Salon Asks for Help

How does a website spend $80mln? by yakly · 2003-02-23 10:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think worthless executives and overpaid contractors have milked this one dry, better to let Salon die than to keep dumping money into this greed-surrounded cesspool.

Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by Joel+Rowbottom · 2003-02-23 10:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Indeed. I'm afraid I have little sympathy for a company which has burned that much cold, hard cash -- maybe they shouldn't be asking the community for yet more cash to fuel the office heaters, but instead examining their revenue models.
I mean, come on, it doesn't take $80M to run a server farm and pay a few journos...

--
Smegma.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by leviramsey · 2003-02-23 10:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

The biggest thing that killed the dot-com boom was the exorbitant cost structure the companies put in place, especially in real estate.

Let's look at the major epicenters of dot-com activity: Boston, Manhattan, San Francisco, and Seattle. What do those cities have in common? Some of the highest rents in the country (as well as inflated costs of living, which required higher salaries).

The great benefit the Internet was supposed to bring was the complete de-emphasis of physical location. Salon could have found a home in, say, Springfield, Mass., where rents are cheap, there's a strong supply of intellectuals (the Five Colleges in Hampshire County), New York and Boston are close at hand, and the cost-of-living is lower.

The fact that sites which avoided getting the priciest digs (I'm looking at you, Kuro5hin) have survived and maybe even thrived is a testament to the folly of Salon, Inside, Slate, and all the other online media startups.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by Durindana · 2003-02-23 11:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

You morons.

Salon's been in business for several years. They've got office space to rent (in San Francisco, for God's sake), insurance to pay, bandwidth to pay for and employees - people like fact checkers, copy editors, paginators.

$80 million is not a lot of money for a media org, especially one that's been at the forefront of investigative journalism since its inception. There are unavoidable costs in responsible reporting, and bravo to Salon for trying to keep going.

That's all. You can go back to Fox News now - or Nickelodeon, whichever you prefer,
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by Wyatt+Earp · 2003-02-23 11:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Thats why the are tanking.

It's the Internet, why do you need a fancy ass place with SF, NYC, DC?

Content matters, not office digs.

Look at someone like Global Security.org, some of the best technical information on the military this side of Janes. Ran out of a basement and a garage office.

Salon didn't need the fancy digs, they should have slammed the cash into writers and worked out of a little office park in Oakland. Why have a nice office space when for a million dollars they could have set everyone up in the company with video confrencing and T1s.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by Nogami_Saeko · 2003-02-23 11:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Cough, cough...

80 MILLION (US) dollars is a HELL of a lot of money for an online-only publication.

Get a smaller office, get out of san francisco - as an online publication, who cares where their office is, could be out of a basement if there's sufficient bandwidth and room for some server racks.

There's something REALLY wrong if they can't stay afloat with 50,000 subscribers. Most pay-sites would only dream of having that many paying subscribers.

N.

--
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by quistas · 2003-02-23 11:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seattle is not in the same league as those others. Seattle's cost of living is about 10% over the national average. Boston and New York is twice that at 120%, San Francisco's even more, at about 140% of the national average.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by kfg · 2003-02-23 11:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

What's more, in Springfield you have huuuuuge. . . tracts of land begging for tenants.

Being able to large facilities for a buck a squared foot isn't unheard of.

Here in upstate NY my last business had 3000 square feet. I payed $350 month *with* electric/heat/air.

Now that I'm more aware of the situation I'm actually *less* inclined to subscribe. They were idiots who didn't know enough to make desks out of orange crates and boards until they got on their feet and now want me to bail out their overextragance.

Frankly, I think they owe *me* money. Lord knows I don't have it as good as they have.

KFG
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by greenhide · 2003-02-23 11:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Part of the problem is that to get financing, you must look like you already have money.

This is why a lot of dot-coms had to get offices in places that were expensive.

While it might be cost effective to have a server farm and offices in the middle of Iowa or something, it would have done damage to their image.

That being said, this might be the lesson of the whole dot-com (and even post-dot-com) world. Not necessarily that you have to be financially solvent from the get go (look at Amazon, for example), but rather that it may make more sense to ignore the financing world entirely.

If they had started with cheaper digs and had begun early on with a subscription model, they may have not gotten as large of an initial audience, but they would have developed a subscribership much earlier on. They also might have done well actually trying to start out as a non-profit entity. The truth is that a lot of business are effectively non-profit (all of the revenues generally go towards salary and operating costs). Had they gone non-profit, they could have easily wrangled the grants and donations necessary to survive, especially since becoming a member would be tantamount to a charitable contribution.

Trying to build one *after* the bubble burst was harder because no one trusted dot-coms to stick around anymore anyway.

I'd love to finance Salon.com. There are a *lot* of things I'd like to help out, if I had the money (and even though I'm a geek, I don't. Times are tough). The problem is that right now Salon really isn't at the top of the list.

--
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by Minna+Kirai · 2003-02-23 11:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

overly-long-desperately-needs-to-be-edited

Theoretically, the internet should remove length restrictions on stories. The reporter should be free to write more or less when it fits the material, instead of keeping column-inches in mind.

The editor's job in hypertext shouldn't focus as much on total length reduction, as on splitting an article into a main body and separate, data-filled sidebars, downloadable on their own.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by leviramsey · 2003-02-23 12:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

That being said, this might be the lesson of the whole dot-com (and even post-dot-com) world. Not necessarily that you have to be financially solvent from the get go (look at Amazon, for example), but rather that it may make more sense to ignore the financing world entirely.

Wall Street has tended to fuck up businesses on a regular basis. If I were to start a company, I would make going public a last resort. A privately owned company will almost always be more intelligently managed and by not having to worry about pleasing thousands of shareholders, more efficient.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by nomadic · 2003-02-23 13:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

80 MILLION (US) dollars is a HELL of a lot of money for an online-only publication.

Are you in the publishing business?

The only difference between Salon and a print publication is the lack of a hardcopy edition. They still have to pay for all the other expenses, plus the bandwidth and hardware.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by Brendan+Byrd · 2003-02-23 13:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Part of the problem is that to get financing, you must look like you already have money.

That's easy to fix: Don't go on the stock market. Lemme repeat that: DON'T GO ON THE STOCK MARKET! The single biggest cause of the downfall of all of the dot-com busts: Going public. Within a year of going public, their shares go up and down and up and down and crash and $0.00. If you don't go public, you don't risk losing your entire finacial structure.

--
Zodiac Survey
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by mlyle · 2003-02-23 14:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you're not willing to go public or be acquired, you're not going to get venture money.

And without access to capital of some kind or another, you're not going to get massive growth rates.

Going public is not a death sentence for a company by any means. The capital from the public markets is useful to continue to grow your business, along with the credibility you get with customers. Going public without knowing damn well what your revenues are going to be for the next several years, though.. that's stupid.
Re:How does a website spend $80mln? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-23 21:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wrong. The editorial offices did NOT have to be in SF. That's only for the partying convenience of Talbot and his execs. They could have situated themselves anywhere.

