Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Looking to Sell Slate Magazine
SeaDour writes "Wired News is reporting that Microsoft is in early discussions with five or six media companies over a potential sale of MSN's online magazine Slate. This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer."
Sigs cause cancer.
"This comes mere weeks after Slate recommended Firefox over Internet Explorer"
I don't think the fact Slate trashed IE has anything to do with the sale.
In fact, the article says Slate would still be accessible from the MSN Website, even though they would no longer hold any "property" ties with Microsoft. And what would that accomplish? Slate would be even more content-free than it already is, as it wouldn't depend on Microsoft at all, but it would still have the popularity / visibilty it enjoys being right there, in the MSN Website.
I mean, if Microsoft wanted to silence their editors, they would do anything but loose their power over the magazine. Instead, they are giving them a free ticked to say whatever they want, still enjoying the visibility they have.
I don't know why Microsoft chose to sell the magazine, but it can't be because of their trashing IE.
Just my 2c
There was some good 'anti-corporate' writing on slate, though. Like this piece from last week: Wal-Mart vs. Neiman Marcus - In the war between the "Two Americas," the rich folks are winning
--
Power to the Peaceful
What difference does it make? Remember -- Microsoft basically says that Internet Explorer doesn't exist anymore. It's a part of Windows, they say. So why does it matter if an MSN online magazine recommends Firefox as a stand-alone web browser on top of Windows, when Internet Explorer is already an integral part of Windows?
It's not as if Slate recommended that users switch to Linux or something like that. They're still using Windows, which means, whether they like it or not, they're still using Internet Explorer.
It's more likely that Microsoft would try to strong-arm the editors and the writers responsible for something like that into resigning rather than selling the entire magazine. I think they just don't care about it anymore and don't care to pay for it if someone else will.
Could they have been given a go with articles criticizing MS in order to seem more 'objective' and thus offer more incentive to a future buyer? maybe the editors knew the sell was in the cards?
;)
Apparent time order of events is irrelevant, as relativity shows
Its been well known that Slate was an experiment for MS, just like Sidewalk etc a few years back. I'm not surprised they are looking to sell it. I'm surprise they waited this long.
Hey, I woke up with a hangover this morning. Think that could have been caused by your lightning? My stupid doctor tells me its because I was drinking last night, what does he know?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
What if being vindictive makes you more money than being respected? Slate recommending a competing product could cost more money in losing their web monopoly than it means in higher subscription rates in Slate. I could see Microsoft saying, "Yeah, it might be true, but find a different way to increase readership or find another job." That's what I would say, anyway.
There's a meaningful answer. That Firefox nonsense was only useful in that it deflected the usual Micro$oft $ux vitriol into "what a stupid conspiracy" vitriol. If you look at the businesses that Microsoft owns, only one of them is involved in content production. In fact, the content that MSN's homepage buys is not even similar in subject matter or tone to Slate (or quality, I should add) - it's a totally different market. It's always been sorta of an orphan, mainly built as a hedge against AOL's acquisition of Time-Warner. As long as they're cleaning house, it makes perfect sense to sell off operations outside their core competencies.
Yes, that is a very interesting question. My brother was remarking this morning that he thinks MSN really missed the boat by not buying an AP wire feed like Yahoo did. Of course he's a journalist, so he reads the wires like geeks read
the poster's name is michael and from the blurb, I'm guessing this is michael moore.
Mod me off-topic, but I think it's ironic and therefore on-topic since this is a news website that has been bashing microsoft as if it were the bush administration.
I don't quite see it this way. It seems to me that Microsoft already went through it's phase of owning a lot of non-related businesses. Just look at msnbc and slate for example. Now they're realizing that they actually have a little competition now and need to focus on their core business.
Time makes more converts than reason
Microsoft used to own Expedia and Terraserver as well. Expedia is no logner owned by Microsoft and neither is Terraserver. Terraserver was initally started to promote a new version of Terraserver. Microsfto probably did not sell this when planned because there was noone who would buy it. Now they have a buyer. Microsoft is slowly but surely getting out of the content business only to keep some of the units that are doing well like MSNBC(which they only own part of).
Gorkman
Maybe it happened the other way around:
Slate hears rumblings that Microsoft is looking to dump it. The editors say, "Well if we're on the chopping block anyway..."
It is insightful, well perhaps not insightful, since there are no shortage of people with insight enough to see that rather than dumping a media outlet that is supposed to be unbiased. They should be dropping IE.
Perhaps, modded "correct" would be better?
You're right - I'm afraid that one got past my BS filter somehow. A quick google did not yield any independent confirmation.
Disney's own explanation is that big corporations need to stay apolitical. In a way, it's a more polite version of the explanation I gave. A big corporation has so many linkages to government that it probably doesn't want to be seen bashing the government.
Case in point: the current lead piece, "Lay Off the Bush Girls." It's a rundown of the resumes of the wastrel First Kids that concludes they're finally due some good press because being high-profile fuck-ups inevitably causes a surplus of bad press. You plow through it feeling that author Michael Crowley would really be much happier going harumph about the capital gains tax; like much of Slate's cultural material, it's indistinguishable from the political stuff. The piece is awkward, overlong, pedantic, and frankly a let-down after reading the teaser on the index page ("They drink. They party with P. Diddy"), which seemed to promise more than a dullish reminder of kids-will-be-kids. The most interesting thing about it is a self-admiring correction appended afterward: "The article originally claimed that both girls were wearing Calvin Klein gowns." Now, that's fact-checking.
There's nothing wrong with Slate if all you want from journalism is to be poured a nice big steaming mug of complacency. (Complacency never hurt business at Microsoft.) But there's the New York Times and a zillion other places for that. Slate could vanish tomorrow, and consensus thought would be just as loudly trumpeted by all the other pet publications of billionaires. I'd rather read Harper's Magazine, The Baffler, The Utne Reader, and Counterpunch, publications and sites that proceed from the idea that journalism is an act of independence.