Obviously there's space for investigative journalism like what, e.g. ProPublica is doing, but if it's just "news", I'd rather get it from an individual backed by a strong reputation than an institution backed by a strong reputation, unless the journalist has a useful on-the-ground insight.
News/Jouralism = Reporting with as little opinion as possible. I.E. what/why/how/where/etc from boots on the ground...
Editorial / Substack = Opinion pieces.
ProPublica is amazing in terms of doing journalism and funding it in a new way.
I agree with your definitions. But if I'm choosing between Editorial "news" from WaPo/NYT vs. someone independently covering the same events on their Substack, I'd be more interested in the individual on Substack if I trust them from previous experience as an intelligent, informed, good-faith writer.
WaPo/NYT I don't know the individual writers very well, and I don't really have much faith in the intentions of the editorial board...
Ya, but you have to remember Substack has no fact checkers, no standards, no peer review... NYT/WAPO are not perfect, but they have those in place. And, such as in the case of the podcast earlier this year they eventually get to the right place and fire the team that blatantly lied.
Reuters is probably a good source if you are looking for pure news, or apnews.