All that matters is that the writers are in places where the action is. Trust me, there is NO shortage of freelancers in SF, NY, LA, or DC. No, Talbot couldn't abide the idea of having offices somewhere affordable, like Oakland or Hayward. Hadda be in the most expensive city in the country!

Then BYE. by josh+crawley · 2003-02-23 10:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

If I couldnt pay rent, I dont stay there. If I cant pay for food, I starve. If I dont pay... I DONT GET. If they want to create a pay site, fine. Elsewise they DIE.

ANyways, the only orginazation which can "die and keep on living" is the government. There's ono limits how much they can take away.

Re:Then BYE. by plone · 2003-02-23 10:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yeah, just like Mandrake.
Re:Then BYE. by Forgotten · 2003-02-23 12:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

and most are either politically neutral or liberal leaning.

I don't believe this is true. The reason most conservatives think the media leans left and most liberals think it leans right is simple Psych 100 observer bias. Stuff within your comfort zone makes less of an impact on your awareness than that which offends you a wee bit (or a lot). Insofar as anything can be said to be "right" or "left" wing (or "liberal" vs. "conservative") anymore, Salon was somewhat left of centre (and for whatever reason, intentional or otherwise, most of the rightish commentary was by real raving loons like Sullivan or Horowitz). But there is as much right-wing commentary (and as many sites) on the web as left-wing, simply because those factions are rather balanced in society at the moment. People will argue about the 2000 US presidential election for all time, but the whole reason there's an argument is that it was so close. The real distribution on the web closely mirrors the constituency. At the moment I'd actually say that leans a bit right because of the still-popular terrorism stuff, but it'll swing back to the centre (probably as a result of backlash against the Robespierre-like terror of terror warnings).

You could even make an argument that everything will eventually swing back and forth 'til it reaches neutrality, if only because neutrality is constantly redefined and thus drifts itself to the current 50% mark. The entire concept of left and right wing is largely a product of media creation of target demographics. You have to align people first before you can sell them subscriptions in a world with such diverse opinions. There are still lots of right-wing people who are essentially 19th century conservatives (especially of late), and they're weirdly in bed with libertarians largely because of the convenient spectrum the media has defined. And the media very consciously does this, because each publication needs a large enough readership to stay in business. The trick is that if you waffle too much and actually try and be balanced - which for a short time Salon seemed to be doing - you offend everybody and you're toast. It's the biggest irony of political journalism.

So people generally want to read stuff they mostly agree with, but because that doesn't challenge them, they rarely remember it much. The media really is pretty balanced, and even when it isn't, equilibrium forces push it back that way.

Or so I believe. You may of course wish to write me off as a raving lefty academic postmodern deconstructing RELATIVIST, the worst of all equivocators. ;) But you will still have to account for observer bias (yours, mine, and everyone's), a phenomenon which is practically always one step more powerful than one thinks it is.

Salon killed themselves. by sakusha · 2003-02-23 10:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Salon committed suicide by alienating its core readership of liberals, when they brought on hyperconservatives like Sullivan and Horowitz. Note to editors: if you don't want to lose your subscribers, don't print essays that call them treasonous and anti-american.
You could see the writing on the wall when Salon hooked up with notorious blowhard Dave Winer. I bet they threw $200k down the Userland rathole, that would have been enough to pay the rent.

Re:Salon killed themselves. by Mike+Buddha · 2003-02-23 10:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oddly enough, I dropped my subscription a year ago because the liberal BS was getting a might bit thick for my tastes. A well spoken liberal thesis is interesting to read, but a lot of the crap they were slinging was along the lines of "conservatives are so stupid", something I'm not willing to pay for.

--
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Re:Salon killed themselves. by leviramsey · 2003-02-23 10:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oddly enough, I dropped my subscription a year ago because the liberal BS was getting a might bit thick for my tastes. A well spoken liberal thesis is interesting to read, but a lot of the crap they were slinging was along the lines of "conservatives are so stupid", something I'm not willing to pay for.

Exactly.

Salon's staff is amateurish to the point that they make K5 look professional.

The New Yorker, which essentially publishes the same sort of stuff that Salon does, manages to, by actually hiring people who know how to write, make the lefty stuff[/garbage] seem reasonable and well thought-out.
Re:Salon killed themselves. by nomadic · 2003-02-23 10:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yep, you shouldn't call conservatives stupid. It's incredibly rude to bring attention to their stupidity.
Re:Salon killed themselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-23 11:04 · Score: 0, Insightful

But conservatives ARE stupid! And intolerant. And hateful. And selfish. And short-sighted.

These things are obvious, especially given the current conservative administration.
Re:Salon killed themselves. by screwballicus · 2003-02-23 11:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

While I don't myself overtly and decisively oppose either "conservatives" or "liberals," I do emphatically oppose the use of those terms. And I realise it's absolutely rife.

The use of these categories, liberal and conservative, in American politics has always confounded me. As a Canadian, I just don't know what they are supposed to mean, although I understand their rhetorical purpose. I don't think they mean much, really. We've got a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party in Canada, but those are just names for parties. They don't mean anything literal. Interestingly, I've virtually never heard the words "liberal" and "conservative" used in that way by political scientists. I think that's due, frankly, to their inherent uselessness. The idea of throwing everyone in the country into one of only two categories seems ludicrous. The number of Canadians who will consistently vote for only one party is minute. There's an old law of Canadian politics that goes that the province of Ontario will only elect a provincial Liberal Party government if the national Conservative Party is in power and will only elect a provincial Conservative Party government if the national Liberal Party is in power. And this has held true for government after government. People aren't one of two things. And they don't stay as such from one government to the next. And I don't see why it should be asserted that Americans do. Even if they DO vote for one party consistently, the suggestion that all voters for that party have one way of thinking is one to which I object.

My point is, the enmity between "conservatives" and "liberals" here is silly, most of the time. There are more than two ways of thinking. If I were discussing American politics, I might refer to Republicans and Democrats, but Christian Conservatives, Christian Progressives, Social Libertarians, Anti-Federalists and whatever other categories you want to add absolutely do not fit into two categories.
Re:Salon killed themselves. by smagruder · 2003-02-23 23:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

And Liberals think Rush-heads are the representative group for "conservativeness." Boy, are they fooled! Rush is an entertainer. But he's appearing increasingly right about something: Liberals make their arguments via name-calling, PC policing and emotional irrationality.

Liberals should take a cue from the likes of Michael Kinsley. He at least tries to make intelligent arguments.

--
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist

Sounds like a classic death spiral by John+Miles · 2003-02-23 10:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Shyeah. Like I'm going to subscribe to a magazine that I suspect is going to expire before my subscription does.

