kind of wanted to give it a chance. It was something,

15:08
as long as I had done it, it had always been on the side of always having school, whether it's been high school or college. I wanted to give it a chance to do it on its own, see what it was like working on it full time, see what stories I was able to pursue, see if I was able to grow the audience doing it full time. I think, yeah, like we've talked about, I do believe firmly in the importance of independent media, but at the same time, have a lot of respect for mainstream media. And it's certainly like… I don't rule out, yeah, partnerships or working with them in the future. I think ultimately,

15:37
I was really proud of what I was able to build at “Wake Up To Politics.” I think I am giving somewhat of a different perspective, covering stories that don't always get covered in other media outlets. I'm really proud of the space of being able to build a nonpartisan space that leaves room for level-headed, more middle-of-the-road coverage. And I felt ultimately that was special enough that I wanted to try to keep doing it and growing it. It was also feedback from the audience,

16:04
just hearing from a lot of people, not even having asked them, but just people who knew I was approaching graduation being like, “Really hope you continue doing this.” People who say they really relied on a source of news and really hoping that I didn't give up after graduation. I think ultimately it felt like it was just too good of a gig to walk away from. I just have really loved doing it, and wanted to keep on doing it as long as I was able to.

Larry Elkin
Well, that brings you to the economics of what you're doing, which is all tied up with how

16:32
journalism is practiced today, at all levels. You have now, as you graduated college and you're an adult, you have bills to pay, you have to support yourself, to some degree at least. So you're asking your readers to support your work. What fraction of readers has your experience been, are willing to pay to allow you to do the kinds of work that you're doing? And is it something that you think you can build on, at least to make it sustainable in the long term?

Gabe Fleisher 17:02
Yeah, for sure. I mean, you know, it's interesting, you know, I just after graduating, like you said, it's the first time I've put a paywall on any content in the newsletter. But for a long time before that, I had kind of had a donation button on the newsletter, and it was kind of very voluntary. People got nothing extra for donating, but it was just kind of like, you know, there are expenses involved in the newsletter. Also, I'm a college student, you know, this is kind of like my part-time job as a student. So, you know, if you're able to kind of help support, I would love it.

17:25
And I was so overwhelmed over the years by how many people were donating just when it was completely voluntary and just at that level. And I would not have made the decision, like you said, obviously, the economics of it are important too. I would not have made the decision if I didn't feel like it was financially viable to completely support myself by it. And to be frank, it already was just off of the level that, from the level that people were donating, even before I put a paywall, I felt pretty confident, just because it was such a large percentage of readers

17:54
who were very generously supporting the newsletter then. I felt pretty confident that I'd be able to support myself out of college, being able to do it with that. And so that's always been very gratifying. And then, yeah, after college, I added the paywall and kind of said, you know, people have been supporting the newsletter for a long time financially. I wanna be able to do something for them to kind of give them a little bit of an extra perk, both to incentivize, hopefully, more people to support, obviously, but also just to kind of give a thank you and acknowledge, like, these are the people that are financially underwriting in the newsletter. And the response has been overwhelming.

18:23
A really solid segment of the readership has subscribed, a really high rate. I'm with Substack now, as I've mentioned, a really high rate for the rates of paid conversion that they talk about and that they target. So I've been really happy with that and really just honored by the support that people give and that they believe in the mission enough to support it financially. And yeah, it's allowed me to kind of... I'm living here in D.C.,

18:49
like you say, paying rent, paying bills, and also doing things like going to the convention and being able to cover expenses like that. So I've been really just so grateful for all the support. And my hope is obviously that I'm giving something back to those readers and that I'm making up to them in value. But yeah, certainly not a decision I would have made if I didn't feel it was financially viable. And I did think it was, based on the donation numbers that I'd already seen, and it's certainly been going very well.

Larry Elkin
Well, so you did something,

19:18
deliberately or not, that is an excellent strategy for anybody really starting any kind of business, if you can do it, which is that on the day you opened for business, if we view your graduation day as being that day, you already had a proven product and an established customer base. So you were able to just convert it right from there. So kudos to you for...

19:44
for having built what started essentially as a hobby, right, or an activity for a 9-year-old, and turned it into a business that can keep you employed for as far in the future as anybody working in journalism right now can say it will keep them employed. Probably further, because you own this relationship, this product, which people working as work for hire, as a reporter on a mainstream platform does, do not.

Gabe Fleisher 20:14
Yeah, no. And I think, like you alluded to, another part of the factor in the decision certainly was… It is, I think, in my opinion, for the worse, but there is a lot of turmoil, obviously, in the economics of the media industry more broadly. And I think we have reached a place, somewhat bizarrely — and obviously, as long as you have that proven model and customer base, like you say — where it can be more financially sustainable to be independent

20:42
than to be under mainstream media organization. I think that calls for some reordering and some changes in the part of some media organizations. I don't think that's necessarily the best status quo, but it is where we are right now. And I think that was, it was partially me kind of running the numbers and being like, this might be the more viable and more reliable path, just based off of, if you look at layoffs and you look at kind of the turmoil in the media industry, it's going be realizing, wow, this could actually

21:12
kind of financially make more sense, to kind of go out on your own, which I don't think is something at really any other era in kind of media history, you would have said.

Larry Elkin
Well, only to a point. Again, independent journalists have existed now for many decades.

