Recycling insight is one thing, but I was referring to the sense that a lot of the content feels like “reporting on reporting”. That is, an article telling me that The Information posted an article that said something.
The quotes are always properly attributed with links, but given that the original content is behind a different subscription I feel slightly sleazy for subscribing to a newsletter that basically summarizes and quotes from a different paid newsletter as a primary source. (I also subscribe to The Information, FWIW)
Just want to push back on the note that my newsletter "basically summarizes and quotes from a different paid newsletter as a primary source".
The last issue had the most number of The Information quotes [1] plus a bunch of original reporting and opinions.
The one two weeks ago had one such quote [2] and a bunch of original reporting.
I hadn't quoted The Information three months before, the last time I mentioned anything from that source was late April [3].
All linked issues are un-paywalled.
Point taken though on quoting from other publications and the perception a few such quotes can create in a paid publication, not to mention when these external quotes are how an issue starts. And especially when burying original or "exclusive" reporting from original sources.
I'm learning the ropes on this one as I go and will iterate on the format and the notion of "reporting on reporting".
I appreciate the links and sources, I’m not sure what OP’s problem is. I have a feeling they prefer opinion pieces, instead of insights into reported news.
The quotes are always properly attributed with links, but given that the original content is behind a different subscription I feel slightly sleazy for subscribing to a newsletter that basically summarizes and quotes from a different paid newsletter as a primary source. (I also subscribe to The Information, FWIW)