It's hard to feel too sympathetic for Salon. With all of their moaning and groaning about overhead, you'd think they had to cut down dead trees, slice them up and cover them with ink, and mail them, or something. ("Oh, wait. You mean like every other magazine in the history of journalism?")

Dr. Darwin called -- he wants to cancel his subscription.

--
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.

Re:Sounds like a classic death spiral by sammy.lost-angel.com · 2003-02-23 10:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Salon.com is very cheap to subscribe to. $20 for a year, that's really good. The quality and quanity of output from the magazine is far greater than any monthly magazine you'd be paying $12-30 a year for.

The big problem with cutting trying to save money, is that they got a 10 year lease on a place in SF. They are locked into it, so they can't very easily go "well, we need to cut costs a bit, so we are moving into my basement." It's very unfortunate.

Fuck Salon. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-23 10:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Poor Salon, the poor, "New Media" company that was supposed to eat 'old media' and own the world in 5 years. It's so sad to see a public corporation fail, oh, I'm sorry, "the dream die. " Frankly, I don't think people should continue to support them thru what is their death throes. They've pissed away EIGHTY MILLION dollars and they're still spending money on creature comforts (200k a _month_ for rent? Are their offices solid gold with cocaine on tap?), while cutting the actual _production_ staff (writers, et al) left and right? Fuck That. Free market economy means that it's fine for people to pull stupid shit like this, but it also means that they are free to fail horribly.

Re:Subscription by davinc · 2003-02-23 10:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Agreed, I paid for a year as well... they are liberal, but there is nothing wrong with that if you are aware of the slant. Contrary to what the Rush Limbaughs of the world would have us believe, conservatism (preservation of the good things) and liberalism (reform of the bad things) can co-exist.

That being said, they do have articles which are well researched and I have enjoyed my subscription.

It's too bad... by rinks · 2003-02-23 10:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Considering more and more people in this country seem to be getting their "fair and balanced" news from Fox, this nation should be completely ignorant of everything that isn't waving an American flag within five years.. I enjoy Salon, I just subscribed to it. It's going to be sad when the only way to get information about your own country is to ready another country's newspapers.

--
My good looks paid for that pool, and my talent filled it with water.

Re:It's too bad... by StuDude · 2003-02-23 11:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

You showing exactly the sort of pompus intellectual superiority that causes many people to not wish to read salon.

The fact that Fox news has become so popular shows how far off the likes of CNN were from the "joe average" american feelings about topics.
Re:It's too bad... by SpryGuy · 2003-02-23 11:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sorry, but Fox News is about the least 'fair and balanced' news source out there. If you think otherwise, you're not being a "pompus intellectually superior" person, you're just being rational and sane.

Sorry, but bombast, sensationalism, and spewing hate sells. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it accurate news reporting. It's show business and it's about ratings and entertainment.

Besides, the fact that 'joe average' is rather uneducated isn't a shock to anyone with any awareness. But rather than pandering to the ignorance and prejudices of the masses, I'd rather more news outlets actually tried to inform and educate them. But again, where's the money in that? It's a vicious spiral down...

Salon has the advantage of showing various sides and other voices that the 'mass media' doesn't always carry. By providing more view points, a reader is able to more fully understand all the various sides and views on any given issue. I certainly don't agree with a lot of the stuff published on Salon (or Fox News), but knowing the other points of view helps round out my own opinions.

Alas, thinking in 'black and white' is simpler and takes a lot less effort than understanding all the complexities and shades of gray that exist in the real world, on every issue imaginable. Thus the popularity of Fox News and its ilk, which simply spoon-feed the "right answers" (pun intended) to the viewer.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:It's too bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-23 11:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

The fact that Fox news has become so popular shows that they program to the lowest commmon denominator.
Re:It's too bad... by Tukla · 2003-02-23 13:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

The same "Joe Average American" that made Jerry Springer and WWF Smackdown so popular?

left-coast, left-wing by lophophore · 2003-02-23 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Salon offers nothing to the centrist or conservative person who does not live in San Francisco. I used to read it in 1999, when it was new, and the content was interesting (remember the Surreal Gourmet?) but it had gone steadily down hill since then. The linked article talks about their expensive office space in downtown SF. Please. If they were running on a shoestring, why get the expensive office space? Doubtless this will get down-moderated as flamebait.

--
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't

Re:left-coast, left-wing by Imperial+Tacohead · 2003-02-23 12:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

I had half a mind to mod you as flamebait just because you asked for it. Saying "doubtless this will get modded down" is a scam which seems to almost universally result in up-mods, because the moderators are essentially challenged to prove that they're not part of the imaginary Slashdot hive mind. The fact that there have been at least twenty posts prior to yours saying exactly what you said without getting modded down ought to be assurance enough, don't you think? Just say your piece and be done with it.

Only need 53,000 more... by sholden · 2003-02-23 10:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the salon article:

If every one of our 53,000 subscribers brings in just ONE additional subscription, Salon will finally break even this year

That sounds like they're stuffed to me.

If they double their subscription base, they will break even. Not make a profit. Break even.

I guess they might be factoring in the 33% discount on "gifts", so maybe they only need a 66% increase in their subscriber base. Even so, that doesn't sound promising to me.

There's also the definition of 'this'. The financial year in the US starts on April 1, right? So maybe they mean if in the last month of the financial year, they earn as much money in subscriptions as for the other 11 months combined, they'll break even. If so that bodes even worse for the next year...

I didn't know liberals were so easy to alienate by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-23 10:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

So they print articles by Sullivan and Horowitz - why the hell should that alienate anyone? Or is "diversity" only apply to skin color, and not thought processes and political positions?

The Washington Post prints a regular column by George Will and I don't hear too many folks screaming about "alienation"!

Re:I didn't know liberals were so easy to alienate by leviramsey · 2003-02-23 10:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

And the Boston Globe even has a token conservative, Jeff Jacoby.

If it was the hiring of conservative contributors that alienated Salon's readership, than Salon's readers are idiots who are incapable of appreciating debates. In that case, Salon deserves to die because when your readers are idiots, you're not going to get a lot of advertising from companies that like intelligent customers.
Re:I didn't know liberals were so easy to alienate by sakusha · 2003-02-23 11:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hey, it's not the printing of hyperconservatives that offends the Salon readers. There are plenty of outlets for their writings (and most of what appears in Salon has already been published elsewhere). Its being expected to PAY someone to insult me. I refuse to subsidize hatemongers like Horowitz. If Salon dies because of it, tough shit, they should have known better.
And BTW Mr. AC, what ever makes you think the WaPo is a liberal newspaper? Even Woodward is a suckup to Bush.
Re:I didn't know liberals were so easy to alienate by Tim+Doran · 2003-02-23 11:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah, the Globe is notoriously liberal... is that reputation deserved?