Gabe Fleisher
Sure.

Larry Elkin
And what was happening is they were selling their product through, typically, through mainstream platforms. A metropolitan newspaper was essentially a curated collection

21:38
of content. They had their own reporters and editors that generated largely local news. They took news from more distant places, often off wire services. They had many, many syndicated features, ranging from the horoscope and the comics to opinion columns and advice columns. That was always the case. And the people who provided that syndicated content did own it, but they were going through

22:06
one form of distribution, through their syndicates and then through the newspapers onto the audience. Substack is that modern day equivalent of it. But what's different now, I think, is that those old newspapers didn't pay for those syndicated products just through subscriptions. They got it through advertisers. And the rise of the search engines and the social media platforms has separated

22:33
the outlets from their advertisers, and by and large cannibalized that revenue source and deprived them of it. So what's left are the readers, and what I know you and others in the industry call verticals, right? You have your products like Politico that throw something out there for the general public up to a certain point, but then they have additional products that are subscription-only. And in many cases, for many professions — law being one example —

23:03
the subscriptions can run into thousands of dollars per year per seat, but for somebody for whom that information is valuable, they'll pay that. In your own way, you are one of those verticals, right? You have come to your readers and said, “If I'm going to be able to do this, you're going to need to pay for it, and I have to provide a product that's worth what you pay.” So you've already gotten there, to this idea of reader-supported

23:32
journalism.

Gabe Fleisher
Yeah, and I think it is… I guess to me, what I'm saying is different. And you're right independent journalism has a long history. I think the idea that it could potentially be riskier to join one of these larger kind of newspaper organizations, which at that point you're describing were these behemoths, and these enormous organizations, because of the advertising revenue that you're describing. That it could be risky to join one of those than to branch out on your own, I think is a fairly novel idea and it's exactly the reasons you mentioned. You know, kind of, Craigslist is often cited as this reason, you know

24:02
this huge change in the media organization, but Craigslist and search engines and all the things you mentioned. And yeah, and I think a lot of media outlets are really scrambling with the potential exception of The New York Times. Every other news outlet basically is scrambling to find a revenue model that works in an era where they can't count on that advertising revenue anymore. And it is true that the Substack model, it is a revenue model that works. And I do think what I'm doing now would not have been possible in an era before Substack,

24:31
before even Netflix, and before I think people are just… We're in an era now where people are used to paying kind of one-off for subscriptions to things. I think that obviously, it's not like subscriptions are a new thing entirely, but obviously with the internet, it's kind of exploded. I just think that the number of things people are willing and used to kind of being charged every month for, that that's just completely changed things. And that's included paying for news. If there's a kind of writer or columnist that you're especially kind of interested in and enjoy reading from, people are just kind of used to that now. So I do think when I started the newsletter 13 years ago,

25:00
it would have been a lot harder to do it independently, to make a living out of it independently. Just… I don't think people were attuned to that as much like, “Oh, if I like this writer, I should pay them directly every month.” That wasn't really as much of an idea that was kind of out in the ether. News outlets might be paying syndicated columnists, like you say, but to go from reader to writer, that is something that in the kind of time I've been writing the newsletter has kind of emerged as a much more dominant part of the media landscape. And I definitely kind of feel like I was able to kind of

25:29
take advantage of it just the right time.

Larry Elkin
You were there right at the beginning. I will point out that this idea of having many customers who support you as an individual is less risky than having one employer on whom you are completely dependent is neither new, something recent, or specific to journalism. In my own case, after I got done being a journalist, I went to work for a large accounting firm by the name of Arthur Andersen.

25:58
And I was with them for six years and got my, really my start and my foundation in finance and financial planning. And I left them in 1992, at the end of 1992, and started my own firm. And 10 years later, Arthur Andersen, which was the largest accounting firm in the world at that time, no longer existed. And even if I had made partner there, and gone on to be at one of those other

26:26
firms that absorbed a lot of Arthur Andersen's people, at the age I am now, I would have passed mandatory retirement at every one of those firms. I would have been pushed out, whether or not I wanted to stop working. On the other hand, having my own firm and a stable of talented colleagues, one of whom is hosting this very podcast, gives me control over what I want to do, and how I want to do it, and how long. And that's because we have

26:55
hundreds of clients, customers, employers for me, that pay for us rather than one, at whose whim I am subject.

Amy Laburda
Before we move on, Larry, just for the benefit of maybe some of our younger or less plugged-in listeners, can you expand upon why Arthur Andersen doesn't exist anymore?

Larry Elkin
Yes, and thanks for the sad reminder that this all happened largely before Gabe was born, and certainly before he could have been out of diapers. So, Enron was a very large energy

27:24
company that was a client of Arthur Andersen's Houston office. Their accounting for their activities was very aggressive. And they were a $55-million-a-year client for Arthur Andersen, which in the context of the billions of dollars of that firm's revenue, was not that big a deal. But in the context of what an individual partner or office could generate, it was a very big deal. So Enron

27:53
had all the leverage in that relationship, because no partner, or no partner's boss as the office managing partner, would ever fire them. So Enron was able essentially to push around its accountants and get away with accounting that was more aggressive than was appropriate. And eventually, that led to charges that Arthur Andersen had obstructed justice by executing its document destruction

28:23
policy. That criminal charge destroyed the firm, because nobody could hire them as auditors. And even though the conviction of the firm was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court, it didn't matter. The firm in its operating form no longer existed. This all happened at the beginning of the 2000s.

