Salon in Dire Straits

An anonymous reader submits this well-linked blurb: "It appears the end may be near for Salon Media Group. Their auditors doubt the company can stay in business for very much longer. Despite recently reaching nearly 40,000 subscribers, they haven't been able to make up for lost ad revenue in a down market. As a result, they've accumulated a deficit of about $75 million. Their best known asset, besides Salon.com, may be The Well, one of the earliest and most influential online communities. I hope that it can survive if Salon does not."

Comments

Here we go again!

[peterdaly]

Maybe I don't understand business as much as I think I do, but whatever happened to growing a business. All these (especially internet) business that take a boatload of cash and thy to "hatch themselves into the world" fully grown keep going bust. How does a website that only hosts articles get many millions of dollars in debt before turning a profit? It's not like they have warehouses of inventory to maintain. It's a freekin' server cluster the content management and writers. Half the people reading this could probably build the business infrastructure in a month or so.

Marketing costs? Ok, ya got me there, but that many millions worth? How much are they paying their writers? How much Salon content couldn't they have hired english major to write at a fraction of the cost?

I think the world needs to start going back to "building businesses", which has become a lost art. Make the model work...THEN take it to the multi-million level. Not throw in millions, then figure out a model that works.

-Pete

Left-wing media a financial failure?

[toupsie]

I understand that Salon had some token conservatives writing for the site but most of the content was directed to a left of center crowd. Not only in the online world but in the broadcast world as well, left of center political discussion and news services tend to be financial failures while right wing media does quite well. The conservative discussion site, Free Republic, constantly rakes in close to $100,000 in donations when it runs its "user pledge drives". Right wing radio talk shows dominate the political airwaves. The only left wing radio I can think of is National Public Radio and it only stays in business because of the US Taxpayer. The "fair and balanced" Fox News (accused of being rightist) in five short years has blown away 20+ year-old CNN (accused of being leftist) in ratings.

Is there something outside the marketability of political orientation that is a factor in this difference in success? Does political orientation give a business an advantage in a Capitalistic society? Or is it that Republicans are just looser with their wallets?

Re:Left-wing media a financial failure?

[ObviousGuy]

First off, congrats on being the first person in the history of this website to use the term 'looser' correctly. Could this mark a turning point in Slashdot's history?

Second, I think the fact that people gravitate towards the right wing and Republican media is that the typical liberal simply doesn't understand how to talk to 'the common man'. Telling the average person that they are bad for believing certain things, bad for saying certain things, bad for belonging to the wrong race, bad for being of the wrong gender, bad for simply existing and using up precious global resources while others are starving across the globe, and bad for having values that may result in the automatic judging of others doesn't endear anyone to the leftist cause.

The Republican/Right Wing press is much more liberal in the Millian sense. (One must not look to the far Right Wing where the Neo Nazis reside, just as one must not look to the far Left Wing where Communists make their home, because these are simply aberrations of the mainstream Left and Right wings.) The Right Wing's ideology as espoused by the Right Wing media is that every man is an island and his place in society should be decided upon his skills and his contributions to society. No one is owed anything beyond the rights bestowed at birth and attempts to provide one with something necessarily entails taking something from another.

This egalitarianism is exactly the kind of thing that most Americans believe in the core of their being. They look at racial preferences as being completely contrary to the concept of racial equality. They look at abortion as the murder of an innocent human being. They look upon lenient judges as shirkers of responsibility. And they look at those who would take from them to give to others as thieves.

The right wing plays to these people and the message resonates, not because the right wing is crafty in forming their message but because the people who believe this ARE the right wing.

Re:Left-wing media a financial failure?

[cburley]

Does political orientation give a business an advantage in a Capitalistic society?

Speaking for myself as a "media consumer", what gives an outlet an advantage competing for my interest are rationalism and fairness.

I listen to Rush, I watch Fox News, and I also (still) occasionally pick up on other, more traditional, "liberal" outlets.

The difference for me isn't just that I tend to agree more with Rush or with the Fox commentators, though that helps some, because there have been other "right-wing" sources that turned me off completely (can't recall the "loudmouth" guy, who died a year or so ago, that kinda paved the way for Rush, Mancow, etc., but he's an example, as is "700 Club", of sources with which I might agree politically but can't stomach).

What makes the difference for me is that when I get my news from what, today, are considered "right-wing" sources, I find it rare that I later discover some crucial bit of information was left out of my "feed" later on.

Whereas the "left-wing" sources tend to conveniently forget, neglect, or overlook important data, nevermind that they're constantly bashing and/or labeling the right in the first place. (For example, conveniently omitting the fact that Bush's 2001-era "ban on stem cell research" was really just a ban on federal funding of research that'd inherently involve destroying viable human embryos. As another example, I suspect the recent headlines "Federal Court Rules Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional" is overly hysterical, that they really just ruled that a teacher leading a recital of it is unconstitutional -- a rare example of an hysterically inflated and/or misinformed summary that helps the right more than the left!)

