Washington Post Buys Slate From Microsoft

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Washington Post Buys Slate From Microsoft

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Tuesday December 21, 2004 @04:42PM from the it's-easy-and-it's-required dept.

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)."

19 of 156 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Am I the only one who immediately thought... by Sensible+Clod · 2004-12-21 16:48 · Score: 5, Funny

'why would one modern company buy something so low-tech from a tech company, of all people?'

Then my mind saw those funky slate 'newspapers' from the Flintstones...

*shudders*

--

The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Who reads Slate by upsidedown_duck · 2004-12-21 16:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
1. Re:Who reads Slate by rawket.scientist · 2004-12-21 17:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I could never accept that Slate had genuine editorial independence from Microsoft.
  
  Slate did recommend Firefox over IE.
  
  --
  John Hancock wuz here.
2. Re:Who reads Slate by aengblom · 2004-12-21 17:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I don't mean to say you shouldn't be aware of the issue (Slate makes it pretty clear they they are owned by Microsoft), but that you should actually think for yourself.
  
  Make a decision based on the reality and not your assumptions. Hell Slate endorsed Firefox just a few months ago and it bashed a big huge Washington Post series this week. (And this has been expected for months.)
  
  --
  
  So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
3. Re:Who reads Slate by Short+Circuit · 2004-12-21 18:12 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  And was promptly offered for sale...
  
  --
  tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
I mostly agree. They are both too corporatist by Cryofan · 2004-12-21 16:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

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....

--
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Next... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-21 16:55 · Score: 4, Funny

According to the next forthcoming story by ComScore Media Metrix, Slate drew over 9.6 million unique visitors this month... after the site being mentioned on slashdot'
Instant hipness? by Hawthorne01 · 2004-12-21 16:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
1. Re:Instant hipness? by miu · 2004-12-21 17:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There's a million fact-checkers out there
  The old media is nearly useless these days - corrupt and driven by greed, spin and fear. 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.
  
  --
  
  [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
2. Re:Instant hipness? by garcia · 2004-12-21 17:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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).
3. Re:Instant hipness? by miu · 2004-12-21 18:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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".
  
  --
  
  [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
A different perspective? by dominion · 2004-12-21 16:55 · Score: 4, Funny

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

In other news, if you're looking for a different perspective on the two party system and it's ramifications for a healthy democracy other than Republican George Bush, here's Democrat John Kerry.
Inner Problems? by homeobocks · 2004-12-21 17:04 · Score: 5, Funny

I guess Microsoft is tired of their magazine supporting Firefox.

--
MOUNT TAPE U1439 ON B3, NO RING
Re:Sounds like a bad deal by aengblom · 2004-12-21 17:26 · Score: 3, Informative

And how much of that slate traffic is caused because slate is so tied in to MSN which is the default startpage for 90% of the home computer market?

Much of it. And if you RTFA, you'll find that that partnership has been retained.

--

So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
This is cool by sQuEeDeN · 2004-12-21 17:28 · Score: 3, Informative

To be honest, I really like Slate. Read it every day. They are really quite independent, like when they bashed IE. This might be quite a non-news item, ultimately (I hope)

--

Recursive (adj.): see 'Recursive'
Reasons to read Slate by akratic · 2004-12-21 17:55 · Score: 5, Informative
Who reads Slate? I do...obsessively. Some reasons why:
- Dahlia Lithwick's blow-by-blow accounts of Supreme Court arguments provide much more detail and insight than you'll find in a newspaper. Take a look at this report on the medicinal marijuana case .
- "Explainers" provide interesting background information on recent news, such as this article on dioxin poisoning, published after the recent events in the Ukraine.
- Their editorials and analyses are both carefully thought out and bolder than what you'll typically see in print--sometimes to the point of being a bit disturbing, like this article advocating "minimally invasive" interrogation techniques. (For the record, I don't agree with this article, but I found it thought-provoking.)
Slate isn't a substitute for reading a newspaper, but if you want to get more insight into what's going on, it's a good place to look.
1. Re:Reasons to read Slate by prockcore · 2004-12-21 19:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I read slate for 4 reasons.
  
  Cagle's political cartoon agregator. I can read 50 different political cartoons in about 10 minutes.
  
  Explainer is awesome.. it actually addresses the questions that most paper's gloss over (like that story about Insulin usage in the olympics.. Explainer was the only place I'd seen that actually explained *why* athletes would even want to use insulin)
  
  In Today's Papers is a great way to see what the lead stories are in the washington post, nytimes, latimes, and other places.
  
  Ad watch.. reviewing television ads.. brilliant!
Re:Do these sites make any money? by 808140 · 2004-12-21 18:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're under the mistaken impression that the media sells news. No, I'm not being faecetious.

Actually, the media sells people. You, the reader, are not their customer -- you are their product. Advertisers are their customers. The cost of printing newspapers (which typically sell for 25-35 cents for daily in the US) is not even remotely covered by their retail value. Once, perhaps, but not today.

You just don't understand their motivation. Adverts on-line and adverts on dead trees both do the same thing -- on-line adverts might be even better, because they're much more dynamic (but perhaps also easily blocked).

Anyway, think about it.
1974 called... by Trespass · 2004-12-21 18:27 · Score: 3, Funny

...and they want their paper of record back.