Connect with us

Business

Why TV News Anchors Like Joy Reid and Don Lemon Are Moving to Substack

Published

on

Why TV News Anchors Like Joy Reid and Don Lemon Are Moving to Substack

Should Jim Acosta wear a tie?

For the last two months, since the former anchor quit his job at CNN, Mr. Acosta has been broadcasting online several times per week, usually from his dining room, using his iPhone. Often, he is troubleshooting in real time, far from the high-gloss desk and sophisticated cameras of his CNN set.

One question he faces is how many “frills” to add to his interviews with the likes of Pete Buttigieg, the former transportation secretary, or Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the top House Democrat.

“The magic here is not killing or messing with this organic nature of the show,” said Matt Hoye, Mr. Acosta’s newly hired executive producer and a 30-year veteran of CNN, who is leaning “no” on adding neckties but “yes” on graphics.

“The Jim Acosta Show” streams live on Substack, a platform that has recently cemented itself as a harbor for stranded television anchors.

Advertisement

In January, the start-up best known for email newsletters gave all users the ability to publish live video. Now it is home to a handful of cable stars marooned from their mainstream media jobs amid reshuffled lineups, salary cuts and other controversies. On Substack, where politics is the most popular and lucrative category, anti-Trump publishers have been performing particularly well.

Joy Reid began regularly posting to Substack in March, after her MSNBC show was canceled. On Friday, the former CNN anchor Don Lemon joined Substack after a year of livestreaming on YouTube. They join established chart-toppers, like Mehdi Hasan (the former MSNBC host) and Dan Rather (the onetime face of CBS News), along with various CNN expatriates: Norm Eisen, Jessica Yellin, Chris Cillizza, Elise Labott and Alisyn Camerota.

This new TV diaspora has one central proposition: The future of news is casual. Sometimes very casual. Anchors can lose their seats and still hold on to their star power, so long as they give modern audiences what they want. “What’s most important in my business now is authenticity,” as Fox News host-turned-YouTube star Megyn Kelly recently told The New York Times.

“Jim Acosta’s people do not really care if Jim Acosta is wearing pancake makeup or not,” said Molly Jong-Fast, who is both an MSNBC political analyst and a regular guest on Substack shows.

Last Wednesday, Mr. Acosta ended his 30-minute interview with Representative Jeffries by talking about college basketball. Then a small orange ball materialized in the host’s hand, delivered by his fetch-hungry beagle, Duke. His visible houseplants had been previously mocked on Fox News, to which Mr. Acosta soberly objected.

Advertisement

Last month, on his birthday weekend, Don Lemon used his YouTube channel to stream himself having breakfast and lunch — both lasted nearly an hour — and a party, during which he sang parts of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” into a karaoke microphone.

“People don’t really care if they’re in a coat and tie on the north lawn of the White House or in an air-conditioned studio in 30 Rock,” said Jeff Zucker, former president of CNN and former boss to several of these now-independent journalists. “They just want to hang out and hear from someone they like and trust.”

Katie Couric, who started an independent media company in 2017, has found the accelerated decline of linear television “at times upsetting,” she said: “I used to anchor the ‘CBS Evening News’ and ‘The Today Show,’ and I’m doing Instagram Lives now.”

Today, however, with a few dozen employees and a newsletter nearing one million subscribers, she more often feels legacy media is “late to the party.” Broadcasting on social media is “authenticity on steroids,” said Ms. Couric, who recently paused shopping for an Oscar’s party dress to livestream a breaking-news discussion on Ukraine, parking herself on the couch of a fashion brand’s showroom, wearing no makeup, she pointed out.

Mr. Lemon, who was ousted by CNN in 2023, a few months after making remarks about Nikki Haley’s age that were widely viewed as sexist, said he was courted almost immediately by Substack. Instead he agreed in 2024 to bring a new show to X with Elon Musk as his first interview guest.

Advertisement

That interview grew tense, and when Mr. Musk subsequently canceled their $1.5 million deal, Mr. Lemon filed a lawsuit that is ongoing. (“It’s crazy that I am in litigation with the richest man in the world,” Mr. Lemon said, though he claimed to not think about it very often.)

In the meantime, Mr. Lemon grew his YouTube channel to more than 656,000 subscribers, uploading his own takes, “Lemon drops,” alongside interviews with the conservative podcaster Candace Owens and Representative Jasmine Crockett, a Democrat from Texas.

“At first, you’re frightened, like, ‘Oh no, I’m not on the big broadcast anymore,’” said Mr. Lemon, who initially recorded his YouTube videos from a pricey, professionally lit studio — “cable news lite,” he said — until he realized that the chatty bonus videos he filmed in his living room, with his barking dogs, were more positively received by subscribers.

“You don’t need all those things that you think you need,” he said.

In December, Mr. Lemon added a paid membership option to his YouTube channel, with options ranging from about $3 to $50 a month. A representative declined to disclose his membership numbers. But Mr. Lemon said the show is profitable, primarily through YouTube’s advertising revenue share. He also earns income through social media sponsorships and corporate speaking engagements that he said he wasn’t able to accept while working for CNN.

Advertisement

Ms. Reid, who lost her MSNBC slot about a month ago, is still experiencing the “strange disconnect” of life without a television schedule and team of producers, she said.

She is “just tired,” she said, and working through her next steps, Ms. Reid said in an interview: “What do I want to do? What am I good at? What can I do to contribute to the world?” For now, she has landed on writing about democracy to an audience of about 118,000.

Mr. Acosta, whose subscribers surged after he encouraged CNN viewers in his sign-off message to not “bow down to a tyrant,” now ranks among Substack’s top 20 publishers in politics. Catherine Valentine, who recruits and wrangles these political and television personalities for Substack now calls this the “Jim Acosta model.”

Among his 287,000 total readers, Mr. Acosta has more than 10,000 paid subscribers, though he too declined to provide any specific financial figures. When asked in early March if he was approaching the $1 million mark in annualized revenue, Mr. Acosta laughed: “Are you writing a story, like, look at all these greedy broadcast journalists cashing in?” (He also answered: “I’m getting there.”)

Mr. Acosta has also been exploring additional content partnerships, like a podcasting deal, to augment his Substack presence. But he still speaks about Substack with the reverence of a former college radio host experimenting with “garage rock” — or at least a “model submarine enthusiast,” he said.

Advertisement

“It feels like I’ve stumbled upon this really cool hobby that I wish I’d known about sooner, but I didn’t,” Mr. Acosta said. “And I don’t know if CNN would have allowed me to have a presence.” (One current CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, does use Substack, but more as a social media feed, reposting CNN clips.)

Some networks have tried to incorporate more of internet’s casual and chaotic offerings into their sleek lineups, as when ESPN acquired the freewheeling “Pat McAfee Show” or Fox News developed a show with “a signature podcast style” around Will Cain.

But many still place restrictions on their employees’ presence on platforms such as Substack, said Marc Paskin, a talent agent who represents journalists as co-head of news and broadcasting at United Talent Agency, where Mr. Lemon is a client.

“There has always been a fear of cannibalization of an audience,” Mr. Paskin said. “The truth of matter is that these things should be viewed as partners.”

Until 2026, Mr. Lemon still has a contract in place with CNN that limits his broadcasting opportunities with competitors. Will he return to television then? Maybe if someone made him a “great offer,” he said. But maybe not.

Advertisement

“The longer I do this, the more satisfying it becomes, the more profitable it becomes and I start loving it more,” he said. “I think the folks who are in legacy media now are going to have to figure out what we’re doing over here.”

Business

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

on

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

Advertisement

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

Advertisement

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Advertisement

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

Advertisement

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending