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established organizations such as The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal and The Daily News have slashed staff or withdrawn from street-level reporting.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?
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: 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?