I remember why I first listened to Rush. I'd heard his name mentioned by Roger Ailes in a meeting relating to media in Boston, and, quite literally, in this crowd of supposedly open-minded elite liberal media types, there was hissing. That was back around 1990 or so, maybe?

Around the same time, an unsuccessful sequel sitcom called "The New WKRP" had an episode involving a Rush-clone character named, IIRC, "Lash Rambaugh", which tried to be even-handed about the visceral, "he must be stopped" reaction among the radio-station hands when they learned this character was gaining air time on their precious station.

What got my attention was that a) I was basically being indoctrinated to hate Rush, primarily through the unstated, but nevertheless clear, implication that he was himself a hater, a neo-Nazi, whatever, and that b) no actual evidence was being supplied of what he actually said on a typical show.

(The WKRP episode was particularly stunning in how it omitted any actual reference to any actual offensive thing this Lash Rambaugh guy said; at least, that's how I remember it.)

So I thought, hey, I'm a Christian, theoretically I shouldn't immediately sign up as a "Rush hater" as if I'm protecting women, babies, and minorities by spreading the "hate-Rush gospel" until I've listened to the guy (and read his book(s)) myself, so I can speak to the issues myself.

Upshot? I quickly discovered what a convincing, willing, campaign of whispered lies the anti-Rush activists were fomenting (and still foment today, though I suspect most of them are simply uninformed haters of all things right-wing simply on auto-pilot, displaying less intelligence, thoughtfulness, and willingness to reconsider than Rosie O'Donnell).

Because while Rush was, and is, bombastic, sometimes arrogant, and dynamic, he's also one of the most truly humble and fair-minded political commentators I've ever heard.

Don't believe me? Consider this: he doesn't believe he knows better than you how you should spend your money, what kind of car you should buy, with what sort (or gender) person you should sleep, what drugs you should or shouldn't take, whether you should own a gun, where you should send your kids to school, and so on.

Except to the extent he offers his advice on these matters, he so rarely advocates actual laws to impose his views on people, it strikes me that, as bombastic as he is, he really doesn't think nearly as much as himself as, say, Bill O'Reilly, who thinks people should be forced by government, when they buy cars, to choose higher-mileage ones even if they themselves have good reasons to buy, say, an SUV.

Now, is that politically conservative or libertarian of Rush? Sure. But it's nowhere near the hatred that he was billed as having, and his most controversial remarks (mostly regarding warring on other countries and stuff, I'd say) don't compare to the daily grind of anti-choice venom coming from left-wing media outlets, which assume that few Americans know enough to decide what to buy, what to eat, how much to save, etc. for themselves, but somehow, in some way, can be expected to properly elect people to two of three branches of a federal government that'll make all these decisions for them in toto.

And I've heard Rush and Fox commentators (such as E. D. Hill, previously Donahey) sum up the liberal viewpoint on an issue so much more clearly and coherently that I've sometimes actually felt myself agreeing with it, compared to left-wing outlets, which so steadfastly refuse to provide a balanced, rational, both-or-more-sides set of views on an issue, that I usually assume their views must be wrong, if they can't back them up by stating them fairly.

In short: I believe the left-wing media is failing because they follow the left-wing political approach of denigrating the ability of the average individual to consider and sort through information themselves in a rational way, and to learn, through feedback, experience, and so on how to improve their own ability to engage in that very process, and I believe the "right-wing media" is succeeding because they value the ability of their viewers to understand at least the basics (and, yes, TV doesn't tend to explore topics in much details, I admit) of various sides of the issues and therefore make more-informed decisions on their own.

In cases where I've kept fairly careful, objective track of how specific issues are covered among the media outlets, I've found that the "right-wing" ones that are getting all the attention lately simply present a more complete picture of the issues and how the different sides see the story than the "left-wing" ones that are dying.

What that means to me is, if I pay attention only to left-wing media, sure, I can ultimately become convinced that all right-wingers are rich white hating corporate types who must be defeated at all costs, but I'll be stunned, in a discussion with an actual rational right-winger who gets his news from other sources, to learn stuff I had no idea was the case -- that my left-wing "feeders" decided I was better off not knowing, yet that undercuts some or all of my arguments.

But if I pay attention only to "right-wing" media, there's much less likelihood that, in a discussion with a left-winger, they'll bring up some crucial point that my "feeders" chose to not make me aware of. (Oh, in my experience, they'll try, but usually I've found that they're either making stuff up out of whole cloth, or greatly exaggerating some trivial thing, as in "Remember the October Surprise!" or "But it was Reagan who foisted crack cocaine on urban America!".)

And while it certainly doesn't hurt that I feel less personally insulted by Rush/FOX/etc than by NYTimes/CNN/NBC/etc based on my opinions, the fact is that, even in cases where I disagree equally with a given outlet, the former are much less likely to make me feel insulted by doing so than the latter. (Bill O'Reilly being an excellent counterexample: "Republicans don't want Americans to drive higher-mileage cars", he was saying about a year ago, based on the fact that Republicans were leaning, compared to Democrats, more towards individual choice in that matter; hardly a case of actively preventing anyone from choosing an 80mpg Honda over a 10mpg SUV, and a counterexample to his claim of having a "No Spin Zone". I'm picking on Bill because I happen to admire his work on his TV show overall, and am grateful for his zealousness in taking on many sacred cows, such as the charity beauracracies post-09-11.)