Amy Laburda
On a cheerier note, after the downfall of Arthur Andersen,

28:49
I wanted to circle back a little bit to talk about readers, since we were talking about the way that they support your endeavor at “Wake Up To Politics.” You obviously had a fairly robust reader base; we talked a little bit about people supporting you before you made it mandatory. When you decided to add some paywalled content… Obviously a lot of creators are paywalling a large chunk of their content, but you still offer

29:13
much of it for free. What was the decision-making like on that? How did you decide to calibrate that choice as you moved to a part subscription model, at least?

Gabe Fleisher
It's a good question. I mean, I guess part of it was kind of, as we talked about before, I guess, as Larry put it, the kind of unintentional kind of testing phase I had gone through, where I did kind of know that there were enough people that were willing to kind of support the newsletter. If there was enough people that had gotten nothing before giving their support, it didn't necessarily make sense to me

29:41
to kind of then turn and swerve in the other direction and put so much of it behind a paywall. I kind of did feel as though people were kind of supporting it, not just for wanting the content for themselves, but kind of believed in the mission of like what I was doing, and believed that like the news I was putting out was somewhat different and somewhat important enough that they were willing to kind of support it with the idea that, you know, letting other people have access to it, you know, something I talk about in the newsletter a lot. So there's a lot of young people that read the newsletter. There's a lot of college or high school students, you know, who read the newsletter. So I do think there's a lot of people that,

30:11
that believe, not just want to read it, but also believe in the mission are willing to support it, knowing they might not be getting so much personally in return just for them, that's exclusive to them, but knowing they might be able to help it continue so that a larger segment of people can read that information and hear that perspective. I think that that's one element of it. I think it is hard to… Since

30:33
I've been doing the newsletter five days a week for free for so long, it's kind of hard to snatch away something that people have been getting for free for long, and suddenly kind of put that behind the paywall. So I was hesitant to do that. And I think, ultimately, it kind of was an exciting opportunity to kind of come up with new added things I could do with the newsletter. The paywall now includes a Sunday newsletter that goes behind a paywall that kind of recaps the news from the week, and also kind of recommends different pieces of journalism I enjoy. That's something I like doing, kind of send people to other

31:03
kind of pieces of journalism that I've liked. So that's been fun. I'm always also including a book club, trying to be doing author interviews and talking about books that I enjoy reading. So it's kind of just like, I felt an opportunity to include some features that I thought would add value to readers, but kind of outside the kind of infrastructure of the five-day-a-week newsletter. And again, I guess, if that hadn't worked, and if I had only put those things behind the paywall and the response was not enough to kind of be financially viable, then I might have looked at it again. But ultimately,

31:31
it really kind of, on day one, exceeded my wildest expectations on day one of the paywall of the number of people that signed up as paid subscribers. And ultimately, that was the feedback I heard from people, was that that kind of worked for them, that they kind of enjoyed the added content they were getting, but also felt it was valuable to kind of keep the five-day-a-week newsletter free. I feel like it's kind of a nice middle ground that I think a lot of subscribers have been happy with.

Amy Laburda 31:55
Speaking of things you've added, I've noted recently that you've had more video content, both pre-recorded and occasionally live. What sort of pushed you to add that to your very text-based newsletter? And do you think you're going to expand that, or are you happy with the mix now?

Gabe Fleisher
Yeah, I mean, I think part of it, to be honest, is just noticing — There's a lot of analytics on the back end you can kind of see in the newsletter. And I've always noticed, when you put in a video link in the newsletter — just sending out to YouTube videos, not of mine — but if I might just be kind of linking a video in the newsletter:

32:22
always the top clicked thing in the newsletter. I think people do… there’s a lot of people who really enjoy consuming information via video. So it's obviously, I think, a format that a lot of people go to. So I think part of it was that observation. Part of it has been the move to Substack makes it really easy to work with video, not only in the newsletter, but also live videos you mentioned. They debuted live video for the convention. I think their top 100 political writers, of which I'm one, were able to have access to it early. And so I had it during the convention,

32:52
was able to go live with my readers, bring them right inside the United Center. That was really exciting. I'll also be debuting their feature in a few days from now: They're working on a live video feature where two Substackers can go live at once. So me and Chris Cillizza, who's a former CNN political analyst, will be going live together after the debate on September 10th. So that'll be another exciting use case for live video. I think there's a lot more use cases of just, after big events like that, being able to go live and give instant reaction to my readers.

33:21
I think right now, a lot of the only options after a convention or debate, you go to CNN or MSNBC or Fox News, I think channels that a lot of people are frankly kind of tired of and not always finding the most original commentary from. So I think the idea that you could have kind of Substackers giving those kind of live video reactions in the moment right after things instead of having to wait for a newsletter the next day is really exciting and definitely something I'm hoping to do more of.

Larry Elkin
Let me observe that one of the absurdities of today's podcast-type journalism

33:51
is that we are recording this on August 30th. The episode will air in mid-September after it's edited. And I think Gabe just scooped himself with the announcement that there will be two Substackers going live simultaneously. But because of the time lag in getting a podcast out, you heard it here last. We have a scoop that will not actually be a scoop.

