9 ms·

Vox Media is cutting pay and furloughing 9% of employees

86 points by gullyfur 6y ago

vanattab 6y ago
I wish they would axe the entire staff! I can't stand their style of "explanatory journalism".
- muffinman26 6y ago
  To each their own. I love Vox. Their Weeds podcast has given me a whole new understanding of public policy and research papers in the social sciences. They also do research on topics I didn't even know I wanted research on. For example, they did an entire article on Hallmark movies. Sounds super silly, but they turn out to be a huge money-maker. One of my friends works in the film industry and was working on pitching Hallmark movies. He was super excited about it, but I had no idea how big of a deal that was (or what it even meant exactly) until I read the Vox article. Sure, they have a clear bias, but at least they're explicit about it and they do a fairly decent job of researching and presenting opposing points of view, not just setting up straw-mans. They've done some of the best journalism there is on things like US public health policies. Sarah Kliff's article https://www.vox.com/2019/1/24/18194709/emergency-room-fees-health-care-sarah-kliff-ama https://www.vox.com/2019/1/24/18194709/emergency-room-fees-h... was impeccably researched and had a direct impact on health care legislation.
- camgunz 6y ago
  Come on man, let's avoid hoping for people to lose their jobs.
  - NateEag 6y ago
    Some jobs should not be done. That implies there are times we should root for people to lose their jobs. This may not be one of them. I just felt it was worth pointing out that this is a noble-sounding but poor idea.
    - kaesar14 6y ago
      Semantically agreed, is there anything wrong with hoping lobbyists for oil companies and weapons manufacturers lose their jobs, for example? :)
      - moodytunes 6y ago
        Not really, except it comes off as you hope the people currently employed as lobbyists and weapons manufactures lose their jobs. Once they get canned, someone else could take their place. Sounds like the disagreement is with the position itself, not the person who happens to be holding the job
    - nerdponx 6y ago
      That implies there are times we should root for people to lose their jobs. We should root for people to lose specific jobs by way of those jobs disappearing. We should not root for people to lose their access to a baseline level of income, or otherwise a basic living standard. The fundamental problem with modern society is that jobs are prerequisite for acceptable living standards, including access to healthcare, education, housing, food, and social interaction. In most cases, minimum living standards depend on a minimum income, which is usually obtained by way of a job. Other times income alone is not the only prerequisite. In the case of healthcare (in the USA), you need a job through a formal employer in order to make healthcare affordable, i.e. without a formal job you need a much higher income in order to obtain healthcare at an acceptable standard. In my opinion, diminishing or eliminating the dependence of "living standards" on "job" is essential to a high-functioning society. Even if the dependence is only broken temporarily as part of a "social safety net". The USA has a social safety net, but it's frequently insufficient to maintain morally acceptable living standards.
    - camgunz 6y ago
      No my point is that their kids shouldn't have to drop out of school, their parents shouldn't have to decide between meds, their family shouldn't lose their health insurance, etc. Maybe there are jobs that are so repugnant we should punish the families of those who hold them, but no matter your thoughts on the media or your political stripe, I hope we can agree that journalist (or any of the other myriad jobs at Vox) isn't one of them.
- Jagat 6y ago
  Why? They do a pretty good job of distilling information and presenting them in a way most people can understand.
  - jariel 6y ago
    'Distilling' I think is the wrong word. They describe a person/event/situation from their highly ideological position. It's high-quality writing, but I stopped reading it for this reason. Edit: from 'AllSides' analysis [1] "Vox's Explainers provide only one side of an issue, making it seem as if the information provided is all readers need to know, when in reality, Right-leaning individuals would likely include other facts or make different points about the topic. This prevents readers from getting a holistic understanding of the highlighted issues." Which I find to be true. The most interesting thing is they are literally trying to 'explain' something, whilst pursuing their explanations in an obviously biased manner, ignoring information and viewpoints which might contradict their view. Which is to say ... it's the 'opposite' of explaining. I don't have a problem with the publication, it's well written, but I question the ethics of telling people they are 'explaining' or 'distilling' the news when that's clearly not happening. [1]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vox-news-media-bias https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vox-news-media-bias
    - ironmagma 6y ago
      It’s a shame, too, because they have the great opportunity to be a news organization that actually delivers the source material in a more complete manner. Vox is incredibly disappointing and all their messaging sets you up for a complete letdown.
      - jariel 6y ago
        My thoughts as well. During Coronavirus what we need more than ever are not 'daily headlines' so much as 'status/explainer' news, like a dynamic, contemporary Wikipedia article that nails and dissolves the meta-issues of the day. Trying to find out the specific status of Canada's various bailout programs is almost impossible unless you sit there with the news on all day!
- ketralnis 6y ago
  You can choose not to read it without them having to sack anybody
  - kgantchev 6y ago
    If people choose not to read Vox, then Vox will certainly have to sack people.
- bruceb 6y ago
  I suggest people reading VOX also read articles on the same subject matter from other sources as well. Its easy to explain when you control what is put out and don't enable comments. Same with John Oliver show. Both have value but take their explanations with a grain or two of salt.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Reading multiple sources is always a good idea, assuming you have the time. But, can you really blame Vox for not enabling comments? There's a reason Hacker News attempts to minimize political discussions. Vox doesn't have that luxury given the focus of the site. Less politics-focused Vox Media properties, like The Verge, do have a comments section that's quite active.
    - kgantchev 6y ago
      Vox not allowing comments is certainly reinforcing their bubble. If you're in the political field, you better be ready for the political disagreements and the criticism. However, I suspect Vox disabled the comment section not because it's hard to manage but because it breaks their narrative and it shows the volume of dissent.
      - redisman 6y ago
        Have you ever looked at the comments section on a news website?
- bovermyer 6y ago
  Just because you don't like their style doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. That'd be like me saying you should be fired from whatever job you have for posting this comment. It makes no sense, doesn't help the dialogue, and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic.
  - iateanapple 6y ago
    > That'd be like me saying you should be fired from whatever job you have for posting this comment. No it isn’t. It is like saying the parent poster should be kicked off hn because of the content/bias in their hn posts.
MangoCoffee 6y ago
didn't Vox got like $200 million from NBCUniversal? why not ask for another round of funding?
- bearcobra 6y ago
  They did raise $200 million from NBCU in 2015. Now probably wouldn't be a great time to try to raise money given that their revenue streams (ads, events, etc.) are under extreme pressure.
- nostromo 6y ago
  Because NBCUniversal is hemorrhaging money.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  Wasn't that like 5 years ago and several spun-up media sites later?
AlchemistCamp 6y ago
The context is interesting: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317812260499456 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317812260499456 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317824394653697 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317824394653697 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317820800086016 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317820800086016 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248318363538837504 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248318363538837504 The same company that considerably increased the damage the virus did in their country is now in financial difficulty as a result. They mocked people for avoiding handshakes, repeatedly told people that masks were ineffective and dismissed the virus as just a flu. It's also interesting their political opponents, including the president adopted their original positions a few weeks later. It's mind-boggling that analysis of the severity of a virus became so highly politicized. I don't think the same could have happened in the US a generation ago.
- Traster 6y ago
  First tweet: Vox saying face masks aren't the best way to avoid Coronavirus. Actually basically the mainstream view in the US at the time, and still arguable. Note how right now the states aren't mandating masks, they're mandating social isolation. Second tweet: Vox factually reporting the tech industry is eschewing handshakes. Tweet author editorialises that Vox is telling them not to. Third Tweet: Vox factually reporting that tech companies are providing 9million masks. Factually states that it's not enough to solve the problem. Tweet author contends that's not true - but provides no evidence . Fourth tweet: Author tries to claim Vox is responsible for Coronavirus. I find this hilarious, because we all know perfectly well, if that tweeter had found a Vox contributer tweeting that 4th tweet he'd be apoplectic. I'm sure this tweet thread has nothing to do with Vox's coverage of that tweeter and his previous attacks on the FDA: https://www.vox.com/2017/1/14/14276530/balaji-srinivasan-trump-fda-twitter-andreessen-horowitz https://www.vox.com/2017/1/14/14276530/balaji-srinivasan-tru...
