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

Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

businessside.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#41

Post by mikeyouse »

DANmode wrote: post #20
chaps wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...you're greatly missing the point that none of us have any money to invest.

That, I understand better than most here. What did it really cost to start The Intercept, though? Salaries aside - or not. What can be done with new tech that makes publishing cheaper than ever?

The Intercept was bankrolled by a billionaire who committed $250 million to his journalism efforts while it got off the ground...

https://pressthink.org/2013/10/why-pierre-omidyar-decided-to...

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#42

Post by afavour »

DANmode wrote: post #20
chaps wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...you're greatly missing the point that none of us have any money to invest.

That, I understand better than most here. What did it really cost to start The Intercept, though? Salaries aside - or not. What can be done with new tech that makes publishing cheaper than ever?

> What can be done with new tech that makes publishing cheaper than ever?

Nothing. IMO that’s all been done: replacing the printing presses with the internet made it incredibly cheap to publish journalism. Producing journalism, however, remains a solidly human task that resists automation. And every time anyone tries the result is notably inferior.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#43

Post by boeingUH60 »

Animats wrote: post #29

Journalism startups. There have been some. - Contentville. Whatever happened to that? - Brill's Content? Started by the heir to a streetcar manufacturing company. - Vice Media is in bankruptcy and about to be sold. - Gawker - crushed by Peter Thiel. Any big successes?

Axios - Sold for $400 million to Cox.

Politico - Sold for $1 billion to Axel Springer.

Barstool Sports - Sold for $390 million to Penn National Gaming.

The Athletic - Acquired by the New York Times for $550 millio.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#44

Post by SirMaster »

chaps wrote: post #4
tony_cannistra wrote: post #3

Not sure if this guy has ever met a journalist. Where precisely are the journalists who are paid sufficiently well for their skill that they have liquidity to invest in startups? edit: alright turns out he's "former chief of staff at the Atlantic" but I still remain convinced he's decently out of touch with everyday journalists' financial situation.

Yeah. I'm a freelance journalist and this is one of the worst journalism takes I've seen in a while. Paying bills is already hard enough as it is and I, like many others in this industry, don't even have health insurance: why in the fuck would any of us invest in a startup?

Because if you don't invest in something then you will never be rich.

If you do then there is a chance you might become rich.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#45

Post by afavour »

Dma54rhs wrote: post #31
tootie wrote: post #2

I don't see how investing will save the industry from decline. If there was more revenue to be had, the legacy players wouldn't be struggling so badly. Investors chasing profits are just going to build a better Buzzfeed, not a better NY Times. Unless someone can crack the nut of profiting off of serious journalism and making the average TikTok scroller or Joe Rogan listener exercise a little more skepticism and under…

The state of journalism is where Joe Rogan or whatever podcast is a step forward and refreshing. There's a reason people prefer listening to the guest to speak instead of being taught to think and live by white journo women.

> There's a reason people prefer listening to the guest to speak instead of being taught to think and live by white journo women.

Yes: it’s confirming their priors and not challenging any preconceived notions.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Rogan is fine but it’s largely an entertainment podcast. The idea that it’s a replacement for hard news doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#46

Post by andy_ppp »

Do journalists generally have a great track record of startup investment?

I didn’t think the writing was that much of being a journalist - isn’t finding stories (and having ideas) just going to be even more important while AIs regurgitate irrelevant press releases into articles and turn clinical trials into X-gives-you-cures-cancer (in mice) fodder?

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#47

Post by dllthomas »

MostlyStable wrote: post #36

Isn't this creating a correlated risk for yourself? In the case of some giant negative disruption to the journalism industry, you now might both lose your job _and_ have your investment disappear. I thought that generally speaking, the advice was not to directly invest in the industry you work in for exactly this reason.

There are tradeoffs. It certainly correlates, and there's risk to that. At the same time, your knowledge about the domain may let you make better investments, growing more companies may mean more demand for you as an individual contributor, and it's probably good networking.

I think if you've chosen to be a journalist, it's probably because you believe there's money to be made in journalism and/or because you believe that journalism is making the world better, and in either of those cases it seems a worthwhile use of your excess funds/effort. You should probably have a separate rainy day fund that's un- (or ideally anti-) correlated, and an uncorrelated retirement fund. Y'know, with all the extra money journalists tend to have.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#48

Post by the6thwonder »

tootie wrote: post #37
suddenclarity wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people would probably argue that Rogan has been leading the way to higher quality. It's why we now have countless of 3-5 hour podcasts where people are allowed to go through all nuances, finish their thoughts and we don't have to rely on the 30 seconds soundbites that TV and traditional media filters give us.

I mean, he's opened up the market for listening in general, but I'd still count his show as being low quality. Just letting cranks speak without interruption isn't journalism. The long-form podcasts I listen to are from professional journalists who do weeks of prep, gather sources, check facts, challenger assertions and try to present an accurate picture. Rogan just lets people lie and theorize and push agendas and h…

> Are from professional journalists who do weeks of prep

What you are referring to is called branding and this particular form appeals to your sensibilities.

All the top media outlets try to use a similar brand. Ultimately you are consuming a second hand synthesis woven into popular narratives, not anything more true.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#49

Post by the6thwonder »

confoundcofound wrote: post #14

Technology will advance such that basic "truths" will be verifiable, leaving journalists as nothing more than storytellers. We should be investing in companies that empower people with the verifiable information they need to arrive at their own conclusions.

A selection and presentation of true facts is a narrative.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#50

Post by tony_cannistra »

snowwrestler wrote: post #16
tony_cannistra wrote: post #3

Not sure if this guy has ever met a journalist. Where precisely are the journalists who are paid sufficiently well for their skill that they have liquidity to invest in startups? edit: alright turns out he's "former chief of staff at the Atlantic" but I still remain convinced he's decently out of touch with everyday journalists' financial situation.

You’re misunderstanding the idea. Venture capitalists don’t invest their own money, they raise funds from other people and institutions, and make funding decisions on their behalf. The idea here is that journalists have skills and domain knowledge that would help them make better than average decisions when it comes to media startups. So: Raising and directing capital, not necessarily originating it.

Sure, I guess so. I suppose I latched on too hard to the rather editorialized HN submission title.

I do believe generally-speaking that folks with editorial leadership are probably as good if not better as run-of-the-mill domain VCs at assessing founder quality in a journalism context, as the article suggests.

But really we're talking about asking journalists to consider a career in venture capital, which is...fine I guess?

Post reply on HN