Andrew Sullivan | Barry Diller | Gay Media | News | Tina Brown

Andrew Sullivan Set To Start Independent Pay Site February 1

AndrewsullivanbeastGay blogger Andrew Sullivan announced today that he and his executive editorial team, Patrick Appel and Chris Bodenner, are leaving their virtual home at Newsweek-owned The Daily Beast to set up shop as a pay site with no ads, a move they say will help them get back to their online grassroots.

From Sullivan's announcement:

...As we contemplated the end of our contract with the Beast at the end of 2012, we faced a decision... As we debated and discussed that unknowable future, we felt more and more that getting readers to pay a small amount for content was the only truly solid future for online journalism. And since the Dish has, from its beginnings, attempted to pioneer exactly such a solid future for web journalism, we also felt we almost had a duty to try and see if we could help break some new ground.

The only completely clear and transparent way to do this, we concluded, was to become totally independent of other media entities and rely entirely on you for our salaries, health insurance, and legal, technological and accounting expenses.
As of February 1, we will revert to our old URL - Here's the core principle: we want to create a place where readers - and readers alone - sustain the site. No bigger media companies will be subsidizing us; no venture capital will be sought to cushion our transition (unless my savings count as venture capital); and, most critically, no advertising will be getting in the way.

The cost will be $19.99 a year, which works out to about a nickel a day. Whether or not you think that is a fair price probably depends on how much you value Sullivan and his team's opinions. If you ask me, that's actually a pretty good deal.

In the meantime, The team's work will still be accessible at The Daily Beast until their new site officially launches next month.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I still haven't recovered from the embarassing sight of Sullivan and Jim "Rest Stop" McGreevy blubbering at the 92nd Street Y over their devout Catholicism.

    Posted by: MARCUS BACHMANN | Jan 2, 2013 1:22:24 PM

  2. I wouldn't pay to read Sullivan, but I am hoping his departure from the Beast will mean the eventual end of Megan McArdle.

    Posted by: Butch | Jan 2, 2013 1:22:30 PM

  3. the fee covers the costs of printing newsletters for their quarterly Bug-Chasing parties. No blacks allowed. They only want White strains.


    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 2, 2013 1:26:14 PM

  4. Regardless of Sullivan's unfortunate Catholicism or similar considerations: people like their websites free of charge. Period.

    Doesn't seem like a wise [for him] move.

    Posted by: WebHybrid | Jan 2, 2013 1:27:13 PM

  5. It's a terrible move. I liked him at one time, but I couldn't care less now. And most magazines don't cost $20 a year---because they take ads.

    Posted by: Paul R | Jan 2, 2013 1:30:10 PM

  6. Used to read Andrew daily, but stopped about 3 months ago when he went hysterical over the first Presidential debate. I haven't really missed him in that time, even though I used to really like his perspective, which adds a different inflection to both political and gay news coverage. Guess there are just too many alternatives online.

    If he's going to make this work he'll have to forge a different relationship with his readers. He can start by allowing comments on his posts. Anyone who subsidizes him by paying $20 a year should have the right to be heard themselves.

    Posted by: Arrant | Jan 2, 2013 1:57:22 PM

  7. He'd be better off just doing an ad supported blog. The model works.

    Posted by: Brian in Texas | Jan 2, 2013 1:57:35 PM

  8. Sullivan is such an unmitigated coward he was the only blogger at the Daily Beast to NOT allow comments. Juxtapose this with Glenn Greenwald who not only allows comments but interacts online with commmenters and values their criticism. Sullivan going behind a pay wall is just where he should be out of sight and out the public discourse. Princess Rapunzel (fortunately for us) has no hair to let down so once ensconced in her tower we may never be bothered by her histrionics again.

    Posted by: KevinSF | Jan 2, 2013 1:57:52 PM

  9. If Andy posts some pics of his bareback adventures, I'm sure members of the LCR and GoProud will all sign up. But are there enough of them to pay for Andy's upkeep at only 20 bucks a year.

    Posted by: Qj201 | Jan 2, 2013 1:59:15 PM

  10. Resonable deal, might subscribe for a year to see if his being independent changes anything. But he has not been adding to the discussion for the past year or so.........

    Posted by: Lifesart | Jan 2, 2013 2:05:08 PM

  11. Hmmm. Might give it a try, but I really hope he sticks to news and less about his own personal religious perspectives.

    Posted by: Yeek | Jan 2, 2013 2:11:51 PM

  12. No thanks.

    Posted by: Randy | Jan 2, 2013 2:12:03 PM

  13. Def in the minority here, but Iike Andrew, despite the fact that I am far far
    to the Left of him and do not share his love for the make believe world of religion. think he has a valuable voice. Although, I imagine he will vastly lessen his site presence by this.