  - foob4r 6y ago
    Almost makes you wonder if balajis has a personal gripe with vox or recode or Ezra or Kara. Balaji is a crypto bro and epitome of technocrats who thinks just because they are (rich|famous|networked), they are experts on everything. Fact of the matter is, Balaji doesn't know any more about Covid than what is reported. He's using hindsight bias to claim that media reported was false.
Traster 6y ago
I think this is basically par for the course for media organisations. Let's face it, ad spend is gone and it's not going to be coming back for a while. I suspect we'll be see a lot more of this coming in the near future.
simonsarris 6y ago
I don't have any opinions here but for added context and interest, the two unions involved released statements: NY Mag Union statement on the cuts: https://twitter.com/NYMagUnion/status/1251218401688772608 https://twitter.com/NYMagUnion/status/1251218401688772608 Vox media union on the cuts: https://twitter.com/vox_union/status/1251174537120616454 https://twitter.com/vox_union/status/1251174537120616454 > While we appreciate Vox Media talking to us in good faith, we don’t agree with the company’s decision to furlough employees — especially after hundreds of us told the company we were willing to take wider pay cuts to save all jobs. > We won a guarantee of no layoffs, no additional furloughs, and no additional pay cuts through July 31, along with enhanced severance for any layoffs that occur in August-December. The company also agreed to reduce the number of furloughs.
- ajross 6y ago
  I made this point earlier, but contrast the difference in tone between Vox workers and Amazon workers in what is really a very similar dispute. Cultivating a healthy working relationship with your unions means that when the world blows up, making hard choices doesn't get covered as an existential disaster.
  - samename 6y ago
    Also notice how Vox workers have a union, while Amazon workers don’t.
    - ajross 6y ago
      Which is sort of the point. Amazon resisted unionization (in the US), almost to a fault. And in the process they ended up offering things like salary and benefits that were quite generous within the relevant industries, precisely to prevent unionization. And yet it's all blown up. Because while sure: they offer a $15 wage and retraining and all that, what they don't have is a union organization on the other side of the table who they trust to act in mutual self interest. So when Vox runs out of money, their unions are willing to accept that and broadly trust the management to do the right thing for everyone, Amazon's workers are faced with trying to Get Theirs before their employer runs out of cash, because they don't trust Bezos. And this was all avoidable.
zarkov99 6y ago
Good fucking riddance. The Internet will be a better place without them.
- gxqoz 6y ago
  Uh, why? In what world does reducing the number of media outlets benefit the internet?
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    This world, were many media outlets,and most specially Vox, make their money by rabidly pandering to ideological fanatics, truth or anything close to truth be damned. Vox is nothing but InfoWars for smug hipsters.
    - redisman 6y ago
      Are you saying they mostly report on conspiracy theories?
  - friedman23 6y ago
    It really depends on the quality of the media outlets being reduced.
  - prepend 6y ago
    The world where some media outlets reduce the overall quality of information and are a net negative to human growth. I think it causes more harm than good to try to exploit my censor or remove trash media. But when it fails, that’s a plus, I think.
RickJWagner 6y ago
I tend to be conservative in my politics, but I hate to see this. If it had to be some liberal publisher, I'd rather that it not be Vox. Vox seems to me to be about as left-leaning as you can get, but they do it quite fairly. Example: Vox was one of the first left-side publications to run articles about Joe Biden's accuser. A lot of other publications stayed away from this story-- some still are-- but Vox bravely ran it. (From a far-left position, of course. If you go far enough left, you'll end up close to far-right.) They are the real deal, and for that I respect them.
- jhwang5 6y ago
  Serious question. Are you confounding left-leaning with lack of journalistic integrity, and conservative news outlets as having integrity?
  - RickJWagner 6y ago
    No, not at all. I consider most media sources biased (right or left) and also consider them to have various degrees of integrity. For integrity, I give Vox good credit for running a story that deserves attention but runs counter to their political leanings.
Markoff 6y ago
how about Techcrunch, Engadget and Gizmodo owner company? not visiting any of these sites since all of them first redirect you through some advertising tracking domain caught by my ublock, haven't seen any major site doing such shady thing, they would deserve it more

