I find it amusing when folks self-describe as &#x27;anti-establishment&#x27;, particularly journalists writing predominantly stories about journalistic and media trends. Also interesting when articles like this are written by folks touting their own newsletter: is &#x27;newsletters are becoming huge&#x27; true, or wishful thinking?<p>I think the comparison with zines is interesting, but a newsletter on the best podcasts, or featuring a &#x27;random medieval image&#x27; is not the heir to Sniffin&#x27; Glue. Anti-Establishment, the punk ethos, youth culture, that meant something. (Back when I were a lad, pass my slippers).<p>The nearest I&#x27;ve found is Tumblr, to be honest. The porny, angry, angsty, badly written, rapid fire, wonderfulness of that pile of zines on the record store counter.<p>Having said all that, I also find newsletters interesting. But as it stands at the moment they have a discovery problem (podcasts suffered the same way at the start). It might be gonzo to publish without an audience, because, hell-yeah, and stuff, but I don&#x27;t see how anything but self delusion could make you think that means you&#x27;re reaching more people who are &#x27;genuinely interested&#x27;.<p>I&#x27;d love to read more newsletters, but those I&#x27;ve been recommended are mostly the same journalistic onanism or smug punditry. I&#x27;ve not found any distinct voice that isn&#x27;t amply available across the internet.