23 ms·

BuzzFeed employs ~1600 people? Maybe it's my ignorance on content companies, but that seems excessive for what they produce. Is there someone that can provide a

BuzzFeed employs ~1600 people? Maybe it's my ignorance on content companies, but that seems excessive for what they produce. Is there someone that can provide a bit of a breakdown of jobs so I'm more informed?

winningcontinue 8y ago
They're defiintely administration and engineering heavy. It's a media company, so they should have budgets for reporters and actual reporting. Have one editor, get rid of all the engineers and put them on a contractual basis and then all reporters.
- asdff 8y ago
  >Have one editor And publish only 4 things a day at that rate. More editors = more edits per day = more publications per week = more eyes on ads.
Topgamer7 8y ago
They cover a wide array of geographic regions.
- winningcontinue 8y ago
  sure. Maybe it's impossible to operate so thinly on admin and engineering. But it'd be a really revolutionary way to operate a news organization: put it towards the people who gather news and budget appropriately for it. The listicles and reaggregations they've popularized have been the worst things about modern journalism.
m0zg 8y ago
That's what's stunning to me. There are youtubers shooting videos from their kitchen or bedroom for approximately zero dollars who have larger audiences than these "mainstream" publications. I don't understand how they can still exist with 1600 people in their employ. Furthermore I don't understand what those 1600 people actually do other than make shit up and repost other, more legitimate news sources.
- eridius 8y ago
  BuzzFeed News staff were finalists for the Pulitzer in both 2017 and 2018. What makes you think they "make shit up and repost other, more legitimate news sources"?
  - m0zg 8y ago
    Do you work for Buzzfeed by any chance or have some financial interest in it? Because otherwise I don't see how you could in good faith defend this wretched hive of scum and villainy. I mean just go to their website. Do you seriously call them a proper, trustworthy news source?
    - eridius 8y ago
      I don't work for them, nor do I have a financial interest in them. What I do have is a personal interest in the continued existence of the only journalism outfit that's actually managed to earn a recurring subscription¹ from me due to the quality of their articles. > I mean just go to their website. Do you seriously call them a proper, trustworthy news source? What's wrong with https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/? It looks perfectly fine to me. ¹Also in their favor is the fact that BuzzFeed News doesn't have any sort of paywall. The only benefit I get from a subscription is knowing that I'm helping to support good journalism.
      - m0zg 8y ago
        Let's start with the fact that there's a fake news story in the upper left corner debunked by Special Counsel Mueller's staff a few days ago. :-)
        eridius 8y ago
        No it wasn't. They said it "wasn't accurate" but declined to specify. Most people seem to think this means there are inaccuracies to the story, but the overall thrust of the piece is still true.

winningcontinue 8y ago

They're defiintely administration and engineering heavy. It's a media company, so they should have budgets for reporters and actual reporting. Have one editor, get rid of all the engineers and put them on a contractual basis and then all reporters.

asdff 8y ago
>Have one editor And publish only 4 things a day at that rate. More editors = more edits per day = more publications per week = more eyes on ads.

Topgamer7 8y ago

They cover a wide array of geographic regions.

winningcontinue 8y ago
sure. Maybe it's impossible to operate so thinly on admin and engineering. But it'd be a really revolutionary way to operate a news organization: put it towards the people who gather news and budget appropriately for it. The listicles and reaggregations they've popularized have been the worst things about modern journalism.

m0zg 8y ago

That's what's stunning to me. There are youtubers shooting videos from their kitchen or bedroom for approximately zero dollars who have larger audiences than these "mainstream" publications. I don't understand how they can still exist with 1600 people in their employ. Furthermore I don't understand what those 1600 people actually do other than make shit up and repost other, more legitimate news sources.

eridius 8y ago
BuzzFeed News staff were finalists for the Pulitzer in both 2017 and 2018. What makes you think they "make shit up and repost other, more legitimate news sources"?
- m0zg 8y ago
  Do you work for Buzzfeed by any chance or have some financial interest in it? Because otherwise I don't see how you could in good faith defend this wretched hive of scum and villainy. I mean just go to their website. Do you seriously call them a proper, trustworthy news source?
  - eridius 8y ago
    I don't work for them, nor do I have a financial interest in them. What I do have is a personal interest in the continued existence of the only journalism outfit that's actually managed to earn a recurring subscription¹ from me due to the quality of their articles. > I mean just go to their website. Do you seriously call them a proper, trustworthy news source? What's wrong with https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/? It looks perfectly fine to me. ¹Also in their favor is the fact that BuzzFeed News doesn't have any sort of paywall. The only benefit I get from a subscription is knowing that I'm helping to support good journalism.
    - m0zg 8y ago
      Let's start with the fact that there's a fake news story in the upper left corner debunked by Special Counsel Mueller's staff a few days ago. :-)
      - eridius 8y ago
        No it wasn't. They said it "wasn't accurate" but declined to specify. Most people seem to think this means there are inaccuracies to the story, but the overall thrust of the piece is still true.