Click
Click
Click
Click

Cheering over its demise by gordgekko · 2003-02-23 10:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

The only reason people like Russ Smith are cheering over Salon's demise is because David Talbot is such an insufferable asshole. They do have some good people on staff -- I've talked to Laura Miller on occasion and she does a good job with the books section -- but Salon is just what Talbot intended it to be when it launched: the online version of Mother Jones. Democracy dies if Salon disappears? You can only pray for someone to fail when they make those pronouncements.

--
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".

cyberbegging by LuxFX · 2003-02-23 10:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

In other news, CNN.com had a piece last week on the explosion of cyberbegging.

I have nothing against Salon, but why should we get all weepy when their business plan fails? More to the point, why is Slashdot giving them free advertising? Funny how my site wasn't slashdotted when I really needed some sales.

--
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'

With respect, I disagree. by Doctor+Funk · 2003-02-23 10:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Most liberals I know (including myself) find it very valuable to learn what the other side is thinking. In fact, the further to the left you go, the more respect you are likely to find for intelligent debate. As Jack Ryan said in "Red October, "It is wise to know the ways of one's enemy." Accusing us of traitorous and anti-american behavior, in fact, probably causes MORE liberals to read. Having said that, throwing a $200k salary at anybody is a bad idea when you can't pay the rent.

A Vital Community Resource by jlev · 2003-02-23 10:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Even if you don't agree with all of the views expressed there, you have to agree that Salon, like Slashdot, is one of the few truly independent news sources out there. Unfortunately, not everything on the internet can be entirely free. It costs money for Talbot and his crew to write; it is only fair that we pay to read. I'm a Premium Member, and just purchased a "Make A Difference" subscription so someone else can experience the wonder of independent media. In a world where the major news sources resort to fear-mongering to sell themselves, Salon and those similar to it are a last refuge of sanity. You have to remember, the sole purpose of television news is to keep you watching between commercials. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox aren't interested in presenting the truth, only something entertaining, or scary enough to keep you from changing the channel. Salon and Slasdot are different; the two communities should support each other. Do your part to keep Salon alive, buy a subscription, it's only $30, or $18.50 with ads. In the long run, that amount is negligible, even for the pimply faced teens. This probably sounds like an NPR fund drive, and it kind of is, but this vital source of information and commentary is going to die unless we do something about it. If one tenth of the ~600,000 registered Slashdot users help support Salon, we will double the number of Premium subscribers. This is doable, even if stopping the war, or overturning the DMCA isn't.

Re:A Vital Community Resource by jamesbrown1000 · 2003-02-23 11:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

" Even if you don't agree with all of the views expressed there, you have to agree that Salon, like Slashdot, is one of the few truly independent news sources out there."

What?

Are you serious?

They're "independent" only insofar as they'll allow extreme members of both political spectra to rant and rave about ... the other side of said spectra.

I cannot believe that anyone would consider Salon to be a "vital source of information" ... cripes. It's the same sh*t I get on Fox News, only on the other side of the aisle.

It's not vital. It's not independent. And if it's not attracting enough people who will pay for it ... goodbye, and good riddance.

--
Mindy: "Well...desserts aren't always right." Homer: "But they're so sweet!"
Re:A Vital Community Resource by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-23 12:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's a lot of drivel in your post but I'll just speak to this--
Salon and Slasdot are different; the two communities should support each other...
If you're talking about the "few truly independent news sources" Salon is not one. They accept advertisements in exchange for money. They decide which ads to run. They choose what articles to buy and or publish. They're in it for money. MONEY. Just like the TV stations you mentioned.

Truly independent news sources allow their readers to post news. There's no highly-paid editing crew sitting in $200,000/mo. office space calling all the shots.

Sites like www.FreeRepublic.com (an example - albeit VERY conservative) allow any registered user to post any news they want. Then registered users are free to discuss the issues. Sure, liberals will likely be shouted down but if they want to talk, they can. Even the wackos from both sides can post (and they do) as long as they stay within reasonable limits.

That's very close to an "independent news site." More independent than Slashdot, since there's no "moderators" that assign a "score" to any given comment based on their own political or whatever views. The posts are there for any reader to judge with no one else's opinions tacked on. Also, they're not "owned" by anyone (well, I suppose the guy that started it owns it in reality). The site is funded by donations.

Check it out and tell me if you still think Salon is an independent site. Again, you probably won't like the locals' take on life (since you feel so strongly about Salon) but be objective as to the method.

Support the independent press by socratic+method · 2003-02-23 10:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Even if you only occasionally enjoy reading a Salon article or disagree with the politics of some (or all) of its writers, I urge you to strongly consider a $30 yearly subscription. Slashdot readers are surely aware that the big press in America is beholden to special interests. We have no BBC or CBC here, just mediocre and sensationalist networks run by the likes of AOL and Rupert Murdoch.

Just as free speech is meaningless to the American poor, so too is free press when owned and controlled by billionaires. I have found Salon to be a great source for thoughtful and challenging articles. Supporting it is supporting democracy.

sm

Re:$30/year is a bargain by Carbonite · 2003-02-23 10:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sure there will be a lot of comments like: "this is just capitalism at work, survival of the fittest, etc."

If Salon goes under, then it's an example of how capitalism can FAIL.

In fact there are lots of comments that state that capitalism is working. Why? Because it's true. Salon pissed through a huge amount of money and failed to attract enough subscribers to survive. Salon has failed, capitalism has suceeded.

--
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben

Re:This is Horrible by NickV · 2003-02-23 10:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

You know what.. I'm sick of hearing about the "liberal mainstreeam media outlets" that all conservatives keep ranting on about.

I can name quite a few conservative outlets (and these aren't disputable by EVEN conservatives.) You got the "fair and balanced" Fox News, WABC with Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, the WSJ opinion pages (which are the most partisan op-ed pages in history, and they revel in this fact), newsmax, the drudge report, the new york post, the National Review, the Economist, etc etc...

Now what "LIBERAL" sources are there? CNN? You mean the CNN with Robert Novak and Carl Tucker (two prominent conservatives, one being the FOUNDING editor of The National Review.)

ABC? You mean a station that broadcasts about 2 hours of news an evening? MSNBC which just hired Pat Buchanan? The New York Times which have more than their fair share of conserataives gracing their op-ed pages? The New Republic? Which is more hawkish than any democrat out there on issues like Israel?

No, face it. There are very very very very very very very few liberal sources of the like of the National Review and Newsmax... you know the type.. the ones that have NO liberal/democrat columnists and such bitter angry non-substantive rants against the dems.... Salon actually is the only I can think of, and EVEN they have columnists like Horowitz.

So let's stop this "The world is run by liberal media" bullshit... it makes me sick.

Re:$30/year is a bargain by worst_name_ever · 2003-02-23 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

If Salon goes under, then it's an example of how capitalism can FAIL.

