51–60 of 83 posts
I like how a site with autoplay ads is reporting this.
According to WSJ [1] the issue was that the ads were autoplaying with sound on. Just auto playing by itself isn't considered intrusive by the industry. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/hostilities-rise-inside-g-o-med...
Autoplay is evil everywhere unless I enable it explicitly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real and less romantic story is this: The journalists at Deadspin and its sister sites, like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money; we are even willing to compromise for it, knowing that our jobs and futures rest on it. An ever-growing number of media owners, meanwhile, are so exceedingly unwilling to reckon with the particulars of their own business that they refuse to accept our eagerne…
> like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money; we are even willing to compromise for it. Is this journalism in 2019? Pump out content to make a buck and fuck journalistic integrity because they have kids to feed? Real journalism takes too long and doesn't generate enough revenue? One could say the same about Russian troll farms, they too have kids at home to feed. What a sad world we live in.
There are other compromises that can be made such as pay, working conditions, working on dross stories to make up for the expense of the really good ones, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real and less romantic story is this: The journalists at Deadspin and its sister sites, like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money; we are even willing to compromise for it, knowing that our jobs and futures rest on it. An ever-growing number of media owners, meanwhile, are so exceedingly unwilling to reckon with the particulars of their own business that they refuse to accept our eagerne…
I mean they did. The actual business we are talking about was started the way you suggest, and was then destroyed by a vindictive billionaire, and is now being (apparently) mismanaged by a bunch of other rich people. Is your premise that the journalists have no right to be mad at what they perceive as an unjust wielding of economic power?
Whoever at that organization gave the greenlight on publishing and publicizing sexually explicit videos without the express consent of the people appearing in them are lucky to not be in prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real and less romantic story is this: The journalists at Deadspin and its sister sites, like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money; we are even willing to compromise for it, knowing that our jobs and futures rest on it. An ever-growing number of media owners, meanwhile, are so exceedingly unwilling to reckon with the particulars of their own business that they refuse to accept our eagerne…
> like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money; we are even willing to compromise for it. Is this journalism in 2019? Pump out content to make a buck and fuck journalistic integrity because they have kids to feed? Real journalism takes too long and doesn't generate enough revenue? One could say the same about Russian troll farms, they too have kids at home to feed. What a sad world we live in.
The clear intent of the sentence is to state that journalists do understand the need for their publisher to function as a business, i. e. to rebut the other stereotype of journalists that they often get to hear, namely that they are unrealistic idealists.
Sad world, indeed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money; we are even willing to compromise for it. Is this journalism in 2019? Pump out content to make a buck and fuck journalistic integrity because they have kids to feed? Real journalism takes too long and doesn't generate enough revenue? One could say the same about Russian troll farms, they too have kids at home to feed. What a sad world we live in.
I think you are completely misreading this, given that the context is people quitting their jobs over perceived threats to journalistic integrity. There are other compromises that can be made such as pay, working conditions, working on dross stories to make up for the expense of the really good ones, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to live in New York City to run a content website. In fact, you can live wherever you want and work from home.
Buddy, there's nowhere that you can live where the shoes your children need will be free.
Here's (some of) the reasoning from (one of) the horse's mouth: https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/the-adults-in-the-room-183...
The real and less romantic story is this: The journalists at Deadspin and its sister sites, like most journalists I know, are eager to do work that makes money; we are even willing to compromise for it, knowing that our jobs and futures rest on it. An ever-growing number of media owners, meanwhile, are so exceedingly unwilling to reckon with the particulars of their own business that they refuse to accept our eagerne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buddy, there's nowhere that you can live where the shoes your children need will be free.
What does that have to do with anything? There are millions of people raising families and working with a lower cost of living to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are completely misreading this, given that the context is people quitting their jobs over perceived threats to journalistic integrity. There are other compromises that can be made such as pay, working conditions, working on dross stories to make up for the expense of the really good ones, etc.
I looks like the new bosses were pushing sports on the journalists. I don’t see how that implies losing integrity. Not caring about integrity would be things like fabrication, omission, taking one side of the issue, etc. Focusing on one section of news doesn’t compromise integrity.
“Stick to sports” doesn’t mean “report only about sports.” It means, “do not follow that story any further because it makes me uncomfortable.” This could be for various reasons but ultimately means sticking to one side of an issue, omitting details that would anger the Powers That Be, or even fabricating details to put a positive spin on an otherwise damning report.
“Stick to sports” means, “screw journalistic integrity”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I looks like the new bosses were pushing sports on the journalists. I don’t see how that implies losing integrity. Not caring about integrity would be things like fabrication, omission, taking one side of the issue, etc. Focusing on one section of news doesn’t compromise integrity.
You’ve missed the subtext. “Stick to sports” doesn’t mean “report only about sports.” It means, “do not follow that story any further because it makes me uncomfortable.” This could be for various reasons but ultimately means sticking to one side of an issue, omitting details that would anger the Powers That Be, or even fabricating details to put a positive spin on an otherwise damning report. “Stick to sports” means,…
For a lot of people, sports are an oasis of tranquility carved out of the incessant rage and cultural bickering that blares 24/7 everywhere else. There's a lot of old duffers that would rather hear about David Price's fastball rather than his political positions, or Kyrie Irving's crossover dribble rather than his speculations on the geometry of the Earth.
It's still a weird pivot for Deadspin to take, because that was never what they were about or where their audience was. My suspicion is that it was a reaction to the ratings baths that ESPN has taken as they embraced the culture war, rather than Top 10, box scores and replays - and alienated a big chunk of their audience. In both cases it's a warning about knowing your brand and your audience...