5 ms·

One reason is, the New Yorker pays real editors.

by Bud 16y ago

joshklein 16y ago
Absolutely. Also, publishing in the New Yorker is considered a pinacle of achievement for writers. They attract the best talent.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  What this tells me is that there's an opportunity in tech journalism to disrupt the current scene with upstart notions like good editing and good journalism. The New York Times was such an upstart in it's day with it's revolutionary notion of impartial reporting.
  - jonknee 16y ago
    The New Yorker is still a small niche publication, despite its notoriety of excellence. While I'd love to read a high-standards technology review, I'm not sure there's an "opportunity" of sufficient size. I'll have to settle for The Economist's tech coverage until someone proves me wrong.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - mquander 16y ago
      Sure, if you consider a million* subscriptions paying cash money every month "niche." I certainly wouldn't call a blog with a million paying customers "niche!" You could have a tenth of that and run a profitable website, with plenty of money to pay good writers. * http://www.magazine.org/CONSUMER_MARKETING/CIRC_TRENDS/2009-sub-circ-top-100-abc.aspx http://www.magazine.org/CONSUMER_MARKETING/CIRC_TRENDS/2009-...
      - jonknee 16y ago
        Yea, that is pretty niche considering the size of their operation. Check out how far down the list they are and who's above them (US Weekly, Newsweek, Readers Digest, etc). Then there's the web: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/newyorker.com+techcrunch.com+mashable.com/ http://siteanalytics.compete.com/newyorker.com+techcrunch.co... All that high quality content and the likes of TechCrunch are crushing them one "Twitter is down" post after another.
        mquander 16y ago
        I don't see how that graph is interpreted as a "crushing" -- you may as well make a graph of the sales of Techcrunch's print edition, and see who wins then. The New Yorker could have flat zero web presence and I doubt it would make very much difference to their bottom line. They sell printed pieces of paper, not page views. It's true that there are lots of other magazines which sell many more copies; I'm just suggesting that they appear to have a lot of headroom in terms of "having a big enough market to be a profitable business."
  - joshklein 16y ago
    While I don't disagree, the problem is that this doesn't necessarily make good business sense; the dollar value of good editing and journalism is (currently) in decline. I think an institution like the New Yorker has some natural protection as a cultural mainstay; if you were to go to an upper middle class dinner party near where I grew up and be unable to discuss the current issue of the New Yorker, you might feel negative social effects. It is hard to create a similar effect in an already saturated market.
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      While I don't disagree, the problem is that this doesn't necessarily make good business sense; the dollar value of good editing and journalism is (currently) in decline. No, the dollar value of good editing and journalism as currently packaged and distributed in public is currently in decline. I am sure that there are hundreds of executives scattered across the globe who each just arranged for someone else to compose a report that thousands or even hundreds of thousands of other people would indeed want to read or at least know the contents of.
noibl 16y ago
Another reason is that it's written by a guy who has studied this company for years, interviewed Schmidt eleven times and links to his own Google book in the body of the article. Freelance tech journalism, this ain't.
- robosox 16y ago
  This. I don't care how much a tech blogger has studied Google from afar. Ken Auletta actually embedded himself at Google and wrote a frickin book about its history, its culture, and most importantly how it makes decisions. He is in a crazy strong position to comment on why Google does what it does.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Indeed. Also, this is traditional journalism, done in a new medium. TechCrunch is the new medium (Blogging) with a rough journalism slant. There is a real life comparison too; TechCrunch is like the tabloid papers - they have all the content, plus the biases and the speculation and a bit of trash. The New Yorker content is like the Business dailys - curt, to the point, aimed at people who want to know the facts, plus sensible analysis from people who understand the context in detail (and are writing from academic interest as much as commercial).
  - w1ntermute 16y ago
    > this is traditional journalism The fact that this style of journalism is considered "traditional" is itself quite lamentable.