It seems to me that if Salon goes under because they spent more than they earned, it'll be Salon that fails. That's capitalism at work.

--

In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.

SUBSCRIBE TO SALON. DO IT. by mutzinator · 2003-02-23 10:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Over the last few years, I have consistently been impressed with the quality of journalism found in Salon's pages. To all those of you that have enjoyed some of salon's work over the years, please consider subscribing.

Try this: Go to the Slashdot search page and search for "Salon". I get over a hundred results in the last year alone. And these are not just links to AP newswire stories hosted at Salon, these are original content, bankrolled by them. For all you out there bitching about "how can a website spend 80 million dollars?" that's how. They spend that much by funding the production of original, quality content.

It's also hilarious to see some of you bitching about how Salon is going out of business by alienating their readership by publishing perspectives that are too liberal or too conservative. While having a liberal slant in general, Salon publishes perspectives that challenge their readers. I disagree with most of what Andrew Sullivan writes, but I appreciate the diversity of perspectives that his writing provides. If I wanted a news medium that always told me what it thought I wanted to hear, I'd just tune into the network news every night.

Do you want to see this source of independant journalism go out forever? If they don't a big jump in subscriptions, it will. I know lots of you out there are unemployed, but lots of you aren't. the $20 or $30 salon subscription is nothing to you highly paid software engineers.

I'm not working right now (I'm a student), so money is tight, but I have subscribed and after I write this, I am going to go over and try to extend my subscription. And yes, I have done my best to encourage friends and relatives that read occasionally to subscribe as well (with three successes).

They are a quality publication that you have all been sporadically enjoying for many years and now they need your help. Please subscribe.

I just subscribed... by dennisr · 2003-02-23 10:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

I also subscribe to slashdot, ars technica, and gamespot. I am one of the few who actually support good content. Please if you have put off subscribing - to any site - do so now. Show that you want good content. No flames about slashdots quality either - you know as well as I do you check this site multiple times a day!

Re:SUBSCRIBE TO SALON. DO IT. by NineNine · 2003-02-23 10:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

For all you out there bitching about "how can a website spend 80 million dollars?" that's how. They spend that much by funding the production of original, quality content.

OK, let's look at this... Big picture stuff... Server co-location, $1000/month, tops. The rest should go to content production. For $80 million, you could pay 80 writers $100,000 each for 10 years. Now, Salon hasn't been around for nearly 10 years, and they don't have 80 writers (more like 10?). And $100K/year is a nice salary, *especially* for a journalist. So, I'm still asking, where the fuck did their money go to?

$80 million spent, not lost or in debt by eggboard · 2003-02-23 11:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's be clear: some of the money they've raised over the year is simply gone, exchanged for stockholder equity: that's investment capital, not lost money. They spent it, the stockholders have stock, the money isn't owed to anyone.

A very small amount of money in relative terms is actually owed, under a few million I believe, but their operating costs exceed their income and they don't have any sources of stock -> money exchanges.

It's still ridiculous, of course, to have spent that much, but it's just pissed away not owed.

--
Freelance tech journalist for the Economist, MIT Technology Review, Macworld, and others

Re:This is Horrible by Vellmont · 2003-02-23 11:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'd mod you up if I had any moderator points. The mainstream media has become wickedly conservative in the last few years. Obviously Salon has a liberal bias.. but the posts on here act as if it was the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh! (That role goes to Michael Moore, which Salon in fact has had several critical articles about Moore). I encourage people to get some larger perspective on news sources before making judgements about degrees of bias.

--
AccountKiller

Re:Why subscribe... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-23 11:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

+1 Truthful

Salon was never that great by cartman · 2003-02-23 11:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Salon's biggest difficulty is the mediocre quality of its content. Salon tries to be an educated, urban, lefty magazine, but it doesn't quite make it. There are other magazines in the same space: The New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, Mother Jones, Harper's, and so on. Can anyone seriously pretend that Salon's content is the same quality as, say, the Atlantic Monthly? When I saw that Salon wanted ~$30 to subscribe, I thought to myself: "I don't want to read their articles that badly." And I like leftist opinion journals.

Fuzzy math? by moosesocks · 2003-02-23 11:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Doing some simple math, there's no way this makes sense.

80 million owed divided by 50,000 new subscribers = $1600 per subscriber which would be needed to make them break even. That doesn't make any sense

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose

Bias isn't about personalities by Lovejoy · 2003-02-23 11:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's about what's covered, how long it's covered, and what words are used to cover it.

The ABC/CBS/NBC newscasts, from which most Americans get their tiny bit of news, is very left-of-center in its coverage. Extremely anti-Israel pro-Palistinean, pro Democrat. They use Democratic talking points like scripts. Good grief - look at Dan Rather!

Sixty Minutes, another prime source of news/analysis for Americans is as liberal as they come.

CNN and MSNBC in general have a liberal tenor, but I find CNN's coverage to be excellent and I'm smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Fox News is conservative, no doubt, but it is the only 24 hour news network in the US that leans right.

Most journos are liberals. (The Washington Post staff voted 80% for Al Gore. Similar results in the NY Times, Boston Globe, etc..) The result is conservatives have mustered their forces and they're winning! But the libs have no one to blame but themselves. For so long they had a stranglehold on the media. They created a huge, angry, pent-up demand for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News, etc..

I don't have the time or the patience to get into a tit-for-tat on the merits. There are plenty of liberal voices out there. There are more and more conservative voices. Many of both stripes are jerks or idiots. (Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh)

Best of all, now we ALL have a choice. (What, don't you have a sub to _Mother Jones_?)

--
Yes, it's a blog. Sorry if that offends you.

Re:SUBSCRIBE TO SALON. DO IT. by Carbonite · 2003-02-23 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do you want to see this source of independant journalism go out forever? If they don't a big jump in subscriptions, it will.

Salon is one source of independant journalism, not the only source. Their business model was terrible, demonstrated by the fact that they need to double the number of subscribers simply to break even. The best writers will be picked up by other sites and publications, while the mediocre ones will need to find other work. Don't prolong Salon's life, let it die quickly and with some dignity.

--
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben

Re:$30/year is a bargain by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-23 11:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

"then it's an example of how capitalism can FAIL."

What do you mean? One just has to mention The $200k/month rent to shoot holes in that little dreamboat. I am sure I am not the only one that would like to be their landlord!

If you think capitalism isn't working, perhaps you should attend their Going Out Of Business Sale... just to see what kind of bargains you can get.

PS, I couldn't blow $80 million buying premium space at a mall and stocking the damn thing!

http://tenant-search.net/dealmakers/2001issues/a pr il27/space_place.asp

Salon would need to be subsidized by cartman · 2003-02-23 11:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Alot of ideological publications cannot make it on their own. "The Nation" has never made money. "National Review" (on the right) is supported by WFB's family wealth. NPR takes government subsidies and still tirelessly presses is subscribers for more money!

