SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Retaliation?-or-Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc? dept.
DNAinfo and Gothamist Are Shut Down After Vote to Unionize
A week ago, reporters and editors in the combined newsroom of DNAinfo and Gothamist, two of New York City's leading digital purveyors of local news, celebrated victory in their vote to join a union.
On Thursday, they lost their jobs, as Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of TD Ameritrade who owned the sites, shut them down.
At 5 p.m., a post went up on the sites from Mr. Ricketts announcing the decision. He praised them for reporting "tens of thousands of stories that have informed, impacted and inspired millions of people." But he added, "DNAinfo is, at the end of the day, a business, and businesses need to be economically successful if they are to endure."
[...] in the financially daunting era of digital journalism, there has been no tougher nut to crack than making local news profitable, a lesson Mr. Ricketts, who lost money every month of DNAinfo's existence, is just the latest to learn. In New York City, the nation's biggest media market, established organizations such as The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal and The Daily News have slashed staff or withdrawn from street-level reporting. The Voice stopped publishing its print edition in September.
What about The Daily Planet and Gotham Globe?
Gothamist's NY Writing Staff Votes to Unionize; Owner Shutters All *ist Sites
Deadspin reports:
Joe Ricketts, TD Ameritrade founder, billionaire, and father of Chicago Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts, shut down the local news network of DNAinfo and Gothamist sites today, a week after the writers voted to unionize.
[...] With the sites' articles functionally locked, the reported 115 newly jobless writers now have no clips [to which they can refer potential employers] as they search for work.
Deadspin has scathing comments about Ricketts's explanation for his action.
The Los Angeles Daily News reports:
Angelenos hoping to read the latest local reporting from LAist.com [on November 2] were instead greeted by a letter from the news site's CEO, announcing he had shuttered the parent media company and all of its local news sites.
[...] [Ricketts bought news company DNAinfo in 2010 and, in March 2017, DNAinfo] purchased Gothamist, which ran news sites in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington D.C.
[...] Julia Wick, editor-in-chief at LAist, [...] said she and her Los Angeles team supported the New York staff's decision to unionize. Originally, she said, all five Gothamist sites planned to join the union, but the Chicago newsroom dropped out, ending the collective effort.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:28AM (22 children)
That would be the owner of the shut sites that you speak about.
You telling me that he can block the former employees if they want to revive the site under a different name? (so that this story may actually have a continuation)?
If I remember well, it didn't worked this way for S/N case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:40AM (3 children)
He paid for the content produced under the old company. He decided to keep it.
Nobody said the writers could never write again. You made that up.
I suspect if those writers want to go out and start a new site they can do just that. (They are glorified bloggers after all - that's what they do).
He took down his content. Probably knowing full well the writers had kept copies. Ball is in the writer's court. If they want to violate the owner's copyright and build a site around pirated content they kept on home computers, there may be more drama. (You know that was exactly their plan).
If they want to go off and form their own company (hopefully after throwing a few hangers-on overboard) and come up with new content, and publish new rags, well, more power to them.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:10AM (1 child)
Pay attention, mate, read it good this time, I'll try to be as precise as possible.
"If the sites that closed down have had a profitable business model before the acquisition, then the writers can start their own site building on top of that business model, without the current owner being able to stop them
This is where the issue of profitability before the acquisition may come into play as being relevant."
There's no question of content, or trademark, or copyright in what I said.
Now, do you have anything to object to what I said?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:29AM
They can, but they're not going to have the infrastructure and other assets that the old company had. The business model is not the only thing that makes a business profitable. Here, "the sites" won't respawn because the identifying IP (trademarks and copyright) that made them "the sites" is still owned by the old owner. These former employees can start their own business with the same business model and the same writers, but it's not going to be the same sites.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @04:49AM
> If they want to violate the owner's copyright and build a site around pirated content they kept on home computers, there may be more drama. (You know that was exactly their plan).
No, I don't know that. What makes you think they planned such a thing?
(Score: 4, Informative) by BK on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:46AM (1 child)
Well, if you remember so well, you'll remember that SN didn't import content from any old green sites into this one.
