6 ms·

BuzzFeed News Asks Readers to Chip in with Donations

50 points by m52go 8y ago

oathbreaker 8y ago
10 ways you can help BuzzFeed keep running, you wont believe the 9th one.
neonate 8y ago
http://archive.is/77hdf http://archive.is/77hdf
- scottmf 8y ago
  Irony, but thanks.
strict9 8y ago
Even the dedicated news section has headline now that reads: "x has a lot of people shook on twitter." Won't pretend to understand what kind of language appeals to 18-20 year olds, but is that demographic valuable enough to have such garbage articles/headlines interspersed with actual journalism? Such an enigma to me. Seems unlikely that the demographic they're catering to at the expense of everyone else would chip in with donations.
- sparkpeasy 8y ago
  The front page of NYTimes.com currently lists among the hard news the headline "Dogs in Poofy Dresses. You're Welcome." but I don't think that prevents a wide range of age brackets from reading and supporting it.
  - JBReefer 8y ago
    There are a lot of people who feel the Times has gone steeply downhill in the last few years. Personally, I've gone from an avid subscriber to never visiting. The Journal, the Economist, and the BBC are my go to these days.
    - geofft 8y ago
      When I was 18-20, I wanted to be the sort of person who read The Economist. I got a subscription when I was 22 or so, I think. I kept up with it for a bit and then realized it wasn't actually improving my life in any way - not even keeping me meaningfully informed about the world. Now that I'm older I'm more excited about people using "shook" as slang than about reading The Economist, and I intend on donating $100 as soon as the button is live.
_rpd 8y ago
> The Guardian, a U.K.-based newspaper, has raised $130 million from reader contributions since April 2016. That's actually a significant portion of its revenue (~$275 million last fiscal). Quite interesting.
IBM 8y ago
I'd gladly support BuzzFeed News. Just today they broke this huge story [1]. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orph...
- jdietrich 8y ago
  Buzzfeed really do produce some first-rate journalism. Their investigative work is absolutely equal to anything being produced by traditional newspapers. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/investigations https://www.buzzfeednews.com/investigations
  - aerotwelve 8y ago
    I agree - their news division has really impressed me over the past few years. They really should spin themselves off to avoid the negative association between their journalism and the clickbait pop quizzes and gratuitous native ads from the rest of the company.
    - berberous 8y ago
      I thought their strategy was for the clickbait revenue to support the costs of their news division.
- Aloha 8y ago
  That is probably one of the most intensely powerful things I've read.
- foobaw 8y ago
  What an incredible story..
- jchw 8y ago
  Wow. I genuinely didn't know BuzzFeed did journalism to this order. It feels very strange to read this and contrast it from the seemingly endless number of articles that are basically just a bunch of GIF images with a single line caption each taken from Reddit threads.
casiotone 8y ago
Just as soon as they chip in with some real journalists
- sparkpeasy 8y ago
  If only the journalists that reported these stories in 2017 at BuzzFeed were real: * Helping to free an innocent man who'd spent 23 years behind bars * Exposing the true scale of Russia's targeted assassinations in the West — and how UK and US authorities have turned a blind eye * Sexual assault at Massage Envy * A dirty offshore bank — and its blue-chip Western enablers and protectors * BP's dangerous accidents in Alaska * The US government's shadowy national security contractors * Whistleblowers: FBI software contains Russian-made code and more: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/markschoofs/the-year-in-investigations https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/markschoofs/the-year-in...
  - whoopdedo 8y ago
    Okay. I get it. You're using the low-quality "alternative news" articles with clickbait headlines to draw in short attention span readers because those are your cash cows. Having that steady advertising income allows you to finance real journalism like the things you listed that might not be able to stand on their own in the current trend-or-die marketplace. So let's make a deal. If I pay a subscription, will you only give me the good headlines and not spam me with the crappy stuff I don't want to see?
    - ihuman 8y ago
      Just go to buzzfeednews.com instead of buzzfeed.com
  - empath75 8y ago
    Not to mention publishing the Steele dossier
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      That's a great example of how shoddy Buzzfeed's journalism is and why they shouldn't be supported. > BuzzFeed was harshly criticized for publishing what Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan called "scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#Publication_by_BuzzFeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#P...
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
This is stupid. If you're a corporation, you don't get donations. You charge customers for a service. If you want donations, start a non-profit. As a New Yorker, I'd gladly pay a yearly fee to go to BuzzFeed-sponsored events. But if I'm going to donate to support journalism, there are lots of solid competitors for my money.
- geofft 8y ago
  > If you're a corporation, you don't ask for donations. You charge customers for a service. Why? Because that's how it's always been done? Should they charge customers for a service even if it's less profitable than asking for donations?
  - arkades 8y ago
    Because a for profit business is ... for profit. If they manage to stay in the black, I’m “donating” my money into investors’ pockets. If they stay in the red, my donation is meaningless because they’re death spiraling anyway. No, thank you.
    - chris_mc 8y ago
      So what you are saying is: you would gladly pay a mandatory fee, thereby gating folks who cannot afford this fee from the content, rather than pay a donation of any amount you wish and still allowing those who can't afford to pay to read the content? In the end, there is zero difference to you in either case, assuming you pay them the same in both, so you're literally gate-keeping news based on ability to pay because you think it's weird that they are for-profit and asking for donations.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > you would gladly pay a mandatory fee, thereby gating folks who cannot afford this fee from the content, rather than pay a donation of any amount you wish and still allowing those who can't afford to pay to read the content? It’s a tragedy of the commons. Paywalls force everyone who values the content (and can afford it) to contribute. (This also guarantee resources for the organisation, which reinforces the content quality.) Donations, however, risk subsidising free riders who could have paid but didn’t. There are also fewer checks donors have on a private company than a non-profit. There are plenty of quality journalism non-profits. There is no sane reason to donate to a private company over one of those groups.
Simulacra 8y ago
I find it incredibly fascinating that a site like Buzzfeed can do amazing journalism, but the majority of mainstream media falls grossly short but expects the same respect.
m52go 8y ago
I actually think the offer to read this story on your Kindle is quite clever...if they offered that to me in a pop-up before serving me a barrage of ads, I might even prefer it. And it's an honest revenue model! And it's 86 pages, for crying out loud...they should charge way more than $0.99. Push that, instead of donations. IMO.
ninedays 8y ago
I always had mixed feeling about buzzfeed, the same mixed feelings I have with Google. It's like there are 2 separate entites : 1) the Buzzfeed that is amazing and produce some incredible stories 2) The clickbait attention-whore buzzfeed that makes me lose faith in humanity and in the internet in general. For those wondering about Google : 1) The Google we all loved at first, creating incredible products that impact people lives for the best 2) The creepy Google that tracks everything that I do all the time and makes me angry that I cannot find any alerternative that could be as good. I would have a really hard time donating to buzzfeed as long as it is not clear for me what buzzfeed really is (Amazing stories creation or click bait article). Edit : typo and layout