Amy Laburda 34:19
The good news for our listeners is that means that I can link it in the show notes. So you won't have to wait. It'll be already ready for you if you missed it the first time. That actually kind of brings me to a question about influencers. You made some comments after the DNC about the different ways you observed influencers and journalists being treated. Obviously, there's some gray area, right? There are people who are sort of on a spectrum.

34:45
But it's always been very clear that you have been a journalist first and foremost. Was there ever sort of a siren song of being more of an influencer, going more of a social media route, or was that just never a thing that interested you?

Gabe Fleisher
No, it isn't. I mean, I think, you know, I do think it's true that independent media does kind of straddle the world of, kind of, I don't think influencers is quite how I'd put it, but certainly it's like content creator or certainly, you know, something along those lines. I mean, I don't think that that's really what's in my nature. I don't think that that's something I'd be good at,

35:14
nor do I think it's something I would enjoy doing. I do enjoy practicing independent, objective journalism. I think when you're getting into influencers, that gets you into this world of, I do think, attachments, not just to brands and hawking brands, but also as we saw at the DNC, a lot of influencers who are just much more outwardly opinionated about their political beliefs, which is fine for people who want to do that. I have no disrespect to people who —

35:40
and there's journalists who practice their journalism that way. It's just not what I was interested in. I think I am someone who's fairly kind of, like, anti-tribal by nature. I'm just kind of, I think, a skeptical person by nature who I think prefers kind of, not necessarily criticizing people, but just kind of calling out hypocrisy, and being able to kind of call out things on both sides, and kind of retain some of those principled stances. I think that, to me, is kind of much more in that kind of journalism camp and, as Larry said, that kind of long independent journalism tradition, than anything you kind of see

36:08
from influencers. Again, no disrespect to people who make that their career. But no, that isn't something I ever considered. I do think, and something I thought through as I was writing that piece about the DNC, thinking it would be hypocritical not to note that there is overlap though, and there is kind of similarity, as we've been talking about. It's the same kind of thing where you are being supported by your audience in some ways, and you're kind of putting content out for yourself. So there's overlap, which is why I didn't want to go overboard in kind of criticizing influencers and I think

36:37
those sorts of content creators do have a role to play in our media ecosystem. But ultimately, even if I'm not at a mainstream media organization, that type of objective, nonpartisan, more serious journalism is ultimately always more what I felt myself doing.

Larry Elkin
Well, in this case, I think you've just touched on something that's really important, in that you are a throwback in your approach to journalism. In my journalism

37:06
days, between 1974 and 1986, I felt it would have been inappropriate at that time for me to even register as a member of a political party. So I didn't vote in closed primaries. I just thought that was wrong. I have the distinct impression that that would be a highly minority opinion in most of today's newsrooms, but it speaks to yours. It also speaks, I think, to the breadth, the political breadth of your audience. But

37:35
you'll be able to comment on that. I know I read, I think it was in the Georgetown alumni magazine, that the second gentleman, Doug Emhoff, is one of your readers. I know some Republicans of various stripes who are regular readers of yours. You address a political spectrum. I don't know whether the age spectrum is similar, or if it skews

38:00
older, toward my generation, because this is more the style of journalism to which we are accustomed and that we view as “real” journalism. What is your audience like in terms of political philosophy and age demographics, or gender demographics, because we have a big gender divide in this country too?

Gabe Fleisher
It's a great question. I want to be clear that I don't have demographic data on the audience per se. I've never done any

38:30
wide-scale analysis like that. So I can really only speak anecdotally, but the nice thing about email newsletters, they land in people’s inboxes. So people are very comfortable kind of flicking replies. So I hear from a lot of my readers every day. So I feel like I have a good sense of the cross-sectional audience from that, although this should not be understood as kind of like literal data of the audience. But that said, of the people I hear from, it is incredibly diverse in kind of every way you can think of. Yeah, certainly gender: I hear from men, women. Age, I'm really proud… I think it probably

38:59
skews slightly older. It's not like I would say the majority of the audience is young people. I think certainly compared to most other media outlets and most other political newsletters, a much larger percentage is young people than most other D.C. newsletters. I hear all the time from people my age, and even younger, who are reading the newsletter. There's a lot of teachers that use the newsletter in their classrooms as part of their curricula. That is a way

39:23
that I hear all the time from middle-school and high-school students, and college students, who are like, “I subscribe because so-and-so professor or teacher kind of pointed me to it and still reading it.” That's definitely a way for a lot of young people, but then also people who are kind of steeped in politics and kind of adults who are working at it on kind of the highest levels, of kind of politics and media. And also in terms of political engagement, very proud that it's kind of diverse in terms of people who are kind of political professionals, and then also people who tell me that it's the one thing they read about politics each day.

