Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

#21

Post by aristophenes »

I am largely confused about this whole discussion. Why are we trying to figure out if the Deadspin bosses are justified in whether they want their writers to write about sports related things?

This isn't about free speech. Each one of the writers has the ability to write to their own blog, to tweet whatever they want. This is about some writers insisting that a company pays them money to write about whatever the writers want, instead of writing about what the people who are paying them want. That seems fine if the company agrees. I think some companies make that work, might even be a good idea. But if the company doesn't agree, well, I mean that's ok too, right? And the writers can quit if they don't like it (as they appear to have done), and good for them if they can achieve their vision elsewhere.

I think it would be wrong if the management was asking them to deceive people, or break laws. But presumably writing about sports is not abhorrent to any of the writers. Why all of a sudden did it become noble to tell your boss that they can't tell you what to do at work, for work related activities?

Am I a freedom fighter if I tell my boss that I'm not going to code that thing they want to get out the door next week, I have a pet project that I really like, and then me and all my other co-workers go on strike when I can't do that?

Re: The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

#22

Post by darawk »

papln wrote: post #16
tracker1 wrote: post #6

G/O Media has several brands that already do woke journalism. How many do they need for this? How many concentrate on sports exclusively? To use a sports metaphore, it's about zone coverage. As I said on prior posts... Deadspin should stick to sports for the same reason Pizza Hut doesn't sell Tacos. Coverage across brand identities. Even if Tacos may make more money than Pizza in aggregate, they aren't there to sell…

Unfortunately choice of example. Pizza Hut does sell tacos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yum!_Brands https://www.google.com/search?q=joint+pizza+hut+taco+bell&tb... As does Jack-in-the-Box https://www.jackinthebox.com/food/taco-and-sides/two-tacos

Yum brands sells tacos, in locations branded for that. Pizza hut does not sell tacos. Similarly, G/O media owns outlets that do woke journalism - Deadspin is just not where they want that content.

Re: The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

#23

Post by thaumasiotes »

papln wrote: post #16
tracker1 wrote: post #6

G/O Media has several brands that already do woke journalism. How many do they need for this? How many concentrate on sports exclusively? To use a sports metaphore, it's about zone coverage. As I said on prior posts... Deadspin should stick to sports for the same reason Pizza Hut doesn't sell Tacos. Coverage across brand identities. Even if Tacos may make more money than Pizza in aggregate, they aren't there to sell…

Unfortunately choice of example. Pizza Hut does sell tacos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yum!_Brands https://www.google.com/search?q=joint+pizza+hut+taco+bell&tb... As does Jack-in-the-Box https://www.jackinthebox.com/food/taco-and-sides/two-tacos

Huh? The claim "Pizza Hut doesn't sell tacos because that is what the Taco Bell brand is for" is supported, not undermined, by the fact that Pizza Hut locations use explicit Taco Bell branding when they decide they want to sell tacos in addition to pizza.

Re: The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

#24

Post by thaumasiotes »

cadlin wrote: post #14
tracker1 wrote: post #6

G/O Media has several brands that already do woke journalism. How many do they need for this? How many concentrate on sports exclusively? To use a sports metaphore, it's about zone coverage. As I said on prior posts... Deadspin should stick to sports for the same reason Pizza Hut doesn't sell Tacos. Coverage across brand identities. Even if Tacos may make more money than Pizza in aggregate, they aren't there to sell…

On the other hand, if you buy a business entirely dependent on human capital, then proceed to instigate a mass resignation, there is no amount of spin that adds up to anything other than boneheaded decision making.

The ordinary view would be that you aren't worried about supplying your own human capital, but you want the brand value of the business you purchased.

Re: The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

#25

Post by guelo »

aristophenes wrote: post #21

I am largely confused about this whole discussion. Why are we trying to figure out if the Deadspin bosses are justified in whether they want their writers to write about sports related things? This isn't about free speech. Each one of the writers has the ability to write to their own blog, to tweet whatever they want. This is about some writers insisting that a company pays them money to write about whatever the writ…

Management can tell employees to do whatever they want, but employees can also tell management to shove it and quit. What's wrong with that?

