Sporting News/AOL Fanhouse

Good piece by Kindred, but as Rasputin suggested in an earlier post, it is time to stop it with all the hand-wringing about what journalism used to be and should be. I see journalism people complaining about the way media is changing, but the public, by and large, is not.

Kindred's piece also shows how coldly AOL dumped FanHouse after making what appears a major strategy shift. AOL had been talking about creating great original content with well-paid editors and reporters, and now it seems to be moving toward the Demand Studios/Associated Content model of buying stories for cheap and making money off Google AdSense.

The Google thing can be profitable if you can generate billions of page impressions while not having to pay salaries, benefits and bonuses. I mean, with its recent IPO, Demand Studios is now valued at $1.9 billion -- more than the entire New York Times Co.

We keep bitching about how all that Demand Studios content is so silly, yet the stories are written off of what people -- my neighbors and yours -- type into the Google search engine. The public isn't doing the complaining; the journalists are. Meanwhile, Bleacher Report keeps on rolling.

AOL does, of course, have a major play in process with Patch, and there are more than 1,000 professional journalists on the payroll with real salaries and benefits. But like many others, I suspect Patch will not play out well. The current model simply won't allow for the revenue ever to catch up with the expenses, and there are already hints that Patch is starting to cut back. We'll see if they follow through on plans to expand from about 750 sites right now to more than 1,000 at year's end.

My guess is they won't.

 

I disagree. If we don't discuss, or hand wring, what journalism should be, and what journalism used to be, how do we assure that journalism is the best that it can be today, tomorrow and into the future?

To suggest we just sit idly by and float down the changing course of the journalistic river without questioning its destination seems asinine. To bemoan the changing dynamic and presence of social media and the Internet is, of course, a fool's errand. But neglecting to discuss the state of journalism and where it's headed would seem to be an ignorance we shouldn't afford ourselves.

 

"To suggest we sit idly by?"

Who suggested that?

I never mentioned that we should not discuss it. You are adding a lot to my statements.

Discussing something and looking for a way forward is much different than hand-wringing over the past. I believe we're all better off focusing on the future and accepting evolving consumer habits. In journalism things are never again going to be the way they were in the past.

 

Those who still retain an affection for, and appreciation of, journalism need to be realistic. Enough with pining for the old days (which, of course, were never as special as people think they were). Enough with lamenting readers' lack of knowledge, lack of caring, possible lack of taste, etc. Accept the reality, and figure out how to adapt.

Trouser Buddah used the word "asinine." What is "asinine" is waiting for media consumers (readers, viewers, etc.) to agree with us, when they have long since moved on.

 

I didn't see anything wrong with what Feinstein wrote.

A lot of us can relate. Not that any of us are on Feinstein's level, but hearing, "Oh, we appreciate everything you've done for us, and this is no fault of your own, but you no longer have a job." is never a fun thing.

 

My friend at Fanhouse said the rumor is that Olson and Blackistone will definitely be kept and they're still deciding who else.

 

Except let's not get too teary-eyed for Feinstein. After all, he's a high six figures-guy. If letting him go frees up money for a FanHouse columnist, then great.

 

Agree 100 percent, but given Feinstein's penchant for whining, that was as tame as it gets.

 

I just thought it was childish for him to label the guy who called him a "suit" and make one snide comment after another about how the guy "counts beans" and "buys suits."

Feinstein can make his point without those kinds of personal shots.

 

If the worst shot he takes at someone who fired him is calling him a bean-counter and a suit, I'd call that taking the high road.

If he called him a donkey-raping shit eater, I might be inclined to agree with you.

 

I have more of an issue of him resorting to a couple cliches (bean counter; suit) than I do him taking digs at management for laying him off.

He'll be fine, money-wise, but getting the ax sucks no matter who you are, and I think you have a the right to vent a little, especially if you're frustrated that it's happening for reasons other than job performance.

 

I keep going back to Fenian's post about people dying of poisoned water from a substandard plant because no one was there to report it. Is that the world you want, piotr, with no serious reporting?