39:51
So I am really proud to be able to speak to all those groups. And politically as well, like you said. Not a day goes by where I don't hear criticism from the left and criticism from the right. Hopefully means that I'm reporting the story right, I hope. Although I'm always willing to hear feedback from both sides, and hopefully own up to mistakes if I make them, and definitely always open to thoughtful feedback if readers of any political stripes are sharing it. Sometimes the feedback can be inflammatory, but I have found a lot of times with my readers,

40:20
from the left and the right, a lot of times writing back with kind of thoughtful feedback about what I'm writing and comments and questions. So I always appreciate hearing that. And yeah, I hear from all sorts of people. It's what I love about email newsletters. It's so personal. People are very willing to kind of… people will share their story. People will share who they're voting for, what they're uncomfortable about. So I hear from Trump voters, and Harris voters, and people struggling with their vote, and people who like qualities of both candidates. And it is, again, and that shouldn't be taken as some like

40:50
objective analytical cross-section of my audience, or the country, but it is really cool and special to hear those kinds of stories from people and hear just what they're thinking about it and what they're wrestling with their vote. I think it does give me a cool insight into some of the people I'm writing for, and some of the country that I'm writing about. So I am really proud that, at least in terms of the emails I receive, and that is the best metric I have to go off of, in really any factor you can think of, it's a really diverse audience that spans a lot of different sides of the coin.

Larry Elkin 41:18
I think you should be proud. I also think that a lot of us should be sad that it is so unusual to have a news source that is so broadly valuable that it doesn't aim to pander to one subset of audience or to exclude another subset of audience. It's what journalism was when newspapers had to appeal to an entire community that had diverse sets of opinions,

41:46
so it didn't try to exclude anybody. You've lost a lot of that in most written media these days, and in most broadcast or broadcast-equivalent media these days, I would say with the exception possibly of TV local news, which still needs to attract eyeballs for advertisers, and thus can't be as politically polarizing or socially polarizing

42:16
as some other outlets. They're not there just to attract clicks. It doesn't do anything for them; they need Nielsen ratings. But that is the exception to the rule and has a very limited timeframe. So where we used to have managing editors or executive editors, who curated that breadth of talent, that work, a breadth of perspective, that work's all been pushed back now to the audience.

42:44
We have to be our own curators to make sure that we are getting the diversity of information that we need, if we want to be informed participants in society.

Gabe Fleisher
I think that's exactly right. And I think that kind of audience factor is very relevant in terms of like… if you talk to people at these news outlets, they are constantly checking what's being clicked on. Obviously, ratings a big deal in the TV business. And I do think, unfortunately,

43:12
with the economic changes we've been talking about, and the financial changes to the industry that has led to these perverse incentive structures, where media outlets are so desperate for clicks and for views, and also watching them so closely, that sometimes the audience is sending them in directions I think are less than healthy for our democracy, because the things that people tend to watch and listen to are more dramatic or more partisan or more inflammatory coverage. I think that is,

43:40
generally, the sense with a lot of news outlets audiences. That is why I've been really happy to see the Substack model, and that model works for me is a proof point that there are audiences that do want something different. Maybe they're not like a silent majority or something, but they are out there. And there are people that do want exactly like you're saying, more nonpartisan coverage, more level-headed coverage, a news outlet that won't scream at you, but will just tell you like it is.

44:09
There's a lot of other people who I do think much prefer to just sit in bubbles of information, that leads media outlets to cut out some of those audiences in the middle, which is why I think that's a perfect proof point for the Substack model, where you can have people go, “No, I want to hear my news like this, and so I'm going to pay for it directly.” And then suddenly, news outlets like that can be sustainable offering a new way of media coverage, or maybe an old new way of media coverage,

44:37
for audiences that want it and trying to go in that different direction.

Larry Elkin
I think that Substack model is incredibly valuable, because it does give us access to that diversity of sources and points of view. My concern is that it's not, on its own, a substitute for what we've lost. And I don't think anybody would argue that. And the way I guess I would

45:04
illustrate that point is that, just within the past few weeks, we lost a very important news outlet to me, and that was WCBS 880 Newsradio in New York, which had been on the air for 100 years and been an all-news outlet for 57. And it essentially was the model for remaining all-news stations like WTOP in Washington, and WBBM in Chicago, and KNX in Los Angeles.

45:34
Those types of newsrooms are very expensive to maintain. You need anchors, you need writers, you need reporters, you need runners. And most of the time, they're not on the air. And most of the time, what they're putting on the air is fairly routine. But then you get the big events, right? The 9/11-s, the Superstorm Sandy-s. Somebody takes a shot at a presidential candidate. Even on an election night, when — those

46:03
nights or days when it's all hands on deck, when everybody needs to know what's happening right now. You need that kind of infrastructure in place to gather the news, filter out what's not news, filter out the rumors that can lead to really bad consequences if they trigger panic or poor decisions.

46:30
There's no way a Substack-type model can really deliver that. And that's what we've lost. That place where people have confidence to go to in an emergency. That was CNN. And sure, if you want dramatic pictures of shock and awe in Baghdad, CNN can probably still provide that. But then in terms of contextualizing what's happening there,

46:58
I think a lot of that confidence has been undermined. And it's unfortunate. I think work that people like you are doing is really important, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that we can completely make up for what we're giving up.

Gabe Fleisher
I think you're exactly right. And I do think if anything, the audience that I've been able to build, and that does exist for outlets like mine, does show, I do think there is an untapped market out there for people who do want a major TV or radio station like that.