86 points by gullyfur 6y ago

vanattab 6y ago

I wish they would axe the entire staff! I can't stand their style of "explanatory journalism".

muffinman26 6y ago
To each their own. I love Vox. Their Weeds podcast has given me a whole new understanding of public policy and research papers in the social sciences. They also do research on topics I didn't even know I wanted research on. For example, they did an entire article on Hallmark movies. Sounds super silly, but they turn out to be a huge money-maker. One of my friends works in the film industry and was working on pitching Hallmark movies. He was super excited about it, but I had no idea how big of a deal that was (or what it even meant exactly) until I read the Vox article. Sure, they have a clear bias, but at least they're explicit about it and they do a fairly decent job of researching and presenting opposing points of view, not just setting up straw-mans. They've done some of the best journalism there is on things like US public health policies. Sarah Kliff's article https://www.vox.com/2019/1/24/18194709/emergency-room-fees-health-care-sarah-kliff-ama https://www.vox.com/2019/1/24/18194709/emergency-room-fees-h... was impeccably researched and had a direct impact on health care legislation.
camgunz 6y ago
Come on man, let's avoid hoping for people to lose their jobs.
- NateEag 6y ago
  Some jobs should not be done. That implies there are times we should root for people to lose their jobs. This may not be one of them. I just felt it was worth pointing out that this is a noble-sounding but poor idea.
  - kaesar14 6y ago
    Semantically agreed, is there anything wrong with hoping lobbyists for oil companies and weapons manufacturers lose their jobs, for example? :)
    - moodytunes 6y ago
      Not really, except it comes off as you hope the people currently employed as lobbyists and weapons manufactures lose their jobs. Once they get canned, someone else could take their place. Sounds like the disagreement is with the position itself, not the person who happens to be holding the job
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    That implies there are times we should root for people to lose their jobs. We should root for people to lose specific jobs by way of those jobs disappearing. We should not root for people to lose their access to a baseline level of income, or otherwise a basic living standard. The fundamental problem with modern society is that jobs are prerequisite for acceptable living standards, including access to healthcare, education, housing, food, and social interaction. In most cases, minimum living standards depend on a minimum income, which is usually obtained by way of a job. Other times income alone is not the only prerequisite. In the case of healthcare (in the USA), you need a job through a formal employer in order to make healthcare affordable, i.e. without a formal job you need a much higher income in order to obtain healthcare at an acceptable standard. In my opinion, diminishing or eliminating the dependence of "living standards" on "job" is essential to a high-functioning society. Even if the dependence is only broken temporarily as part of a "social safety net". The USA has a social safety net, but it's frequently insufficient to maintain morally acceptable living standards.
  - camgunz 6y ago
    No my point is that their kids shouldn't have to drop out of school, their parents shouldn't have to decide between meds, their family shouldn't lose their health insurance, etc. Maybe there are jobs that are so repugnant we should punish the families of those who hold them, but no matter your thoughts on the media or your political stripe, I hope we can agree that journalist (or any of the other myriad jobs at Vox) isn't one of them.
Jagat 6y ago
Why? They do a pretty good job of distilling information and presenting them in a way most people can understand.
- jariel 6y ago
  'Distilling' I think is the wrong word. They describe a person/event/situation from their highly ideological position. It's high-quality writing, but I stopped reading it for this reason. Edit: from 'AllSides' analysis [1] "Vox's Explainers provide only one side of an issue, making it seem as if the information provided is all readers need to know, when in reality, Right-leaning individuals would likely include other facts or make different points about the topic. This prevents readers from getting a holistic understanding of the highlighted issues." Which I find to be true. The most interesting thing is they are literally trying to 'explain' something, whilst pursuing their explanations in an obviously biased manner, ignoring information and viewpoints which might contradict their view. Which is to say ... it's the 'opposite' of explaining. I don't have a problem with the publication, it's well written, but I question the ethics of telling people they are 'explaining' or 'distilling' the news when that's clearly not happening. [1]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vox-news-media-bias https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vox-news-media-bias
  - ironmagma 6y ago
    It’s a shame, too, because they have the great opportunity to be a news organization that actually delivers the source material in a more complete manner. Vox is incredibly disappointing and all their messaging sets you up for a complete letdown.
    - jariel 6y ago
      My thoughts as well. During Coronavirus what we need more than ever are not 'daily headlines' so much as 'status/explainer' news, like a dynamic, contemporary Wikipedia article that nails and dissolves the meta-issues of the day. Trying to find out the specific status of Canada's various bailout programs is almost impossible unless you sit there with the news on all day!
ketralnis 6y ago
You can choose not to read it without them having to sack anybody
- kgantchev 6y ago
  If people choose not to read Vox, then Vox will certainly have to sack people.
bruceb 6y ago
I suggest people reading VOX also read articles on the same subject matter from other sources as well. Its easy to explain when you control what is put out and don't enable comments. Same with John Oliver show. Both have value but take their explanations with a grain or two of salt.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Reading multiple sources is always a good idea, assuming you have the time. But, can you really blame Vox for not enabling comments? There's a reason Hacker News attempts to minimize political discussions. Vox doesn't have that luxury given the focus of the site. Less politics-focused Vox Media properties, like The Verge, do have a comments section that's quite active.
  - kgantchev 6y ago
    Vox not allowing comments is certainly reinforcing their bubble. If you're in the political field, you better be ready for the political disagreements and the criticism. However, I suspect Vox disabled the comment section not because it's hard to manage but because it breaks their narrative and it shows the volume of dissent.
    - redisman 6y ago
      Have you ever looked at the comments section on a news website?
bovermyer 6y ago
Just because you don't like their style doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. That'd be like me saying you should be fired from whatever job you have for posting this comment. It makes no sense, doesn't help the dialogue, and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic.
- iateanapple 6y ago
  > That'd be like me saying you should be fired from whatever job you have for posting this comment. No it isn’t. It is like saying the parent poster should be kicked off hn because of the content/bias in their hn posts.

