I don't buy the elitism arguments about online publishing. They imply that the "elitist" platforms censor the would-be authors. But this is the internet, and unlike print publishing in which the costs are so prohibitive that you need to get someone to agree to print you, the internet is free and self-controlled. Medium doesn't invite you to share your essay on Ten Reasons to Shave Your Toe Hair— so what? Start a blog. Find another outlet.

I want MORE selective publishing. Where are the New Yorkers, the Paris Reviews, or the Mad Magazines of the internet? Where are the clever, taste-making gate keepers that I can count on to only publish the best of whatever style they've chosen? This is not rhetorical. I want your suggestions.

I'm not familiar enough with the publishing world to decide what "good" websites are for published content. For the sake of discussion lets say that print publishing is still better than internet publishing (feel free to correct me!). Perhaps it's because people with any talent are quickly shuffled out of the internet and into the paper publishing world?

I've seen this happen on YouTube a few times over the years: You see someone making great content, and before you know it, their channel goes dark and they announce they got some job as a TV writer or in the rare cases a job making content for "real" TV.

(cont'd)

On the other hand, this is the internet, so we aren't constrained to type on paper. There's all kinds of amazing curated content:

Kottke.org, BoingBoing, etc. are full of interesting things.

While they are also responsible for publishing complete and utter irreverent fluff, I find that Flavorwire.com posts insightful, and often, on point book reviews, candid commentary on current events and on pop culture, and even includes (for us fringe dwellers) information about the arts. I turn to them often to find perspective regarding things that have a tendency to be polarized by leftists and rightists, and also to waste time, which I think is a valuable attribute of today's successful website. They also include a section for reader comments that I don't usually read, but is at least, a nice gesture.

Byliner finds best edited long form writing around the web, plus originals they sell as Amazon singles byliner.com

The Atavist is a platform and a home for original long form nonfiction atavist.com

Both Atavist and Byliner suggest the problem may not be the lack of editors but finding the right business model.

Longreads collects.. well, long reads... from around the web longreads.com which provides leads to great new sources of nonfiction as well as the usual suspects. Looks to be an labor of love.

Can we forget our old friend Salon salon.com the first to challenge New Yorker online?

And if it's fiction you are jonesing for, check out this article on the state of fiction online themillions.com

I'm fond of Longform and The Feature for aggregating many different articles from different corners of the web.

As for actual outlets, The New Inquiry, n+1, The Manual, and my own, Distance.

And on my own front, I follow a lot of folks on Instapaper and Twitter that offer tremendously insightful writing.

But the New Yorker also contains a lot of different kinds of writing, to different degrees of relevance for many people: for example, I don't read Tables for Two terribly often, because as a Chicagoan I don't have a chance of patronizing any of the restaurants mentioned. I'm wondering if you are looking for something more magazine-like, rather than strictly containing longform pieces?

Just read/listened to a couple of articles on long-form/long reads on Journalism.co.uk:

journalism.co.uk

blogs.journalism.co.uk

It's certainly in vogue. I'm currently researching a lot about this for my workplace, as we're looking to launch a new digital publication next year focusing on explanatory content. Long-form writing is definitely going to be the meat of this.

@nickd

"I'm wondering if you are looking for something more magazine-like, rather than strictly containing longform pieces?"

I know what you mean. New Yorker, Salon etc. have a range of quality writing, fiction and non-fiction, on top of their long-form features.

I've been reading a bit about the web 'unbundling' traditional newspapers or magazines, so now we go to different websites or blogs for our reviews, opinions, long features etc.

I'm interested - do we still want a one-stop shop with a brand of quality? Or is this another case of the 'social web' leading to us curating more of our own content ourselves through our networks. I hear a lot about the latter, but am interested as to whether reader behaviors support it.

Isn't this the hope of Medium and Sbvtle, and the earlier blog networks, Gawker, HuffPo. That they would become the New Yorker of the Internet? It seems to me that that is how it would be created. The New Yorker of the Internet is going to be something like Sbtvle in 10 years.

I can't really speak for the hopes of Medium or Sbvtle, but I think if anything, these channels are still more comparable to the salons in which people discuss publications like the New Yorker. Even if these sites succeed in the "quality control" they're promising, there's still so much more to editing a magazine than checking quality: an editorial position, a shared style, a vision.

Mind you, I applaud these new platforms, and I'm really eager to dive into Medium once they've sent me an invition. But filling the void of quality magazines like the New Yorker, that's asking to much, I think.

Online publishing also differs from traditional print publishing in that its business model incentivizes aggregation and so-called 'virality' over original content. Sure, original content can generate lots of hits, but it is also expensive and takes time to produce.
BuzzFeed and HuffPo to their credit are trying to build a platform for original journalism and writing on top of giant click-generating, content-aggregating bases, but unfortunately we tend to associate their brands with cheap listicles and tons of banner ads than quality output.
There is still a space in the market for a strong coherent brand that people trust for all sorts of content, especially one with a strong point of view that leverages what the online medium can do.

@Mun-Keat: That's part of why the web is so great, though: anybody can be a publisher, so awesome long-form writing can be found anywhere. So a New Yorker-style aggregator (curator?) is probably of more use here.

The New York Times told Columbia Journalism School that, "We have lost control of the package."

They are referring to aggregation, effectively, with the comment. The power of papers, and television, was that they controlled the packaging. That is largely dead today. Hell, in some ways we control the packaging as content is driven by SEO/ratings/rankings as opposed to editorial control.

Aggregation has largely moved online and is becoming more social.

With that said, long form journalism is hard to do by your lonesome with no resources. Writing is different from journalism, no?

I agree with an earlier post that the business model is key. Long-form pieces just don't spread through social networks with the same efficiency as short, light, amusing pieces. Without the viral effect, it's hard for them to generate the traffic necessary to support an ad-supported revenue model. The New Yorker of the internet would have to be a paid publication (or develop another more innovative business model). Unfortunately, paid publications don't seem to scale well online, when the competition tends to offer content for free.

This branch has certainly expanded and improved my list of must-read sites, so many thanks to all that posted!

I'm not quite as willing to declare long-form writing on the Internet dead, but long-form writing isn't necessarily what I meant by "New Yorker of the Internet." For me, the New Yorker is a publication aware of its medium and its audience and every word and format decision of the magazine is pitched to that particular voice. It has a distinctive editorial vision. Not only do I hope for an online publication that promotes and fosters fantastic writing talent, but I want one that is playful with its format, like the tiny cartoons that are tucked between the narrow columns of the New Yorker's articles.