47:25
I think there is a lot of work to be done to figure out the right revenue model and fine-tune that. But I think once someone is able to do that, that is, I think, going to be the challenge of the next few years is how to bridge this kind of independent — these newer and older models together and hopefully, something of an older sensibility as well for a market that does want it. There’s a lot of people out there, I hear from people all the time, who at least say they want that more-nonpartisan feature coverage. I do think people don't always

47:53
kind of vote with their eyes, if you will, and kind of don't always show it. But I do think, I like to believe, there's a lot of people out there, and I do think it's a market that eventually is going to be tapped into by some large organization that's going to discover that.

Larry Elkin
Well, when I was your age, I was covering politics in Montana, and you're covering politics in D.C. And I certainly hope that your generation can build on that model, to replace the model that my generation had, but which really is fading.

Amy Laburda 48:21
So I actually do want to circle back slightly, because I promised to bring up Missouri. But I think building on your point about being allergic to tribalism, and to really committing from sort of the jump to have a heterogeneous audience, at least as far as you can set it up for that.

48:39
I'm also a Midwesterner who moved to the East Coast. Although I will point out, for those who haven't been to either place, that St. Louis and Indianapolis are not the same. There are differences. But I do think one of the ways in which they probably are similar, and you can let me know if I'm wrong, is that growing up in the Midwest, I had a mix of political views and opinions in my life, but also fewer people who felt intensely tribal to me. People, you know, if they talked about politics might disagree, but then, you know, we'd go and like go to a game or whatever and it would be fine.

49:09
I found, moving out to the East Coast, not uniformly, but more broadly, people felt a sense of internalized identity that felt more easily to hurt someone's feelings or attack someone when you disagreed.

Gabe Fleisher
Yeah, I think I would agree with all of those observations. I think to me, the kind of biggest divide — or not the biggest divide in our country, but the biggest political divide in our country that isn't talked about, is this kind of divide by people who are just intensely following politics and the kind of vast majority of people who aren't.

49:36
I think mainstream media can often overrate the number of people that actually care that much about politics, because when you actually start asking people questions, you realize most people are just kind of… They have a political party they belong to, and they have political values they hold, but are really just going about their daily lives. You get out of the D.C. and New York media bubbles, you see that people, again, not that they don't care about their country, and they do, but it isn't the top of the list of what they're talking about and caring about. They're just going about their normal lives.

50:02
Whereas I think you could watch the media and delude yourself into thinking that everyone is these rabid partisans that are being, their lives are being taken over by politics, and it's all they care and think about. And I don't think that's true. And I do think that insight, I think was foundational to why I built the newsletter, why I've kept doing it. I do think it's helped me think of my audience. I think when I am someone who's built up an audience that does include a lot of people in D.C., in New York,

50:29
working in media, working in politics. But it's not who I'm thinking of when I'm writing the newsletter. I'm thinking more of, yeah, like people from St. Louis, friends and family from home. That's still the audience in my head. People who are just trying to understand what's going on, might not be so steeped in every single story, want a little bit of background and context, and want to hear it in a level-headed, nonpartisan way. I think that is much more the audience that's in mind, so I do think that has influenced how I've written the newsletter. Whether I felt pressure to change that when I've come out here, you may think again, you know,

50:58
being independent really affords you the kind of not being susceptible to some pressures like that. I think sometimes with independence, you worry a little bit about audience capture of, if certain X number of people are like, “I know exactly the people that are paying my salary, essentially,” you might be very worried if some of them might be very upset with you, then you feel a pressure to change your coverage. But I really don't, because my audience is so diverse in those ways.

51:26
I don't really worry about, if there's certain people from one side that might be very upset about something, the next day it's going to be the next, so it's not something I spend too much time worrying about. And mostly what I hear from people is, if anything, just kind of pressure to keep kind of remaining nonpartisan, and to try to leave opinions as much out of it. And if that is something that is out of place at some other larger organizations, I don't work for them. So that's not really a relevant pressure to me. So, but I do think that observation is correct.

51:54
And I do think it's something that's influenced me, just the idea of trying to write about politics for people who are not obsessed with politics. And I think that is the audience that I most often have in mind, although I think I do have a lot of political junkies in my audience, and I love hearing from them, and I'm a political junkie myself, obviously. But I do think it's important also for news outlets to be trying to reach people who are just trying to be informed, but their lives might not be controlled by politics or by these intense political feelings.

52:21
And people are going to be open to hearing a variety of sides. There's a reason that a lot of the main battleground states are in the Midwest. I think it is places where there's a lot of people mushed together, with a lot of different views. I think a large chunk of the country is used to having those types of conversations, and I hope my newsletter is one place where those conversations are going on.

Larry Elkin
To elaborate on your point about geography and how things have changed: There was a time, not too many decades ago,

52:50
when any self-respecting metropolitan newspaper, not just The New York Times or The Washington Post, but any of the big city papers around the country, would have had bureaus, full-time staffers working in different cities domestically and abroad. They had a network of their own people, who would be part of the morning news conference, right? What's happening where? You didn't have a monoculture of local perspective dominating

53:18
the decisions about what is news and what isn't, or how news should be presented, or how it should be gathered. And that's been lost. Now, every outlet parachutes in, right up to The New York Times. If they're writing about a story that's happening in New Mexico, they're dropping in from the East Coast on New Mexico and trying to understand the place. And you can't. It's not the same. They've all lost that.

53:48
Now, the monoculture of perspective in the newsroom is reflected by the monoculture of perspective in the product. Your Midwestern background is a true asset here, because you just didn't grow up in that environment, and you're not subject to that surrounding that says this is what's news and what isn't.

