6 ms·
Not sure if this guy has ever met a journalist. Where precisely are the journalists who are paid sufficiently well for their skill that they have liquidity to
by tony_cannistra 3y ago
Not sure if this guy has ever met a journalist.
Where precisely are the journalists who are paid sufficiently well for their skill that they have liquidity to invest in startups?
edit: alright turns out he's "former chief of staff at the Atlantic" but I still remain convinced he's decently out of touch with everyday journalists' financial situation.
- chaps 3y agoYeah. I'm a freelance journalist and this is one of the worst journalism takes I've seen in a while. Paying bills is already hard enough as it is and I, like many others in this industry, don't even have health insurance: why in the fuck would any of us invest in a startup?
- DANmode 3y agoTo ensure the stability of the platform you are (seemingly) sacrificing being well-paid to stay on.
- chaps 3y agoWhy is the base assumption here that journalists be the ones to pay for this?
- DANmode 3y agoStakeholder theory? You (we?) are some of the minority of humans that value journalism. Unfortunately.
- DANmode 3y agoSaid another way: you're already paying for it - at least subsidizing it - by being underpaid. Wouldn't you like to be in control of it for your troubles?
- chaps 3y ago...you're greatly missing the point that none of us have any money to invest.
- DANmode 3y agoThat, I understand better than most here. What did it really cost to start The Intercept, though? Salaries aside - or not. What can be done with new tech that makes publishing cheaper than ever?
- mikeyouse 3y agoThe Intercept was bankrolled by a billionaire who committed $250 million to his journalism efforts while it got off the ground... https://pressthink.org/2013/10/why-pierre-omidyar-decided-to-join-forces-with-glenn-greenwald-for-a-new-venture-in-news/ https://pressthink.org/2013/10/why-pierre-omidyar-decided-to...
- afavour 3y ago> What can be done with new tech that makes publishing cheaper than ever? Nothing. IMO that’s all been done: replacing the printing presses with the internet made it incredibly cheap to publish journalism. Producing journalism, however, remains a solidly human task that resists automation. And every time anyone tries the result is notably inferior.
- all2 3y agoOne of the companies I worked for was an ESOP [0]. Has there ever been anything like that in terms of journalistic publications? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Stock_Ownership_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Stock_Ownership_Plan
- Scoundreller 3y agoHopefully not since the shares tend to go to $0. Though I’d note The Economist has staff and former staff as minority shareholders.
- all2 3y agoThe place I was at paid a lot more than $0 per share. Is zero share value common for ESOPs?
- Scoundreller 3y agoWhat I mean is that a lot of traditional journalistic outfits have been teetering toward bankruptcy in recent years/decades. While there are successes, the total size of the industry has been declining.
- pangolinja 3y agothis was a direct consequence of Google and Facebook's predatory pricing. How is a hack on the bread line supposed to take on the Goliaths of Silicon Valley?
- all2 3y agoAre we talking ad pricing? Or some other pricing? How is it predatory?
- aml183 3y agoI run a B2B media company called Payload and all our employees own equity in the company. http://payloadspace.com/ http://payloadspace.com/
- SirMaster 3y agoBecause if you don't invest in something then you will never be rich. If you do then there is a chance you might become rich.
- tourmalinetaco 3y agoAll things considered, excluding pump’n’dump schemes, you’d probably have a better shot winning the lottery than backing the Next Big ThingTM.
- SirMaster 3y agoYeah, I mean you aren't wrong. But I think that's people's mindset and some feel they need to at least try if they can.
- snowwrestler 3y agoYou’re misunderstanding the idea. Venture capitalists don’t invest their own money, they raise funds from other people and institutions, and make funding decisions on their behalf. The idea here is that journalists have skills and domain knowledge that would help them make better than average decisions when it comes to media startups. So: Raising and directing capital, not necessarily originating it.
- chaps 3y agoJournalists are already heavily involved in capital raising through applying for grants and scholarships. Our time is already thin, so this article is effectively asking us to switch careers or become part-time investors.
- klabb3 3y agoI can’t help but laugh a bit at the absurdity of this thread. It’s like the “learn to code” meme but way more stupid. Or “why don’t poor people just take money out of their trust fund?”.
- snowwrestler 3y agoIt is suggesting switching careers, yes.
- tony_cannistra 3y agoSure, I guess so. I suppose I latched on too hard to the rather editorialized HN submission title. I do believe generally-speaking that folks with editorial leadership are probably as good if not better as run-of-the-mill domain VCs at assessing founder quality in a journalism context, as the article suggests. But really we're talking about asking journalists to consider a career in venture capital, which is...fine I guess?