And there is another key difference. SN doesn't claim to own most of the content of this site. So you can repost your posts on some other site if you want. You'll find that commercial news sites take a different approach.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:02AM
I didn't say they would.
True, but it has no bearing on the current issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:50AM (15 children)
We used not one bit of the green site's content, no. Every byte of content we have is what we as a community created. If we'd scraped up all /.'s past stories, we'd very rightfully have been sued into oblivion our first month.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @01:59AM (14 children)
And did I suggest that they may take anything from the old site other than the model of running it as a profitable business?
(remember my "If there is a model those sites can make money. ...")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:34AM (13 children)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:09AM (12 children)
No, I didn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @02:41PM (11 children)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:12PM (10 children)
Your understanding of terms. Respawn and revive doesn't necessary mean "take the older content".
For a news site, the readers are mostly interested in the news, it's not literature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:01PM (9 children)
They merely heavily imply it when used in conjunction with "the" and "those" "website(s)". After all, a website is not a business model. It is at least a concrete implementation.
The reason I'm bothering with this silly thread in the first place is your dismissal of several repliers who pointed out the legitimate problem with what you said. Then you coyly doubled down [soylentnews.org], repeating the erroneous terminology (also excise "you telling me" from your vocabulary, as in your linked post, that is too often a segue into straw men arguments). If there's confusion over something said, then get the wood out of your ass and just politely correct them. Not say the same thing again and then mischaracterize the previous poster's concerns.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:12PM (8 children)
No, I didn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:25PM (7 children)
It is little use to argue with the khallow. He keeps his own dictionary in his head, and edits it on the fly as he sees fit. At least he wasn't triggered like TMB and jmorris the Lesser. Wait a minute, unless he was, and this is how it manifests! As per best practices, quarantine is in order.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:29PM (4 children)
I think you need to look up the meaning of "triggered". I know it's hard to keep up with all these newfangled words but you need to do so if you're going to use them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 07 2017, @11:01PM (3 children)
One consistent feature of being "triggered" is that the subject does not realize they have been triggered, and assumes that their behavior is not caused by the triggering event. They may even try to change the definition of "triggered" in order to deny that it is happening to them. We are all here for you, Buzzard. How's the fishing? What's your favorite bass plug?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08 2017, @02:33PM (2 children)
Smells like a kafkatrap [ibiblio.org].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 08 2017, @10:28PM (1 child)
No, what you smell is ESR. Kafka in "The Trial" was much smarter than ESR.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday November 09 2017, @06:39AM
OK, I am down by three. Stupid alt-right mudder folackers. Time for retribution, y'all. Now, if you are not among the regular down-modders of aristarchus, this is the point in proceedings where you should fess up to that. Otherwise, I will have to mod you into khallow territory. And it is not must me, it is all the sane, progressive, rational, realistic, non-racist, non-misogynist, not-artichoke hating soylentils that mod you who mod me down, down.
Now, the TMB may bitch and moan, as is his wont, but not necessarily in that order, since he allegedly served in a US military, that I down mod more than up. But put quite simply, it is because there is just so much here on SoylentNews that needs to be modded down, and way down, since we accept all and sundry, like MikeeUSA, well known pedophile, or jmorris, well known, well, maybe not well known, but he is definitely not someone you would encounter outside an insane asylum or a Vienna Circle think tank (pro tip: same thing). And khallow, the Soylentil in a class unto himself. He needs to be modded down every so often, just in a futile attempt to jump start rational thinking in his brain. So far, no success.
But to reiterate the point (that means, "repeat", for you alt-right, and conservatives), I will be downmodding with a vengeance tonight, and praise be to the Holy Mighty Buzzard for granting us an abundance of mod points. TMB, in your name, let it be accomplished!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:30PM
Actually, I keep it here [oxforddictionaries.com].
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 07 2017, @10:07PM
Arguing? Doesn't arguing require a conclusion that needs to be demonstrated or refuting, a point to be made, hopefully a meaningful point?