Media Thread

[Kin]

The main Newcastle United writer was very good, but he?s gone off elsewhere and the new guy isn?t as great (yet, anyway) which is most annoying cos it was probably that coverage that just about tipped me into renewing.

But, if they?re relying on massive reductions to encourage subscribers to return it?s no real surprise I guess that they?re having to lay people off?

They did everything they could to build a subscriber base, sold to a big media conglomerate, and the new owners are now cutting things to the bone in order to maximize profitability. It's the venture capital dance we've seen a million times.

 

[lamajama]

Exactly. Everyone could have and probably did predict this as soon as the Athletic was bought. Never has failed when virtually any Co?s have been taken over..

 

[Highlander]

Exactly. Everyone could have and probably did predict this as soon as the Athletic was bought. Never has failed when virtually any Co?s have been taken over..

To bad I have appreciated the overall journalism
Bound to happen

 

[ZBBM]

Exactly. Everyone could have and probably did predict this as soon as the Athletic was bought. Never has failed when virtually any Co?s have been taken over..

But they weren't bought by a venture capital outfit.  The NY Times paid north of $500M US for them.

 

[Kin]

Exactly. Everyone could have and probably did predict this as soon as the Athletic was bought. Never has failed when virtually any Co?s have been taken over..

But they weren't bought by a venture capital outfit.  The NY Times paid north of $500M US for them.

Right. Venture Capital doesn't buy things like the Athletic, they invest in them and build them up and reap the rewards of them being sold. They get artificially inflated by VC money to increase the sale price and then someone like the NYT gets to look at the actual business and a ton of people lose their jobs.

 

[ZBBM]

Exactly. Everyone could have and probably did predict this as soon as the Athletic was bought. Never has failed when virtually any Co?s have been taken over..

But they weren't bought by a venture capital outfit.  The NY Times paid north of $500M US for them.

Right. Venture Capital doesn't buy things like the Athletic, they invest in them and build them up and reap the rewards of them being sold. They get artificially inflated by VC money to increase the sale price and then someone like the NYT gets to look at the actual business and a ton of people lose their jobs.

I've never read The Athletic so I don't know what I'm talking about but if they have beat reporters assigned to every team I could see the new Times overlords saying, whoa, is that necessary?

 

[Kin]

I've never read The Athletic so I don't know what I'm talking about but if they have beat reporters assigned to every team I could see the new Times overlords saying, whoa, is that necessary?

I've never read the Athletic much but the idea of getting good local coverage of teams was one of their selling points. If you eliminate that then they're just one of a dozen outfits churning out national sports coverage with "insiders" getting league-wide scoops. To the extent that local coverage is "necessary" is really just asking what sort of reporting you want to do.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/maddelucchi/status/1668299879284871168

 

[ZBBM]

I've never read The Athletic so I don't know what I'm talking about but if they have beat reporters assigned to every team I could see the new Times overlords saying, whoa, is that necessary?

I've never read the Athletic much but the idea of getting good local coverage of teams was one of their selling points. If you eliminate that then they're just one of a dozen outfits churning out national sports coverage with "insiders" getting league-wide scoops. To the extent that local coverage is "necessary" is really just asking what sort of reporting you want to do.

Agreed.  Without some intense local focus, aren't just another Grantland or whatever that site was?

EDIT: Just saw CTB's quoted post.  Yeah, pretty much that.

 

[Kin]

Agreed.  Without some intense local focus, aren't just another Grantland or whatever that site was?

Sadly no. Grantland, which I liked a lot, was more of a general interest website. They didn't cover the day to day of sports much but ran longer-form magazine type pieces and covered music, movies and television as much if not more than sports.

 

[ZBBM]

Agreed.  Without some intense local focus, aren't just another Grantland or whatever that site was?

Sadly no. Grantland, which I liked a lot, was more of a general interest website. They didn't cover the day to day of sports much but ran longer-form magazine type pieces and covered music, movies and television as much if not more than sports.

Thanks, I missed that one too....

 

[L K]

I always felt like Grantland started at the right time for the type of website it was but at the wrong time with Bill Simmons.  He started annoying people a lot more right around the time he started doing Grantland and I think that affected some of the websites initial popularity and it's potential longevity.