50 points by m52go 8y ago

oathbreaker 8y ago

10 ways you can help BuzzFeed keep running, you wont believe the 9th one.

neonate 8y ago

http://archive.is/77hdf http://archive.is/77hdf

scottmf 8y ago
Irony, but thanks.

strict9 8y ago

Even the dedicated news section has headline now that reads: "x has a lot of people shook on twitter." Won't pretend to understand what kind of language appeals to 18-20 year olds, but is that demographic valuable enough to have such garbage articles/headlines interspersed with actual journalism? Such an enigma to me. Seems unlikely that the demographic they're catering to at the expense of everyone else would chip in with donations.

sparkpeasy 8y ago
The front page of NYTimes.com currently lists among the hard news the headline "Dogs in Poofy Dresses. You're Welcome." but I don't think that prevents a wide range of age brackets from reading and supporting it.
- JBReefer 8y ago
  There are a lot of people who feel the Times has gone steeply downhill in the last few years. Personally, I've gone from an avid subscriber to never visiting. The Journal, the Economist, and the BBC are my go to these days.
  - geofft 8y ago
    When I was 18-20, I wanted to be the sort of person who read The Economist. I got a subscription when I was 22 or so, I think. I kept up with it for a bit and then realized it wasn't actually improving my life in any way - not even keeping me meaningfully informed about the world. Now that I'm older I'm more excited about people using "shook" as slang than about reading The Economist, and I intend on donating $100 as soon as the button is live.

_rpd 8y ago

> The Guardian, a U.K.-based newspaper, has raised $130 million from reader contributions since April 2016. That's actually a significant portion of its revenue (~$275 million last fiscal). Quite interesting.