    PS little kiwi, generally always agree with you and adore your comments and thoughts. Not aware of Andrew as crypto-racist. Hope that is not so.

    Posted by: Mike in nyc | Jan 2, 2013 3:31:21 PM

  14. Def in the minority here, but Iike Andrew, despite the fact that I am far far
    to the Left of him and do not share his love for the make believe world of religion. think he has a valuable voice. Although, I imagine he will vastly lessen his site presence by this.

    PS little kiwi, generally always agree with you and adore your comments and thoughts. Not aware of Andrew as crypto-racist. Hope that is not so.

    Posted by: Mike in nyc | Jan 2, 2013 3:31:23 PM

  15. I find him insufferable. No thanks.

    Posted by: JT | Jan 2, 2013 4:09:23 PM

  16. The Sully-hate here is striking, and I don't understand why.

    Is a center-right, Burkean conservative so very offensive to everybody here? Yes, Sullivan gets obsessed with foreskin, steroids, beards, and pot, writes in the moment and is notoriously apt to melt down on occasion. That's part of the package if you enjoy Sullivan's thinking on politics and culture.

    Do we hate him for advocating seroconcordant relationships as a technique to limit HIV infection? He went through his public outing-at-the-stake as a poz guy who for a time sought unprotected sex with other poz guys. Michelangelo Signorile turned into a pit bull and never misses a chance to try to humiliate Sullivan (ex: publicizing Sullivan's pot ticket that put a green card at risk). Signorile's ongoing hate seems to be mostly about Signorile's disgust with a more-famous-than-he guy who doesn't toe Signorile's progressive/liberal political line rather than a honest debate about HIV prevention. I don't get that either; Signorile and Sullivan very often arrive at the same conclusion despite different starting points.

    Like it or not, Sully is a highly visible gay voice and has been an important theoretician in the gay marriage movement for a long, long time. He's a good part of why gay marriage rights have advanced. There might not have been a Nate Silver without there having been an Andrew Sullivan. Why the hate?

    Posted by: SC David | Jan 2, 2013 4:10:50 PM

  17. what, SPECIFICALLY, does it mean to "toe (sic) the progressive liberal line", SC David?

    Specifics, please.

    intent and motivation are the nuanced and most important sides of one's outlook.

    btw, know what else limits HIV infection? these dazzling new inventions called condoms.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 2, 2013 4:22:36 PM

  18. Rupert Murdoch attempted pay sites and I don't think they've been successful. What makes Andrew Sullivan think that we will fork out to read him?

    Andrew can be quite good at times but there is such a plethora of good stuff on the net, people will simply go to the free good stuff. Andrew needs to think again.

    Posted by: steven lucas | Jan 2, 2013 4:23:53 PM

  19. In case you had any doubt that the man is an idiot.

    Posted by: jd | Jan 2, 2013 5:37:49 PM

  20. I used to read Andrew Sullivan, then one day I stopped and nothing changed.

    Posted by: Jason 2 | Jan 2, 2013 6:06:01 PM

  21. Andrew Sullivan was known for his anti-black views when he live in DC, despite the fact that he regularly sought out big black cock. Like many white gays, he felt minorities only served one purpose, sex.

    Posted by: Marty | Jan 2, 2013 6:30:46 PM

  22. A. I don't value Andrew Sullivan's and his team's views.

    B. Andrew Sullivan is a repulsive individual and as hypocritical as they get.

    C. I didn't read Andrew Sullivan when he was supposedly accessible for nothing.

    D. I will not pay even minus one-cent to read Andrew Sullivan now.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Jan 2, 2013 6:48:33 PM

  23. Interesting that someone would "(sic)" the phrase "toe the line" as LittleKiwi did above ("toe (sic) the progressive liberal line"). "Toe" in that phrase is actually correct. See

    Posted by: David Lauri | Jan 2, 2013 7:00:40 PM

  24. After years of covering countless ill-fated attempts for news sites to put their columnists behind a pay-wall, Sullivan has decided to follow them in this ill-fated venture. I sometimes enjoy reading his blog, but there's very little there that's worth paying for. Adios, Andy.

    Posted by: Houndentenor | Jan 2, 2013 7:04:12 PM

  25. @Lauri, mea culpa.

    *elegant curtsy*

    Now kindly articulate the specifics of what it means to toe the liberal line. With specifics. Because I like specifics.

    Because surely you have an idea :D you so smart, gurl :)

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Jan 2, 2013 7:21:54 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «British Archbishop Puts Kibosh On Gay Mass In London« «