There are only two kinds of media that can independently survive in America:

1. Mass-market outlets that take a "least common denominator" approach to content, trying to appeal to a wide array of people (Fox, Rush Limbaugh, Newsweek, US News, etc).

2. Outlets which have very high-quality content (Harper's, Granta, etc), for which a few people will pay a significant amount of money.

Salon is neither of these. To survive, it will require a subsidy, just like "National Review" and "The Nation."

Marketplace of Ideas by org.earth.Citizen · 2003-02-23 11:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the hiring of all the conservative voices on FOX,MSNBC,CNN, etc. is in response to marketplace demand,as it should. Remember MSNBC's hiring of Donahue was heralded as the liberal answer to the conservative commentators? Well Donahue's ratings are in the toilet, and his days are numbered. There have been many attempts at a radio talk show response to Limbaugh but they all consistently fail. Could it be due to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy(tm) Hillary spoke of, or could it be that many leftist ideas fail in the marketplace in forums where they can be directly challenged? TV and radio need to sell advertising dollars and are purely ratings driven. If a TV or radio broadcaster had a left-wing commentator who consistently scores high ratings do you seriously think they would get rid them for ideological reasons, even though they bring in the advertising bucks? Of course not- they're in business to make money. But the liberal viewpoint in these media outlets fails time after time. Is it because the liberal viewpoint is being silenced or because the liberal ideas aren't that great to begin with? (the answer to that probably depends on your own political beliefs.) As far as bias in the print media (L.A. Times, Washington Times,etc.) it does exist but now that it is being exposed it doesn't occur as blantantly. Back in the day, whenever describing a republican such as Dick Armey, Tom Delay, etc. it would be prefaced with "right-wing","extreme-right wing",or "ultra-conservative". Do you recall the last time a democrat such as Ted Kennedy or Maxine Waters was referred to as "extreme-left wing" or "ultra-liberal" in mainstream print? The phrases "big oil" and "big tabacco" are frequently used. Do you recall ever seeing the phrases "big union" or "big environmental lobby"? Pro-gun control people are referred to as "activists". Anti-gun control people are referred to as "lobbyists".

Location still matters, even with the Internet. by Psychochild · 2003-02-23 11:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

The great benefit the Internet was supposed to bring was the complete de-emphasis of physical location.

I'll tell you that's simply not the case because of all the things that do depend on physical location. The biggest example is taxes. I'm the co-founder of a small company that runs an online RPG, Meridian 59. We're a "virtual" company with people that live in both California (specifically the Bay Area) and Connecticut. Because of this arrangement, I get to do over twice the amount of paperwork for taxes. Since we pay people wages, we have to register in both states for various payroll tax reporting. On top of this, since we have workers in both states, we're considered to be "doing business" in both states, so we're subject to the Sales and Use taxes for each state. When we sold some CDs containing the installation of our game, we had to report total sales and break down the sales that happened in each state in order to pay the proper taxes on them. As CFO, this took a non-trivial amount of my time to collect and organize this information, and to fill out the appropriate form. Finally, there's no substitute for face-to-face contact. Building a small business is about building relationships with people; there's only so much you can do over Trillian or even a phone call. As for the SF Bay Area, it's not so simple. Yes, it's stupid expensive to live out here. But, when you consider that there are two major cities, one of which is known to be one of the few cultural centers in the US, you realize what you are paying for. Also, there's a strong concentration of truly clueful technical people out here, especially ones that have the required skills for game development. Two of the people that are working with us (on the cheap, I might add) I met around here due to our shared interests. Some insight on the matter,

--
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog

Re:Location still matters, even with the Internet. by sudog · 2003-02-23 13:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Uh.. that's because you're spread out over multiple locations, not because "location matters". You're comparing your own business, with spread-out employees, and a company that centralized in a horribly overpriced city.

The point was that they should've rented something out in a remote location instead of frittering away their money on an overinflated standard of living. You don't think they money they'd save by doing this would make up for the extra paperwork? Get real.

Perspectives by Loundry · 2003-02-23 11:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

From my POV (I am in the UK) all american news media is right wing.

From my point of view, all UKers fall somewhere between socialist and communist. Then again, sweeping generalizations like mine and yours are not very helpful.

Fox news is so right wing it is like a parody.

Oh, it can get much worse than the Fox news channel. Take, for example, WorldNet Daily or Newsmax.com, which make a point of headlining stories about Christian persecution and how Darwinism is being refuted. Hell, it can even get worse than that. Perhaps check out the Hal Turner Show.

For that reason I am always amazed to see some people claim CNN is "liberal".

CNN is pretty fair, though I've never heard them criticize a government program. Dan Rather is a much better example of Leftist bias in American media.

Can you US guys get Euronews (satellite news tv channel)? I wonder what you make of it in comparison to your home grown news channels.

Let me guess: "America is the source of all the world's problems. The Government is the solution to all the world's problems. Individality must be suppressed. The Government is the source of morality. Capitalism is evil. There is nothing wrong with communism; the problems have only been in its implementations." Did I get it right?

--
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.

Don't despair - there is another. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-23 12:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

While it will be sad to see Salon shut down, there is another source of intelligent, insightful commentary for the new millennium.

Why Salon Sux by N8F8 · 2003-02-23 12:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've said it before and I'll say it again : Reading Salon liberal journalism is like getting punched in the face with your hands tied behind your back.

I like reading opinions I disagree with but I hate it when there is no real method to rebut. Disagree with a story? Tough luck, no way to contact the author and no forum tied directly to the story.

I could go further and say the liberals running Salon run a budget about as well as the liberals in politics handle budgets. No wonder they are pleading for handouts. Small wonder they aren't blaming the successful websites for their demise and demanding a forced redistribution of the popularity.

--
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power

facts - documented effort 'bout "liberal media" by inditek · 2003-02-23 13:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

on the tangent of the so-called "liberal" media, this essay is a good (published beyond this homepage of the author) critique of his common run-ins of the critiques of Chomsky and Herman's critique of the mainstream media with their "Propaganda Model." http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/herman review.htm. check it out... you'll learn about the propaganda model, and if you don't agree with it - you might at least (hopefully) come up with more creative critiques than what jensen debunks.

Re:best wishes by uncoveror · 2003-02-23 13:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I like Salon, but not enough to pay to read a website. That is a flawed business model. If advertising won't pay the bills, their demise is probably inevitable. Now, only a generous philanthropist willing to give them a huge grant can save them. Too bad I'm dirt poor, or that might be me.

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.

Re:Damn Good by MikeFM · 2003-02-23 13:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hell, if you can buy healthy food, a decent place to live, and keep your utilities on your doing better than majority of people in this world. You should certainly be paid for your work and good use of your talents but really do we need to make hundreds of thousands (or millions) per year to be successful and happy? Worse how do you take millions of dollars and throw it all away?