 

[Kin]

I always felt like Grantland started at the right time for the type of website it was but at the wrong time with Bill Simmons.  He started annoying people a lot more right around the time he started doing Grantland and I think that affected some of the websites initial popularity and it's potential longevity.

Well, the thing with Grantland was it was always a Simmons vanity project. Something they gave him because he was a big earner for them and they wanted to keep him happy. I don't think it was ever going to be profitable. It didn't die because Simmons or the site became less popular, it died because Simmons and ESPN broke up.

 

[mr grieves]

I always felt like Grantland started at the right time for the type of website it was but at the wrong time with Bill Simmons.  He started annoying people a lot more right around the time he started doing Grantland and I think that affected some of the websites initial popularity and it's potential longevity.

Is there longevity in the modern media landscape? How many websites from the Grantland era are still around? I feel like most went through the VC cycle described above.

 

[Deebo]

https://twitter.com/FadooBobcat/status/1674843986198921231

 

[Bender]

https://twitter.com/FadooBobcat/status/1674843986198921231

Never really listened to him but that's brutal. Hoping for a full recovery.

 

[Highlander]

https://twitter.com/FadooBobcat/status/1674843986198921231

Never really listened to him but that's brutal. Hoping for a full recovery.

Last thing I want is a stroke, I don't like statins but I take one every day. Take em at night cause most collestoral is produced when your sleeping.

 

[Kin]

The Athletic Cuts Nearly 4% of Its Newsroom

Nearly 20 journalists will lose their jobs and more than 20 others will be moved to new assignments.

Katie Robertson

By Katie Robertson
June 12, 2023, 11:01 a.m. ET

The Athletic, the sports news outlet owned by The New York Times, laid off nearly 4 percent of its newsroom on Monday.

David Perpich, the publisher of The Athletic, and Steven Ginsberg, its executive editor, announced ?a significant reorganization? of the newsroom in a note to the staff. They said the publication was shifting away from having one beat reporter per sports team to broader coverage ?telling the most compelling stories for fans across the teams in a given league, drawing on both local and national reporting expertise.?

Nearly 20 people will be laid off as part of the reorganization, while more than 20 reporters will be moved to new assignments, they said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/business/media/the-athletic-layoffs.html

And now the other shoe drops, the NYT is eliminating their Sports department.

 

[ZBBM]

The Athletic Cuts Nearly 4% of Its Newsroom

Nearly 20 journalists will lose their jobs and more than 20 others will be moved to new assignments.

Katie Robertson

By Katie Robertson
June 12, 2023, 11:01 a.m. ET

The Athletic, the sports news outlet owned by The New York Times, laid off nearly 4 percent of its newsroom on Monday.

David Perpich, the publisher of The Athletic, and Steven Ginsberg, its executive editor, announced ?a significant reorganization? of the newsroom in a note to the staff. They said the publication was shifting away from having one beat reporter per sports team to broader coverage ?telling the most compelling stories for fans across the teams in a given league, drawing on both local and national reporting expertise.?

Nearly 20 people will be laid off as part of the reorganization, while more than 20 reporters will be moved to new assignments, they said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/business/media/the-athletic-layoffs.html

And now the other shoe drops, the NYT is eliminating their Sports department.

From today's article:

?We plan to focus even more directly on distinctive, high-impact news and enterprise journalism about how sports intersect with money, power, culture, politics and society at large,? the editors wrote in an email to The Times?s newsroom on Monday morning. ?At the same time, we will scale back the newsroom?s coverage of games, players, teams and leagues.?

Disregarding the blather about "enterprise journalism" (WTF) this makes sense.  Nobody reads the NYT to find out how the Mets did last night.  They can still cover sports-related stuff whenever they deign to notice.

 

[ZBBM]

And there's this:

From the Washington Post: "One point not addressed in the Times announcement is how the labor agreement that governs its Guild employees will affect the new arrangement. The Athletic is not unionized, and the Guild?s contract has provisions that address work that non-Guild members can produce for the Times."

Aha.