Slashdot Mirror
AOL To Buy Huffington Post
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The La Times reports that AOL has agreed to purchase the Huffington Post for $315 million. The purchase will increase AOL's news portfolio as it competes against Yahoo's growing online news publication profile and Google's news efforts, as well as traditional media companies online. The purchase has yet to acquire government approvals, but the boards of directors of each company and shareholders of the Huffington Post have approved the transaction."
Go die in a fire already. AOL? Huffington Post? Can you get more irrelevant than this?
Well your comment makes a good attempt at it.
Correct me if I am wrong but on the news this morning they said that most of the content of the Huffington Post came from unpaid bloggers, usually with a liberal outlook. It seems to me that they might not be as happy working for nothing for AOL as they were with an independent outlet. What are the chances that a good number of them will move elsewhere?
This reminds me of Disney's "take over" of Pixar, in which Pixar effectively took over Disney Animation.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
It used to be that people heralded the internet as a death knell to the media conglomerates like ClearChannel and News Corps. Now we're seeing just how simple it is for even a dying internet presence to gobble up prominent venues for discussion, whether of technology (Engadget, TechCrunch) or politics (HuffPo). There's no reason to break out the tin foil hat just yet, but it's surprising how a left-leaning blog such as Huffington Post is not immune to a major league buyout. I'm sure many fans of the blog will defend this acquisition as a huge increase in journalistic capability, and claim that the authors will remain as interested in maintaining an independent politic voice, but only time will tell.
The thing is, people are mobile on the web. Network execs hated the invention of the remote control because they counted on people being too lazy to get up off the couch and change the channel. The last thing they wanted was the ability for people to change channels as quickly as the impulse hit them.
And as far as the web goes, the content producers are just as mobile. If the Huff name dies, everyone can make the jump to a new site, easy-peasy.
As for her selling the site, I suppose there's absolutely nothing illegal about it though it does seem to go against the basic assumptions someone would make about why she put it together in the first place. The assumption would be that it's intended to be a megaphone for getting progressive values into the public sphere, gaining suitable publicity, and any money-making activity there should be limited to the non-profit, self-perpetuating kind. But if none of that was spelled out in a charter and bylaws then there's nothing illegal about it even if it is terribly disappointing. Might be an impetus to put together something with those expressed interests instead.
The thing that surprises me is AOL of all companies. I thought they were in their death throes.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Aw someone make a point about a news source you like?
Finding news that really does not have a 'spin' on it is hard. Fox is right up there with spin. However, you can not sit there with a straight face and say Huffington is any better. Fox is just more blatant about it. It is the subtle ones you need to watch out for. They do that by fact stacking and putting opinions after the facts or running them together. Another way is to put the facts that make something look bad at the top of an article and the ones that they dont like so much near the end (as many people only read the first few paragraphs and they know it).
People say 'reality has a liberal bias'. What big pile of steaming ... (see how I put an opinion in the middle here) The stories will have whatever spin the editor of the story puts on it even if they do not realize they are doing it. 'Blogs' are even worse as they are usually by people who are interested in the story. So they put their own take on it.
What it comes down to it though, is facts based news does not sell as well. As it is rather dull and boring. "If it bleeds it leads".
People also like paying for self affirmation. "see I was right and those xyzs were total loon jobs". So while you may not like Fox news there are many out there that like hearing that sort of news. Just as there are many out there who like watching CNN/MSNBC.
Filter out the opinions on stories (many many many have them). You will see much of the 'news' is just opinion fluffer. The op'ed pieces are easy to filter. It is the ones where they bury it in the story... Do not let others tell you what your opinion is. Make up your own mind with the thing holding your ears apart. That is why I do not watch the newsertainment stations.
I don't know. Huffington Post and DailyKos were the two big attempts of the left wing to create their own "viral" websites. The end result's been a lot of hate speech, a whole lot of banned commentariat, and very little if anything accomplished.
I'd say that turning a $1 million investment into a $315 million buyout is one hell of an accomplishment.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.