Gabe Fleisher
Yeah, I think that's very true. Not just the point, yeah, about bureaus, and obviously a lot of local bureaus that have closed

54:18
in recent years, but also just in terms of the personal backgrounds of a lot of people at these organizations. I don't know if you've had this experience, Amy, but oftentimes you're walking out and like, “Oh, you're from Missouri? That's not something you hear all the time.” I think that's certainly true. The response you might get at a lot of these news organizations, where there is, I think, as you put it, a true monoculture of people who all grew up in the same places, all went to the same schools, and all had the same kind of personal, professional background.

54:44
There's not very many religious people at a lot of newsrooms. There's not very many conservative people. There's not very many people from the Midwest, or the West, or the South even in some cases. There is just one single perspective that does get prioritized above others. I think that really does turn off a wide swath of readers. I think it can get you a dedicated band of readers in a certain place and a certain ideology, but what are you losing when you're only hiring those sorts of people and only targeting the sorts of people as readers?

55:13
You're losing just a whole swath of the country that might think differently or might have different backgrounds, and it's an unfortunate thing that's going on in a lot of news organizations.

Larry Elkin
So one other thing I wanted to come back to with you, Gabe, about your independent model, and this is something I would discuss with any young entrepreneur that I'm meeting, is have you thought at all about what it is you're trying to build? Is it just a job that

55:42
will keep you occupied for as long as you want to be doing this, possibly until retirement? Or is it something that potentially survives you? And so to go back again to my generation, there was a column when I started at journalism school in 1974 called the “Washington Merry-Go-Round.” At that time, it was being written by Jack Anderson, who had started previously under Drew Pearson.

56:08
Drew Pearson built that “Washington Merry-Go-Round” column. Jack Anderson took it over. They both had multiple assistants, and writers and reporters, working for them, (one of whom, in the 1970s working for Jack Anderson was Brit Hume, who went on to be a network correspondent for ABC). “Washington Merry-Go-Round” in 1974 was being published by many newspapers around the country. I think The Washington Post was kind of its flagship.

56:34
But I just noticed I came across a clip from my own student newspaper, The Montana Kaimin at the University of Montana, during my freshman year. And there it was on our opinion page. So it covered the gamut. But Drew Pearson built a thing, right, that he could actually pass on to someone else, sell or give or whatever else. It was something that was going to survive him. And looking at you at 22, the same age I was doing political journalism,

57:03
I left the field, but when I started a business, it was with an idea that I was going to create something that could employ other people, that would let my role change over time and pass on the things that I was good at at a young age onto those other people. I would suggest to most people your age, if you're starting something, succession planning is probably not at the top of your...

57:31
your list of business priorities. But it is a thing to think about. And you probably, if you haven't already, you probably will pretty soon be thinking to yourself, “OK, how do I cover more than what one person can do and write and edit and distribute and pay for? Am I going to take on other people into this thing and bring them into this umbrella?” Have you given any thought to that?

Gabe Fleisher 57:55
I definitely have. It's a good question. I think it's an answer I am still thinking through, but it's something I do give thought to. I do think certainly, when you talk about building something with the idea of your role evolving over time, I think that is definitely something I think about. I think there are, I think, parts of what I do that I'm very good at, and other parts that I think would be cool to be able to hire people to help with, and obviously at coverage areas that I would love. I think I'm very good covering national politics, but obviously that leaves out

58:24
a lot of different coverage areas that I think would be great if I were able to hire people with areas of expertise that could compliment my own, and be able to build a news product that was able to cover a lot of different perspectives, a lot of different news areas, I think would be beneficial and allow me to focus on what I'm best at and not trying to do everything at once. I do think though, I think it's important to be careful. I think a lot of people, when they ask me that question, “Oh, are you trying to build the next Politico, or the next Axios, or something like that?”

58:51
I think… That is not my ambition. I think we've seen a lot of examples in the last few years. I think a lot of people try to build newsrooms like that. The best example recently is The Messenger, which was hundreds of millions of dollars were plowed into by people used to be at The Hill, and it failed within a matter of months, or maybe a year. Because it tried to bite off way more than it could chew. It was ultimately, I think, not offering an original product. It was growing, but not...

59:17
but not in a way that was offering something new or original or different to the space. So I think that's very important. My ambition is not to be the next large newsroom or something like that. I don't think that's what “Wake Up To Politics” would make sense as, or could be best at. I do think there could be room for other verticals. Like you say, I think your “Wake Up To Sports” or “Wake Up To Business.” I think that there could be room for that, if I was able to find the right writers or people to do that, something I'm open to,

59:46
certainly. Even within the political vertical, I think it would be cool to be able to add other perspectives and something like that. But I think ultimately, I do think at the end of the day, the “Washington Merry-Go-Round,” I think is a good example, but less of a newsroom, but more of a column that was out. I do think of it at the end of the day as a daily column that I'm writing, giving people my perspective. I don't think that necessarily has to be something… I think I would be perfectly happy if that's what it was. It was just like this kind of column I was writing,

01:00:16
I think it'd be cool to add other columnists within that, and be able to add other people. But I do think I'd have a high bar for who I would trust and who I'd want to be part of. I think I've been able to build up a brand that does have a lot of trust among its audience. I think I’d want to make sure that that was preserved. So I'd want to make sure to do it in the right way. But it is something I give thought to. And certainly the hope would be to grow it at least to the level where I'm not doing everything, where there are people that would be able to help me and kind of

01:00:42
add other unique and heterodox voices to it, I think would be very cool.