IBM 8y ago

I'd gladly support BuzzFeed News. Just today they broke this huge story [1]. [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orph...

jdietrich 8y ago
Buzzfeed really do produce some first-rate journalism. Their investigative work is absolutely equal to anything being produced by traditional newspapers. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/investigations https://www.buzzfeednews.com/investigations
- aerotwelve 8y ago
  I agree - their news division has really impressed me over the past few years. They really should spin themselves off to avoid the negative association between their journalism and the clickbait pop quizzes and gratuitous native ads from the rest of the company.
  - berberous 8y ago
    I thought their strategy was for the clickbait revenue to support the costs of their news division.
Aloha 8y ago
That is probably one of the most intensely powerful things I've read.
foobaw 8y ago
What an incredible story..
jchw 8y ago
Wow. I genuinely didn't know BuzzFeed did journalism to this order. It feels very strange to read this and contrast it from the seemingly endless number of articles that are basically just a bunch of GIF images with a single line caption each taken from Reddit threads.

casiotone 8y ago

Just as soon as they chip in with some real journalists

sparkpeasy 8y ago
If only the journalists that reported these stories in 2017 at BuzzFeed were real: * Helping to free an innocent man who'd spent 23 years behind bars * Exposing the true scale of Russia's targeted assassinations in the West — and how UK and US authorities have turned a blind eye * Sexual assault at Massage Envy * A dirty offshore bank — and its blue-chip Western enablers and protectors * BP's dangerous accidents in Alaska * The US government's shadowy national security contractors * Whistleblowers: FBI software contains Russian-made code and more: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/markschoofs/the-year-in-investigations https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/markschoofs/the-year-in...
- whoopdedo 8y ago
  Okay. I get it. You're using the low-quality "alternative news" articles with clickbait headlines to draw in short attention span readers because those are your cash cows. Having that steady advertising income allows you to finance real journalism like the things you listed that might not be able to stand on their own in the current trend-or-die marketplace. So let's make a deal. If I pay a subscription, will you only give me the good headlines and not spam me with the crappy stuff I don't want to see?
  - ihuman 8y ago
    Just go to buzzfeednews.com instead of buzzfeed.com
- empath75 8y ago
  Not to mention publishing the Steele dossier
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    That's a great example of how shoddy Buzzfeed's journalism is and why they shouldn't be supported. > BuzzFeed was harshly criticized for publishing what Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan called "scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#Publication_by_BuzzFeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier#P...

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

This is stupid. If you're a corporation, you don't get donations. You charge customers for a service. If you want donations, start a non-profit. As a New Yorker, I'd gladly pay a yearly fee to go to BuzzFeed-sponsored events. But if I'm going to donate to support journalism, there are lots of solid competitors for my money.

geofft 8y ago
> If you're a corporation, you don't ask for donations. You charge customers for a service. Why? Because that's how it's always been done? Should they charge customers for a service even if it's less profitable than asking for donations?
- arkades 8y ago
  Because a for profit business is ... for profit. If they manage to stay in the black, I’m “donating” my money into investors’ pockets. If they stay in the red, my donation is meaningless because they’re death spiraling anyway. No, thank you.
  - chris_mc 8y ago
    So what you are saying is: you would gladly pay a mandatory fee, thereby gating folks who cannot afford this fee from the content, rather than pay a donation of any amount you wish and still allowing those who can't afford to pay to read the content? In the end, there is zero difference to you in either case, assuming you pay them the same in both, so you're literally gate-keeping news based on ability to pay because you think it's weird that they are for-profit and asking for donations.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > you would gladly pay a mandatory fee, thereby gating folks who cannot afford this fee from the content, rather than pay a donation of any amount you wish and still allowing those who can't afford to pay to read the content? It’s a tragedy of the commons. Paywalls force everyone who values the content (and can afford it) to contribute. (This also guarantee resources for the organisation, which reinforces the content quality.) Donations, however, risk subsidising free riders who could have paid but didn’t. There are also fewer checks donors have on a private company than a non-profit. There are plenty of quality journalism non-profits. There is no sane reason to donate to a private company over one of those groups.

Simulacra 8y ago

I find it incredibly fascinating that a site like Buzzfeed can do amazing journalism, but the majority of mainstream media falls grossly short but expects the same respect.

m52go 8y ago

I actually think the offer to read this story on your Kindle is quite clever...if they offered that to me in a pop-up before serving me a barrage of ads, I might even prefer it. And it's an honest revenue model! And it's 86 pages, for crying out loud...they should charge way more than $0.99. Push that, instead of donations. IMO.

ninedays 8y ago

I always had mixed feeling about buzzfeed, the same mixed feelings I have with Google. It's like there are 2 separate entites : 1) the Buzzfeed that is amazing and produce some incredible stories 2) The clickbait attention-whore buzzfeed that makes me lose faith in humanity and in the internet in general. For those wondering about Google : 1) The Google we all loved at first, creating incredible products that impact people lives for the best 2) The creepy Google that tracks everything that I do all the time and makes me angry that I cannot find any alerternative that could be as good. I would have a really hard time donating to buzzfeed as long as it is not clear for me what buzzfeed really is (Amazing stories creation or click bait article). Edit : typo and layout