One reason is, the New Yorker pays real editors.

by Bud 16y ago

One reason is, the New Yorker pays real editors.

Absolutely. Also, publishing in the New Yorker is considered a pinacle of achievement for writers. They attract the best talent.

stcredzero 16y ago
What this tells me is that there's an opportunity in tech journalism to disrupt the current scene with upstart notions like good editing and good journalism. The New York Times was such an upstart in it's day with it's revolutionary notion of impartial reporting.
- jonknee 16y ago
  The New Yorker is still a small niche publication, despite its notoriety of excellence. While I'd love to read a high-standards technology review, I'm not sure there's an "opportunity" of sufficient size. I'll have to settle for The Economist's tech coverage until someone proves me wrong.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - mquander 16y ago
    Sure, if you consider a million* subscriptions paying cash money every month "niche." I certainly wouldn't call a blog with a million paying customers "niche!" You could have a tenth of that and run a profitable website, with plenty of money to pay good writers. * http://www.magazine.org/CONSUMER_MARKETING/CIRC_TRENDS/2009-sub-circ-top-100-abc.aspx http://www.magazine.org/CONSUMER_MARKETING/CIRC_TRENDS/2009-...
    - jonknee 16y ago
      Yea, that is pretty niche considering the size of their operation. Check out how far down the list they are and who's above them (US Weekly, Newsweek, Readers Digest, etc). Then there's the web: http://siteanalytics.compete.com/newyorker.com+techcrunch.com+mashable.com/ http://siteanalytics.compete.com/newyorker.com+techcrunch.co... All that high quality content and the likes of TechCrunch are crushing them one "Twitter is down" post after another.
      - mquander 16y ago
        I don't see how that graph is interpreted as a "crushing" -- you may as well make a graph of the sales of Techcrunch's print edition, and see who wins then. The New Yorker could have flat zero web presence and I doubt it would make very much difference to their bottom line. They sell printed pieces of paper, not page views. It's true that there are lots of other magazines which sell many more copies; I'm just suggesting that they appear to have a lot of headroom in terms of "having a big enough market to be a profitable business."
- joshklein 16y ago
  While I don't disagree, the problem is that this doesn't necessarily make good business sense; the dollar value of good editing and journalism is (currently) in decline. I think an institution like the New Yorker has some natural protection as a cultural mainstay; if you were to go to an upper middle class dinner party near where I grew up and be unable to discuss the current issue of the New Yorker, you might feel negative social effects. It is hard to create a similar effect in an already saturated market.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    While I don't disagree, the problem is that this doesn't necessarily make good business sense; the dollar value of good editing and journalism is (currently) in decline. No, the dollar value of good editing and journalism as currently packaged and distributed in public is currently in decline. I am sure that there are hundreds of executives scattered across the globe who each just arranged for someone else to compose a report that thousands or even hundreds of thousands of other people would indeed want to read or at least know the contents of.

noibl 16y ago

Another reason is that it's written by a guy who has studied this company for years, interviewed Schmidt eleven times and links to his own Google book in the body of the article. Freelance tech journalism, this ain't.

robosox 16y ago
This. I don't care how much a tech blogger has studied Google from afar. Ken Auletta actually embedded himself at Google and wrote a frickin book about its history, its culture, and most importantly how it makes decisions. He is in a crazy strong position to comment on why Google does what it does.
ErrantX 16y ago
Indeed. Also, this is traditional journalism, done in a new medium. TechCrunch is the new medium (Blogging) with a rough journalism slant. There is a real life comparison too; TechCrunch is like the tabloid papers - they have all the content, plus the biases and the speculation and a bit of trash. The New Yorker content is like the Business dailys - curt, to the point, aimed at people who want to know the facts, plus sensible analysis from people who understand the context in detail (and are writing from academic interest as much as commercial).
- w1ntermute 16y ago
  > this is traditional journalism The fact that this style of journalism is considered "traditional" is itself quite lamentable.