MangoCoffee 6y ago

didn't Vox got like $200 million from NBCUniversal? why not ask for another round of funding?

bearcobra 6y ago
They did raise $200 million from NBCU in 2015. Now probably wouldn't be a great time to try to raise money given that their revenue streams (ads, events, etc.) are under extreme pressure.
nostromo 6y ago
Because NBCUniversal is hemorrhaging money.
madeofpalk 6y ago
Wasn't that like 5 years ago and several spun-up media sites later?

AlchemistCamp 6y ago

The context is interesting: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317812260499456 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317812260499456 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317824394653697 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317824394653697 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317820800086016 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317820800086016 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248318363538837504 https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248318363538837504 The same company that considerably increased the damage the virus did in their country is now in financial difficulty as a result. They mocked people for avoiding handshakes, repeatedly told people that masks were ineffective and dismissed the virus as just a flu. It's also interesting their political opponents, including the president adopted their original positions a few weeks later. It's mind-boggling that analysis of the severity of a virus became so highly politicized. I don't think the same could have happened in the US a generation ago.

Traster 6y ago
First tweet: Vox saying face masks aren't the best way to avoid Coronavirus. Actually basically the mainstream view in the US at the time, and still arguable. Note how right now the states aren't mandating masks, they're mandating social isolation. Second tweet: Vox factually reporting the tech industry is eschewing handshakes. Tweet author editorialises that Vox is telling them not to. Third Tweet: Vox factually reporting that tech companies are providing 9million masks. Factually states that it's not enough to solve the problem. Tweet author contends that's not true - but provides no evidence . Fourth tweet: Author tries to claim Vox is responsible for Coronavirus. I find this hilarious, because we all know perfectly well, if that tweeter had found a Vox contributer tweeting that 4th tweet he'd be apoplectic. I'm sure this tweet thread has nothing to do with Vox's coverage of that tweeter and his previous attacks on the FDA: https://www.vox.com/2017/1/14/14276530/balaji-srinivasan-trump-fda-twitter-andreessen-horowitz https://www.vox.com/2017/1/14/14276530/balaji-srinivasan-tru...
- foob4r 6y ago
  Almost makes you wonder if balajis has a personal gripe with vox or recode or Ezra or Kara. Balaji is a crypto bro and epitome of technocrats who thinks just because they are (rich|famous|networked), they are experts on everything. Fact of the matter is, Balaji doesn't know any more about Covid than what is reported. He's using hindsight bias to claim that media reported was false.