Domain name and dns hosting: $20/year.
A decent web and email server: $15/month.
Artwork for your website: $500.
Home PC w/ monitor and printer: $600.
Internet connection: $20/month.
Electric bill: $100/month.
Office desk: $100.
Pay to self: $40,000/year.
Advertising: $40,000/year.
Write'n skillz: priceless.

How do you spend $80mil? Seriously even with a few guys on staff and the increasing cost of server space as bandwidth usage went up it'd take a lot of work to blow that kind of money. They didn't notice the approaching redline in time to change their ways?

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.

Yeah by autopr0n · 2003-02-23 13:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

Look. 50,000 x $5 is $250,000 thousand dolars a month. They are making a quarter million dolars a month. If you can't run a print or online mag with that much money, something is wrong.

They could also save a lot of money on layout by using a CMS, soemthing a print mag can't do (AFIAK).

Salon is cool, but hugly wasefull.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-23 14:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

You seem to be assuming that all 50,000 subscribers are doing so on a monthly basis. Most of those subscribers probably bought an annual subscription which is $30 or $2.50/month. That comes to only $125,000 a month. When you consider that they have new content every day, usually from some pretty big names, it's obvious why they are having trouble making a profit.

Business Plan Math for the Startup by John+Murdoch · 2003-02-23 13:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

MEMO:

TO: David Talbot
FROM: John Murdoch, consultant
RE: Salon Business Plan

Executive summary: It's the math, stupid.

Dear Dave:

I have read of your impending demise on SlashDot, including links to an article on the Globe and Mail site suggesting that you are paying $200,000 per month in rent for space in San Francisco and a smaller--but similarly mind-blowing--amount on space in New York. I also read your plea to readers, saying that if each of your 53,000 subscribers just signed up one additional subscriber, why Salon would be able to break even. America would continue to have a vocally left-wing e-rag; the earth would continue to revolve.

The business problem
It's the math, stupid. If your assertion in the editorial plea is correct (that you need an additional 50,000 subscriptions to break even) then your annual budget is in the neighborhood of $3,000,000. But your annual rent ($200,000/month) runs to $2,400,000 a year--leaving $600,000 for staff and editorial content.

Simply put, you have zero reason to have any office space in San Francisco or New York. You're running a virtual magazine, remember? That's a synonym for website. If Rob Malda and Jeff Bates can run SlashDot from Holland, Michigan, what makes you think you need to be paying $100 per square foot? You need a decent connection to your hosting sites, and a place to keep the handful of full-time employees left on the payroll.

How you could re-organize
File for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. That protects you from your creditors while you develop a plan for re-organization to submit to a bankruptcy court judge. Yeah--your main money men will take it in the shorts: John Warnock and the Silicon Valley liberals who fronted the $81,000,000 you have pissed away will have to write off their investments. But the big thing Chapter 11 will do is get you out of those, um, burdensome (read: IN-blinking-SANE) leases. No bankruptcy judge in the country will allow you to pay for top-dollar real estate for the purpose of hosting a web site--the leases will be broken. Then you can move on to the rest of your re-organization.

Re-organization:
You have 53,000 subscribers--some pay $18.50 per year, but most pay $30 per year to avoid the ads. Let's assume an average subscription of $24, and (round numbers) gross revenue of $1,270,000. Let's figure on 6 full-time equivalent employees at a fully-loaded cost of $60,000 apiece (including salary, taxes, benefits, etc.): that's $360,000 in payroll. 1000 square feet of "office/flex" space in any moderate industrial park will run you approximately $8 per square foot per year--that's $8,000 in rent. Toss in a thousand a month for heat/light/power/telephone, and another thousand for office expenses, furnishings, furniture, and equipment--soup to nuts, your total "SG&A" expenses run to $392,000. Leaving you $880,000 per year for writers and hosting fees. Top-notch editorial doesn't come for free--but almost Nine Hundred Grand buys you a lot of articles at a thousand bucks a pop.

But don't let that stop you from begging...
Hey--public broadcasting stations have been threatening their imminent demise for decades. So, for that matter, have dozens of television evangelists. If you're just scamming your subscribers for a bit more cash--hey, it helps the bottom line. Even the politically-correct have to pay the rent....

But let's be clear about one thing
Your financial problems are problems of your own making. Paying millions of dollars for glam real estate was "making a statement." It sure was--"we are D-U-M-B!" You have the ability to solve your problems--use the bankruptcy provisions the law allows you. Doing so will keep you in business, and allow you to continue to have a voice in American public discourse. If you fail to do so, your voice will be silenced by your own management failure--not some secret cabal of "voices in the present administration" who might want to silence you.

Re:They hired the best writers around. by rnd() · 2003-02-23 13:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Agreed. But Salon's real heyday was in 2000... back when the writing had a point besides "well now you see, the author is quite intelligent, trendy, and free-thinking"...

I liked the documentary style writing, as well as Camille Paglia's stuff. She stayed strong long after Maureen Dowd resorted to utter self-parody.

--

Amazing magic tricks

Re:International news *is* available in the US... by jpetts · 2003-02-23 14:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have to laugh if you think there's a large difference between the American news and British news.

I certainly do think so: I have listened a lot to both US and UK news, plus when I used to live in Portugal and France I listened to news in both of those countries too (in French and Portuguese respectively, i.e.not for English speakers), and the coverage was for more comprehensive than the parochial and superficial US news.

Experience tells me that the news is more comprehensive, and when there is coverage of matters unfavourable the incumbent government, and aggressive and intrusive questioning of ministers and officials, my senses tell me that there is not a systemic pro-government bias to the BBC.

--
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender

Economizing, deflation, or whatever, it's too bad by algebraist · 2003-02-23 14:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've been a member of Salon for quite a while and did what I could to support them. I would be sorry to see it go. I think it's funny that people think Salon is "left". I mean, if it is left, what is the Boston Phoenix or the Village Voice?

I also would be sorry, and more pertinently to Slashdot, because I think their design for semi-automated publishing was kind of neat, and it is one of the last examples of a house doing their own development work I know of. That is a dwindling group.

While I cannot address the questions of rent for their offices -- which if true, I agree seem excessive -- I think "the end of the dot-com bubble" means more than the crashing of way-out business models, excessive spending, and such. I mean, when MoTown was starting up, they were excessive in parties, liquor, etc

To me, these companies are failing as much because of deflation in the information technology industry as anything else. That deflation is caused:

partly because of low interest rates in the economy
partly because the hardware component of the industry is now commodity-based and people have an expectation that prices should drop, for those and telecommunications costs
partly because programming labor is cheaper and more widely available
partly because non-IT businesses are fiercely cutting costs, including moving to shrinkwrap solutions for their IT needs, even if they are not a good match
partly because the Internet marketplace has long had expectations that things there should be free or available at modest charges.