Amy Laburda
Excellent. Well, usually at the end of one of these episodes of “Something Personal,” I like to just throw it back to the guests to ask if there's anything that came up that we breezed by that you wanted to touch on further. I think we've gone from 2011 to now, from Missouri to D.C. But if there's anything else that

01:01:07
just rose to mind that you want to share. I thought I'd hand the mic over to you before we finish up.

Larry Elkin
Oh, I'm going to jump in. I'm going to jump in here. Age before beauty, guys. I'm going to take advantage of the gray hair here, because I saved a little chestnut that I wanted to offer to Gabe before his closing remarks. And this was from the commentary by Wayne Cabot, who was one of the final

01:01:37
morning co-anchors at the late WCBS 880 news show. And just a few moments before it went off the air, at midnight Sunday, August 25th, this was something that he said about journalism as it stands today. He said, “Our news desert is getting bigger and drier. Just like we should get a second medical opinion, we need to seek out more and more varied news sources that we trust.

01:02:04
Because getting your information without the bias and brainwashing in one place has given way to a fight to stay informed. With each closing newspaper, radio newsroom, TV newsroom, magazine, now even digital news operations, the country we love is diminished. So as we leave the news ecosystem after 57 years of all news, and 100 years of service on New York radio, we implore you to find that next trusted source. Use it,

01:02:33
support it in word and in deed. It is the most patriotic thing you can do and the most satisfying.” And I just wanna say to anybody listening that finding and supporting “Wake Up To Politics” is indeed one of the most satisfying things you can do, and one of the most useful. And I want to thank Gabe for all the years of service he's already given us. And I look forward to many, many more to come. So thank you, Gabe, and thanks also for coming on the show.

01:02:59
Gabe Fleisher
Well, I appreciate that, Larry. That means a lot to me to hear. That's very kind of you to say. And then those are certainly very beautiful words. And so, I appreciate… I had not heard that. I appreciate you sharing that with me and I appreciate your support. Certainly means a lot.

Amy Laburda
Well, I'll just echo, Gabe. Thanks so much for talking with us today. It was really a pleasure to have you. I feel like we hit a lot of good points, but I will throw you back the final word if you want it.

Gabe Fleisher
The one thing that did occur to me as we were talking, you know, Larry, you mentioned at one point

01:03:26
like having many clients, relying on many clients instead of just having one place. The one thing that I was just going to mention was an essay, I don't know if people have read it, by Kevin Kelly, who is a longtime internet theorist, early internet theorist, and he was one of the founders of Wired, a digital publication about the internet. He wrote an essay that's been very influential to me as I was deciding to go on this path, called “1000 True Fans,” which I'd encourage people

01:03:53
to check out if this is something that is interesting to them and if they're thinking about building something like this. It was written, I'm not sure exactly when, but at the dawn of the internet era, a long time ago, basically with the conceit, exactly what you were saying, that in the internet era, the idea was that you only need 1,000 true fans to build something of your own. If you have that number of clients, whether you're... And that applies to journalists or musicians or artists or whoever. If you have 1,000 people that are willing to pay for your work

01:04:23
and really are willing to be dedicated to your work, you can make a living, which was a fairly novel innovation with the internet that just made it so easy to support the creators that you enjoy. That kind of idea was very influential to me. I feel very lucky to have reached that number and then some, and to have people who are supporting my work. But that just came to mind as you were mentioning that idea of

01:04:50
having a large number of backers, instead of just one company you rely on. I think it is a scary idea, and a risky idea, to a lot of people. And obviously, I do think it's a privilege to be able to have a thousand people at all who care about your work. And it's not something that happens overnight. But if you're able to do it, it is very special to have that, and be able to build those kind of personal relationships, whether it's just over email. And then sometimes an email relationship can turn into something more and can become something longer-lasting. And so it is really special.

01:05:20
I feel really lucky and excited to be part of that newer and growing ecosystem.

Larry Elkin
Thanks for pointing that out, Gabe. It's a great tip for anybody listening. Thanks also in advance for shepherding us through the weeks that remain until the presidential election. We're going to be reading you very closely every day.

Gabe Fleisher
There'll be a lot to cover. Thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it.

Amy Laburda 01:05:44
Gabe and Larry, thank you both for sitting down with me today. It's been fascinating, and I hope our listeners enjoyed it as much as I did, but it was a great time to talk to you today.

“Something Personal” is a production of Palisades Hudson Financial Group, a financial planning and investment firm headquartered in South Florida. Our other offices are in Atlanta; Austin; the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area; and the New York City metro area. “Something Personal” is hosted by me, Amy Laburda.

01:06:14
Our producers are Ali Elkin and Joseph Ranghelli. Joseph Ranghelli is also our director, editor and mixer. Our firm has written two books: Looking Ahead: Life, Family, Wealth and Business After 55, and The High Achiever's Guide to Wealth, which offers advice for younger professionals, entrepreneurs, athletes and performers. Both books are available on Amazon, in paperback and as e-books.