Re: The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

#26

Post by QuesnayJr »

rdlecler1 wrote: post #11
avs733 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read their top ten most visited stories list [1] and tell me how many of those are 'sticking to sports.' You don't just get to assume reality...data is a thing and can be used to evaluate statements of what is true. [1] https://deadspin.com/the-top-10-most-visited-deadspin-storie... (A year I arbitrarily picked because it was on top of google)

The new owners took over this year. Not 2010. They paid for the acquisition and it’s for THEM to decide what editorial direction the publication should take, not the journalists. Frankly, I personally don’t want politics and culture in everything I read and that can be a feature, not a bug.

And its for the writers to quit, torching the owners' investment. And that's what they did.

Re: The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

#27

Post by xibalba »

guelo wrote: post #25
aristophenes wrote: post #21

I am largely confused about this whole discussion. Why are we trying to figure out if the Deadspin bosses are justified in whether they want their writers to write about sports related things? This isn't about free speech. Each one of the writers has the ability to write to their own blog, to tweet whatever they want. This is about some writers insisting that a company pays them money to write about whatever the writ…

Management can tell employees to do whatever they want, but employees can also tell management to shove it and quit. What's wrong with that?

Nothing whatsoever. I believe the GP is just scratching their head in confusion as to why this is such a story, because, as you both point out, it shouldn't be.

I suspect this story has such legs because it is about the media. There is nothing the media likes to talk about more than itself, particularly when it is about front-liners defying execs.

Re: The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

#28

Post by nammi »

aristophenes wrote: post #21

I am largely confused about this whole discussion. Why are we trying to figure out if the Deadspin bosses are justified in whether they want their writers to write about sports related things? This isn't about free speech. Each one of the writers has the ability to write to their own blog, to tweet whatever they want. This is about some writers insisting that a company pays them money to write about whatever the writ…

Have any of the writers/editors who resigned singled out the "stick to sports" mandate from this week as their reason for leaving? It's clearly a contentious point between the management and workers, but based on their own reports and some outside reporting the new management was pretty bad.

"After I submitted my resignation, explaining that the ongoing undermining from my bosses made it impossible for me to continue to succeed in my job, and that I believed I was putting my staff at risk by staying, the CEO threw a tinier tantrum. When I passed Spanfeller in the office a week after I put in notice, he let out a cruel barking laugh, as if he was disgusted to be in my presence. I said “you can speak to me, you know,” and he responded in a tone familiar to anyone who was ever bullied in middle school. “I don’t want to,” he sneered."[0]

"Two people with knowledge told The Daily Beast that in a private meeting, Spanfeller reviewed the coverage of Lexus with the editor-in-chief of Jalopnik, a car-focused website, to ensure that its stories did not discourage the luxury automaker from advertising with G/O sites. On a separate occasion, sources said, the new CEO suggested that reporters and editors at Kotaku—once a Gawker-owned gaming website—bring a sales representative to interviews with gaming executives."[1]

[0]https://archive.is/P38Bw

[1]https://www.thedailybeast.com/gizmodo-media-staff-enraged-at...

Re: The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

#29

Post by platinum1 »

aristophenes wrote: post #21

I am largely confused about this whole discussion. Why are we trying to figure out if the Deadspin bosses are justified in whether they want their writers to write about sports related things? This isn't about free speech. Each one of the writers has the ability to write to their own blog, to tweet whatever they want. This is about some writers insisting that a company pays them money to write about whatever the writ…

> Am I a freedom fighter if I tell my boss that I'm not going to code that thing they want to get out the door next week, I have a pet project that I really like, and then me and all my other co-workers go on strike when I can't do that?

Yes, if you thought that thing you were going to code was antithetical to freedom. Just because you do or don't do something at work doesn't mean it's exempt from ethical scrutiny by either employees or society at large.

Something similar at Google for instance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/11/27/google-...

and again regarding a military contract: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-alphabet-defense/google-t...

Re: The math of media bosses who told Deadspin to ‘stick to sports’ doesn’t add up

#30

Post by mcphage »

xibalba wrote: post #27
guelo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Management can tell employees to do whatever they want, but employees can also tell management to shove it and quit. What's wrong with that?

Nothing whatsoever. I believe the GP is just scratching their head in confusion as to why this is such a story, because, as you both point out, it shouldn't be. I suspect this story has such legs because it is about the media. There is nothing the media likes to talk about more than itself, particularly when it is about front-liners defying execs.

> I suspect this story has such legs because it is about the media.

Well, also it's a popular site—so if it just disappeared, people would be (rightly) confused.

Post reply on HN