Finally, as one last example of left-wing media bias, consider how it celebrated moderately successful left-wing commentators and talk-show hosts over the last 10 years, such as Rosie O'Donnell, the hosts of The View, Jay Leno, David Letterman, and so on, making sure we all knew just what was So Wonderful about all of them.

Now compare that coverage to that of Rush, one of the most successful broadcasters in the history of any form of media, and ask yourself this:

Based on what the "media watchers" have chosen to tell you, who is more likely to have an African American guest-host his show: David Letterman, Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, or Rush Limbaugh?

I'm pretty sure the answer is Rush Limbaugh, based on frequency of use of Dr. (Professor?) Walter Williams, one of the funniest men on radio.

But you won't hear that from the people who, in this very thread, bash Rush based not on listening to him and telling the truth about what he says, but based on advocating their narrow-minded political agenda. And they'll happily let any claims about Rush being "racist" slide right by mere "facts" such as his current marriage being presided over by an African American.

And, yes, I've proven the effectiveness of relying more on "right-wing" media than left-wing media in discussions I've had with people more or less liberal, conservative, etc. than myself. I've had an otherwise-well-informed, intelligent, left-wing/anarchist teacher/lawyer tell me straight out Rush was a racist, only, after my countering with some facts, that what he means is that Rush advocates positions that aren't in line with the NAACP, for one example. (The look on the guy's face when I later complained about the Clinton/Reno record of oppressing poor white Christian populations such as the Branch Davidians and the Miami relatives of Elian Gonzalez was priceless: this guy really believed in his liberalism, in the little guy, and he just hadn't yet put it all together until I pointed it out! I learned more about his views, of course, but he had few surprises for me, other than his high-for-a-liberal level of rationality.)

(An example of Walter Williams humor: contemplating whether the federal government should even mandate education for children at all, prompted by a caller to consider how far such a requirement should go, he concludes, paraphrased, "I'm in favor of mandating and funding a child's education through third grade, because, by then, he's learned enough to read the sign on my lawn that says 'Private Property -- KEEP OUT'!". ;-)

In summary: it isn't the politics so much as the completeness of the picture at a given depth that, for me, determines the usefulness of a media outlet. (I tend to believe left-wing politics intrinsically involves deceit by its elites, based on its structural characteristics and history, but I don't need to be sure of this to reasonably assess the completeness of a given media presentation and have tried to put this belief, or speculation, aside as a possible bias.)

I don't think I can possibly claim I'm representative of any portion of Americans or others, however.

Re:75 Million

[NickV]

Most of Salon's expensives come from actually paying well-respected and well-written authors.

Writers (professional writers, which you are clearly are not) do not work for free. Good writers (which Salon has in arguably larger numbers than ANY other news-op-ed-online-only publication) are very very expensive.

So it's more likely than not, not about location, or about offices or management. It's about paying the writers for the great thought-provoking content (when have you noticed a grammar or spelling error on Salon?) and bandwidth, in that order of cost.

Salon has been dead for a while

[Animats]

After all, they were kicked down from the NASDAQ National Market System to the Small-Cap Market in October of 2001. Their stock has dropped from $10 to $0.09. They've never made money. I had them on Deathwatch years ago. One of their editors used to bitch at me for listing them as doomed.

They had good writing. As a modest literary magazine, along the lines of the Atlantic or the Nation, they had potential. But no way should they have ever become a major public company. That was sheer arrogance.

There was so much of that in the dot-com era.

Re:Charging for content sealed Salon's fate

[sinserve]

DON'T pay for pron. I am in the "industry" and material is everywhere. Movies of every kind,
even full length high res movies. Pictures are even more, any fetish you have and there millions
of free galleries out there. Do you have a fetish for pissing pregnant asian women, in latex
and sunglasses? no problem, it is out there.

Search for "TGP" sites and you will find them, they are mushrooming everywhere. The usual "pay for content" business model doesn't cut it for pron sites anymore.
You will get to see excellent ad free material, your personal info will not be tracked,
there will no cookies of javascript hell, and STILL, the provider will make money.

There is no catch to it either, it is that simple (Ok, there is catch, but *YOU* have nothing
to do with it and it doesn't affect you in anyway.)

Successful sex entertainment sites no longer solely depend on digital media. There is a new
cash cow going on, and to milk it fully, we first need to exhaust all other material. The
serious businessman will know what I am talking about.

Re:Why not report the positive?

[brad.hill]

No offense, but user-submitted blogs like K5 are nowhere near the quality of Salon, with real writers (with editors! *gasp*), investigative journalism, news feeds, commentary from notables in the fields they cover, work for hire from professional writers, etc...

K5 and it's ilk have their niche, but there's no way that Plastic compares to what Suck used to be.