Traster 6y ago

I think this is basically par for the course for media organisations. Let's face it, ad spend is gone and it's not going to be coming back for a while. I suspect we'll be see a lot more of this coming in the near future.

simonsarris 6y ago

I don't have any opinions here but for added context and interest, the two unions involved released statements: NY Mag Union statement on the cuts: https://twitter.com/NYMagUnion/status/1251218401688772608 https://twitter.com/NYMagUnion/status/1251218401688772608 Vox media union on the cuts: https://twitter.com/vox_union/status/1251174537120616454 https://twitter.com/vox_union/status/1251174537120616454 > While we appreciate Vox Media talking to us in good faith, we don’t agree with the company’s decision to furlough employees — especially after hundreds of us told the company we were willing to take wider pay cuts to save all jobs. > We won a guarantee of no layoffs, no additional furloughs, and no additional pay cuts through July 31, along with enhanced severance for any layoffs that occur in August-December. The company also agreed to reduce the number of furloughs.

ajross 6y ago
I made this point earlier, but contrast the difference in tone between Vox workers and Amazon workers in what is really a very similar dispute. Cultivating a healthy working relationship with your unions means that when the world blows up, making hard choices doesn't get covered as an existential disaster.
- samename 6y ago
  Also notice how Vox workers have a union, while Amazon workers don’t.
  - ajross 6y ago
    Which is sort of the point. Amazon resisted unionization (in the US), almost to a fault. And in the process they ended up offering things like salary and benefits that were quite generous within the relevant industries, precisely to prevent unionization. And yet it's all blown up. Because while sure: they offer a $15 wage and retraining and all that, what they don't have is a union organization on the other side of the table who they trust to act in mutual self interest. So when Vox runs out of money, their unions are willing to accept that and broadly trust the management to do the right thing for everyone, Amazon's workers are faced with trying to Get Theirs before their employer runs out of cash, because they don't trust Bezos. And this was all avoidable.

zarkov99 6y ago

Good fucking riddance. The Internet will be a better place without them.

gxqoz 6y ago
Uh, why? In what world does reducing the number of media outlets benefit the internet?
- zarkov99 6y ago
  This world, were many media outlets,and most specially Vox, make their money by rabidly pandering to ideological fanatics, truth or anything close to truth be damned. Vox is nothing but InfoWars for smug hipsters.
  - redisman 6y ago
    Are you saying they mostly report on conspiracy theories?
- friedman23 6y ago
  It really depends on the quality of the media outlets being reduced.
- prepend 6y ago
  The world where some media outlets reduce the overall quality of information and are a net negative to human growth. I think it causes more harm than good to try to exploit my censor or remove trash media. But when it fails, that’s a plus, I think.

RickJWagner 6y ago

I tend to be conservative in my politics, but I hate to see this. If it had to be some liberal publisher, I'd rather that it not be Vox. Vox seems to me to be about as left-leaning as you can get, but they do it quite fairly. Example: Vox was one of the first left-side publications to run articles about Joe Biden's accuser. A lot of other publications stayed away from this story-- some still are-- but Vox bravely ran it. (From a far-left position, of course. If you go far enough left, you'll end up close to far-right.) They are the real deal, and for that I respect them.

jhwang5 6y ago
Serious question. Are you confounding left-leaning with lack of journalistic integrity, and conservative news outlets as having integrity?
- RickJWagner 6y ago
  No, not at all. I consider most media sources biased (right or left) and also consider them to have various degrees of integrity. For integrity, I give Vox good credit for running a story that deserves attention but runs counter to their political leanings.

Markoff 6y ago

how about Techcrunch, Engadget and Gizmodo owner company? not visiting any of these sites since all of them first redirect you through some advertising tracking domain caught by my ublock, haven't seen any major site doing such shady thing, they would deserve it more