He's got guts. I'll give him that.
Andrew Sullivan is moving from the Daily Beast to an independent, reader-subscription basis--one free of advertising (although Sullivan concedes that "it would be imprudent for us to rule out all advertising right now for ever").
A word of warning, Mr. Sullivan, even though you haven't raised the issue as a reason for your advertising independence: Corporate advertising, I am convinced, is the best shield for editorial independence.
I know that isn't a popular or accepted view (especially on the flowery, goo-goo left), but it's a cold-blooded fact that virtually all corporations are ruthlessly, delightfully pragmatic. They don't give a Club-for-Growth shit what your editorial-political views are; just bring in those readers, they'll gladly take 'em all, be they to the left, the right, or in the middle. In the broad sweep of things, you can't really hurt a corporation's feelings or insult its intelligence or in almost any way outrage it to the point of potential business-self-denial. Corporations merely want to see the money, which comes from numbers--and lots of them.
Not so, of course, with a dedicated-to-the-left-or-right readership, which naturally is the preponderance of what political blogging draws. Thus, Mr. Sullivan, accustom yourself now to the wording of the inevitable emails: "Cancel my subscription! you goddamn fascist!" or "you goddamn communist!" or "you goddamn, infuriating ... whatever!" (Actually, they're interchangeable.) With no subscription base, no problem. With a subscription base, big problem.
Just know that with every strong opinion you write, you'll be risking half of your readership, and therefore, potentially, half of your subscription base. And when finances get tight, the temptation to retract one's opinionated claws might become irresistible. In short, you may find that corporate-free editorializing is far more tyrannical than being free from corporations might seem.
At any rate, best of luck to you, Mr. Sullivan.