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

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#51

Post by tootie »

the6thwonder wrote: post #48
tootie wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What an odd take. Are you saying that professional journalism literally doesn't exist? That Joe Rogan is the same thing as James Risen? Admittedly plenty of people call themselves professional journalists that are frauds like all the folks at FOX or OAN who have been caught dead to rights lying to pander to their audiences. Or Rogan's guests like RFK and Alex Jones who only come on his show to promote their personal interests push their own utterly deceitful agendas.

But there are a great many serious people who take pride in speaking the truth and exposing reality that people don't want to hear. It's beyond cynical to think that every single one of them is fake.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#52

Post by DANmode »

mikeyouse wrote: post #41
DANmode wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Is that what it really costs to forge a new, worthwhile publication?

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#53

Post by tourmalinetaco »

SirMaster wrote: post #44
chaps wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All things considered, excluding pump’n’dump schemes, you’d probably have a better shot winning the lottery than backing the Next Big ThingTM.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#54

Post by snowwrestler »

chaps wrote: post #21
snowwrestler wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Journalists are already heavily involved in capital raising through applying for grants and scholarships. Our time is already thin, so this article is effectively asking us to switch careers or become part-time investors.

It is suggesting switching careers, yes.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#55

Post by aml183 »

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?

I run a B2B media company. There are tons of success in B2B media:

- Aging Media (sold yesterday to PE) - Morning Brew (sold for $75M) - Blockworks bootstrapped and just raised first round at $135M valuation with $25M revenue - Skift is a profitable media venture - Industry Dive (sold for $530M) - Politico (sold for $1B)

You also have established companies like Informa.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#56

Post by aml183 »

all2 wrote: post #18
chaps wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

One of the companies I worked for was an ESOP [0]. Has there ever been anything like that in terms of journalistic publications? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Stock_Ownership_Plan

I run a B2B media company called Payload and all our employees own equity in the company.

http://payloadspace.com/

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#57

Post by suddenclarity »

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…

> Just letting cranks speak without interruption isn't journalism.

I don't believe anyone sees Rogan as a journalist or anything along those lines.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#58

Post by the6thwonder »

tootie wrote: post #51
the6thwonder wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What an odd take. Are you saying that professional journalism literally doesn't exist? That Joe Rogan is the same thing as James Risen? Admittedly plenty of people call themselves professional journalists that are frauds like all the folks at FOX or OAN who have been caught dead to rights lying to pander to their audiences. Or Rogan's guests like RFK and Alex Jones who only come on his show to promote their personal…

> Are you saying that professional journalism literally doesn't exist

Seriousness and truthfulness are separate axis. Serious branding gives the appearance of authority.

> frauds like all the folks at FOX

You will find they have similar credentials as the outlets you enjoy. In fact, they probably used to work there.

> every single one of them is fake.

It's not they they are fake. It's that nobody has a monopoly on truth or methods of finding it.

Can journalists provide valuable information? Certainly. But they have their own systematic and personal biased. In particular, they are an extremely tight knit community performing for their peers.

Joe's podcast is obviously goofy as can be. But I actually prefer being explicit about your biases, instead of faux objectivity.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#59

Post by tootie »

the6thwonder wrote: post #58
tootie wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an odd take. Are you saying that professional journalism literally doesn't exist? That Joe Rogan is the same thing as James Risen? Admittedly plenty of people call themselves professional journalists that are frauds like all the folks at FOX or OAN who have been caught dead to rights lying to pander to their audiences. Or Rogan's guests like RFK and Alex Jones who only come on his show to promote their personal…

> Are you saying that professional journalism literally doesn't exist Seriousness and truthfulness are separate axis. Serious branding gives the appearance of authority. > frauds like all the folks at FOX You will find they have similar credentials as the outlets you enjoy. In fact, they probably used to work there. > every single one of them is fake. It's not they they are fake. It's that nobody has a monopoly on tr…

"It's not they they are fake. It's that nobody has a monopoly on truth or methods of finding it."

That's moving the goal posts into the parking lot. Joe Rogan and James Risen (as an example) are both fallible human beings capable of bias and errors, but one of them is 1000X better at eliciting and distributing truth than the other. And it's not by dint of their relative credentials, it's because one of them is smarter, more dedicated, more moral, has studied their craft, worked at it for decades, puts in hours of legwork, has the courage to risk their personal safety for the good of the reading public and the other is a drug-addled meathead who is interested in making money. Not that you're not allowed to enjoy his show, but it's purely entertainment and if you learn anything that happens to be true it's purely by coincidence.

Re: Journalists should invest in journalism startups, particularly now

#60

Post by the6thwonder »

tootie wrote: post #59
the6thwonder wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying that professional journalism literally doesn't exist Seriousness and truthfulness are separate axis. Serious branding gives the appearance of authority. > frauds like all the folks at FOX You will find they have similar credentials as the outlets you enjoy. In fact, they probably used to work there. > every single one of them is fake. It's not they they are fake. It's that nobody has a monopoly on tr…

"It's not they they are fake. It's that nobody has a monopoly on truth or methods of finding it." That's moving the goal posts into the parking lot. Joe Rogan and James Risen (as an example) are both fallible human beings capable of bias and errors, but one of them is 1000X better at eliciting and distributing truth than the other. And it's not by dint of their relative credentials, it's because one of them is smarte…

It sounds like you have made up your mind. So I don't have anything to add.
Post reply on HN