4 ms·

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 th

by 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.
        m0zg 8y ago
        How about another one: the "pee pee" dossier which was also released by Buzzfeed. Do "most people" still "seem to think" it's true or has it been discredited enough by now?
        eridius 8y ago
        The dossier which BuzzFeed did not create themselves? I largely skipped news coverage of this besides vaguely knowing of its existence, but AIUI BuzzFeed's rationale is that it was newsworthy (being as it was a document that was circulating at the highest levels of the US government and media). Incidentally, it seems that at least parts of the dossier have now been corroborated, and nothing has been disproven. There's still large parts of it that are in question of course, but I fail to see how it's been "discredited", it's merely been criticized. Feel free to argue that BuzzFeed was incorrect in releasing a dossier full of raw intelligence before it had been corroborated. That's certainly something one can argue, and many people would agree (but not everybody). But that's not the argument you're making.
        m0zg 8y ago
        I'm old enough to remember the olden days where the onus was on the news outlet to do some basic fact checking and corroboration _before_ publishing stuff.
- grey-sunshine 8y ago
  Did they win Pulitzer by working for Buzzfeed?
adventured 8y ago
Investors ploughed a combined $400 million into them across 2015 and 2016. 1,600 employees in that segment probably cost ~$120m per year in salary and benefits, give or take $20m. (their employee count was higher than 1,600 for a time though) They likely have burned through a lot of that $400m in the last 40 months. TechCrunch reports they had just over 300 employees in mid to late 2013. So they increased headcount more than 5x in 3-4 years (another article reports they were up over 1,700 employees sometime in 2017).

by m0zg 8y ago

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.
      - m0zg 8y ago
        How about another one: the "pee pee" dossier which was also released by Buzzfeed. Do "most people" still "seem to think" it's true or has it been discredited enough by now?
        eridius 8y ago
        The dossier which BuzzFeed did not create themselves? I largely skipped news coverage of this besides vaguely knowing of its existence, but AIUI BuzzFeed's rationale is that it was newsworthy (being as it was a document that was circulating at the highest levels of the US government and media). Incidentally, it seems that at least parts of the dossier have now been corroborated, and nothing has been disproven. There's still large parts of it that are in question of course, but I fail to see how it's been "discredited", it's merely been criticized. Feel free to argue that BuzzFeed was incorrect in releasing a dossier full of raw intelligence before it had been corroborated. That's certainly something one can argue, and many people would agree (but not everybody). But that's not the argument you're making.
        m0zg 8y ago
        I'm old enough to remember the olden days where the onus was on the news outlet to do some basic fact checking and corroboration _before_ publishing stuff.
grey-sunshine 8y ago
Did they win Pulitzer by working for Buzzfeed?

adventured 8y ago

Investors ploughed a combined $400 million into them across 2015 and 2016. 1,600 employees in that segment probably cost ~$120m per year in salary and benefits, give or take $20m. (their employee count was higher than 1,600 for a time though) They likely have burned through a lot of that $400m in the last 40 months. TechCrunch reports they had just over 300 employees in mid to late 2013. So they increased headcount more than 5x in 3-4 years (another article reports they were up over 1,700 employees sometime in 2017).