The last effect is a subtle, I think. Since good news coverage and similar entertainment is now available on the Internet and cheaply, any premium or brick-and-mortar company has to deal with not so much with e-business competition but with the expectation that new can be had for much less. Why subscribe to the New York Times paper when most of what's good about it is available online for zip?

I think whatever happens to Salon is part of a trend, because what we earn for doing information technology is diminishing and will continue to diminish.

--
Jan Theodore Galkowski, (Oo) http://www.smalltalkidiom.net/ MySQL,PHP,ETL,SQL,MinGW C, and plucking the Web

Re:International news *is* available in the US... by rizawbone · 2003-02-23 15:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm lucky enough to live in Canada and be able to choose from all the major US networks, the major canadian networks, and the public networks CBC and the BBC.

I can tell you from first hand experience from handling of major news, the US media lacks a certain amount of professionalism. I'm not a 'US SUCKS' parroter, but your news media is incredibly weak.

when a major story breaks out, their seems to be a need to put a sensational headline on it (Heroes in the Sky/Our Nation Under Attack/...) and then play it up in a frantic manner. Once the real news stops, focus shifts to constant 'reaction' updates (Our Emergency Workers, American Heroes/School Children Prepare for the Next Attack/People Still Fucking Terrified of them Crazy Snipers...). I find that american news is more focused on ratings and getting the most heart-wrenching anecdote then actually reporting the days news.

Every peice of news is going to have a spin on it, but in my comparison of all 3 countries, I have to say the BBC is my favorite newscast to watch. At the end of the day I get the most news and the least amount of national bullshit. Seriously, I can't even watch cnn anymore. If its not BBC or CBC then I personally can't stand to watch it.

But hey, it's just my opinion.

Who cares about Salon? Will anyone save The WELL? by joshuac · 2003-02-23 15:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

In the grand scheme of things, Salon is just another online newsjournally type site, if they go away, we are not losing anything unique. The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Exchange on the otherhand, has been around since the 80's...I remember having the The WELL on my dial list as I went through my nightly BBS romp.

Unfortunately, through various twists and turns, The WELL ended up under Salon's ownership. If Salon goes under, does this mean The WELL will also? That would be horrible and ironic end for something as insignificant as Salon to take down a piece of internet history with it...in 10 years (assuming Salon shuts down, which it likely will) few people will remember or miss Salon...but 20 years down the road, The WELL is still remembered for it's place in the early internet, and I know there are plenty of people who will miss it.

Otoh, maybe more people like Salon than I realize; but somehow I doubt it is the same as The WELL.

I hope if Salon goes under, that The WELL will somehow be preserved. As for Salon.com, I could care less.

Re:fright-wing by MacAndrew · 2003-02-23 16:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

yeah, so much is this cheesy "these people are such dummies" or simpler still, use liberal as synonym for stupid. It's not to much that I disagree with him as I tune out to empty rhetoric. The conservative writers I take seriously -- and enjoy reading -- are the ones who write well and persuasively.

The NYT was for a while running Sullivan prominently, even a Sunday Magazine cover if i recall. I don't know whether they were making the same mistake as Salon, thinking that bring Sullivan on innoculates against charges of liberal bias. I haven't noticed him much lately. But really guys, there are better choices! I'm glad they keep Safire, even if I detest him 2/3 of the time. :)

For the record, I did subscribe to Salon.

Re:best wishes by ball-lightning · 2003-02-23 16:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

Out of curiosity, is there something that print magazines do that web sites don't that they might be able to adapt?

Actually, web sites do exactly what print magazines do, they sell advertising. Its a little known fact, but most magazines spend more money per-subscriber than the actual subscription. If they could, they would give the magazine away for free (some do) but the reason they make people pay subscriptions is because advertisers don't want to advertise unless they know a person is going to read the magazine (if you pay 20~40 dollars a year for something, chances are your going to look through it).

Schadenfreude, Bankruptcy, & the Prisoners Dil by rkent · 2003-02-23 17:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have little sympathy ... I mean, come on, it doesn't take $80M to run a server farm and pay a few journos...

First of all, that $80M is the total they lost, ever. Of course it's a lot of money, but others did way WAY worse. Even amazon, who we regard as somewhat successful, was losing between 25%-125% of that amount per quarter until just 6 months ago*. And, as many others have pointed out, one of the reasons that they still have ongoing losses is the digs in downtown SF, with a lease negotiated in the halcyon days of the late 90s when it seemed like a good idea.

What I don't understand is how everyone refuses to be understanding of the situation. We all know, times were good, now times are bad; why dance on Salon's grave before the body's even cold? Even if you disagree with its political slant, Salon has had tons of insightful articles by a wide array of interesting columnists, and they're flogging a business model we'd all love to see succeed: the pureplay online publication. Salon's a great thing caught in a bad place -- be careful wishing for them to fail spectacularly, because that implies lots of other imminent failures you may not like so much.

That said, if the primary reason they're in such a tight spot is that horrible lease, then this is exactly the kind of situation that bankruptcy protection was designed for. I for one would LOVE to see Salon file for bankruptcy and reorganize, not because it would be a sign of failure, but precisely the opposite. This is a financial committment that could very realistically stop them from operating. They shouldn't be in that expensive location any more, and the landlord will most likely not ever see the money anyway. So why sink the ship along the way?

THAT said, the fact that they're still floundering with no plan is the reason I haven't subscribed yet. Times are tight; I could certainly afford $20 a year, but I'd rather not spend $20 for 1 month or possibly 2. If 50,000 of us all signed up at once, they may have enough revenue to continue indefinitely, but no one signup is going to save them. The information I'd like to see from a "fellow prisoner" is what Salon's going to do to make sure they stick around a while - I think bankruptcy could be key.

Notes:
* According to EDGAR online via yahoo financial

Re:The /. model is the future of online publish by 17028 · 2003-02-23 17:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Publishing? Oh yea, linking to news sources, adding a short un-edited blurb, and providing a forum is *really* the future of publishing. :P

Re:Schadenfreude, Bankruptcy, & the Prisoners by bungo · 2003-02-23 18:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Really, you can't honestly compare Amazon and Salon.

Take away Amazon's web site, and what do you have? A *huge* company with buildings, supply chains, delivery systems, etc... If they had a physical shop you could walk into, you wouldn't think that they're anything different than any new mega-chain spending money putting up shops and building market share.

The only thing with Amazon is that they are a web-based only catalogue ordering company. I know that there are alot of other companies in the US that are catalogue-only. That's what you should be comparing them to.

Salon is a web magazine site. No big inventory, no supply and distribution chains. All you need is a webserver, a co-lo, an editorial team, and some freelance writers. There is nothing forcing them to spend alot of money on fancy offices, marketing executives and coke habits. Sure, they wouldn't be as big, but they would probably stil be around.

--
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName

85 of 718 comments (clear)