Washington Post Buys Slate From Microsoft

securitas writes "The Washington Post has bought online magazine Slate from Microsoft for an undisclosed sum believed to be in the millions of dollars. The sale comes almost five months after Microsoft put Slate on the block (Slashdot) in late July. If you're looking for a perspective from someone other than Slate's editor Jacob Weisberg, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz writes about the sale: 'According to ComScore Media Metrix, washingtonpost.com drew 4.5 million unique visitors last month, while Slate drew 4.8 million.' David Carr reports in the New York Times that Neilsen NetRatings recorded 6 million Slate visitors last month. Either way, Slate's audience is larger than the Post's online edition. You can learn more about the deal from AP via IHT or get streaming audio at NPR (Real|Windows Media)."

Comments

Who reads Slate

[upsidedown_duck]

I could never accept that Slate had genuine editorial independence from Microsoft. It's like MSNBC, Newsweek (I think), MSN, etc. that are all owned or influenced my Microsoft, and it's all very likely part of a grand marketing strategy.

Microsoft putting their brand on something is like a poison pill for credibility.

I mostly agree. They are both too corporatist

[Cryofan]

With a few exceptions both the Post and Slate revealed themselves to me as CorpGovMedia mouthpieces during the run-up and aftermath of the Iraq war. That really opened my eyes. So, I couldn't really care less if they both went under....

Instant hipness?

[Hawthorne01]

Sorry, Washington Post, but buying Slate does NOT mean you get the "New Media", anymore than Pathfinder meant that Time-Warner got it. The citizen-journalists of the blogsphere are where journalism is heading. There's a million fact-checkers out there, and the Old Media better wake up to it, or be cast aside.

Re:Instant hipness?

[garcia]

The old media is nearly useless these days - corrupt and driven by greed, spin and fear.

You neglect to mention that bloggers are just as greedy, full of spin, and willing to be either for the "fear" or diametrically opposed to it.

I don't have any faith in new media though because the truth doesn't naturally win out - the story that is accepted is that which has the best presentation and most nearly matches what the hearer wants to be true.

Sorry but I just don't trust the bloggers at all. Most of the time they are full of shit and break "stories" that are nothing more than trash.

I read "new media" with a grain of salt and pour over stories from several outlets. After that you might get a better representation of what actually happened before it was filtered through the various outlets (including the government).

Re:Instant hipness?

[miu]

Maybe I didn't make it clear that I don't trust the bloggers either. A "citizen journalist" has none of the restraints of the traditional journalists profession, because of that they can feel completely justified in using deceit and logical fallacies to convince their audience. I don't think of it quite so much as "everyone can be a reporter and fact checker" as "everyone can be a propagandist and shill".