I'll take that any day over "The Sun-esque". Comparing it to the New York Times is quite a compliment if you ask me. I guess that makes me a 1%er, though I really don't feel like I am part of the "fancy people" category.

Vis-a-vis humour, it's not an easy genre. Take for instance The New Yorker cartoons. I find them funny, but not everyone does. Or take Daniel Sloss. I find him funny, others find him obscene. George Carlin - may the devil keep him good company, as he most definitely did not go to Heaven - was another great comedian, but just as many people who understood him, also didn't.

I think with comedy, going the Substack route might actually be the right avenue, because people pay for YOUR comedy. It makes sense to sell that just like Daniel sells tickets to his shows.

Should Medium cater to everyone? Hard to tell. I don't have the numbers, and will not use my anecdotal stats to draw inevitably poorly educated conclusions. If you look at Apple, there is a proven business model of deliberately not catering to everyone. It works for them, while also allowing competitors to thrive as well. Suppose you're right and Medium caters to the "elite", and Substack to everyone else. If both can do well, then I see no harm. In fact, I see a better internet, a fairer internet, where readers and writers have options.