EZRA KLEIN v MATT YGLESIAS

is there a good new nyt paywall workaround?

"reset safari" if you use safari works

No doubt. Kornacki's a good reporter, and Christie's giving him a chance to carve his own identity (before this he flaunted his amazing knowledge of the life of Jerry Brown)

― Bryan Fairy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, January 21, 2014

exactly right. kornacki's a talent. it was kind of unfair to make him host of a show that has an audience expecting a hyper-wonky discussion.

I hate the word "wonky" tbh.

not my favorite word, either, but i hate slang and most jargon. so how about "policy-focused."

"knowledge"

wonkish is useful as a term, i think of it as an attempt to rinse out gross imf-era connotation of "technocrat" or "neoliberal" to more domestic focused policy nerds

used by bloggers i think wonky or wonkish is often used as a disclaimer signifying "will now operate under the assumption that the reader took a 100-level econ course in college"

more details re Klein's leaving the W. Post

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/ezra-klein-leaves-washington-post-102424.html?hp=t1

But when Klein proposed the creation of an independent, explanatory journalism website — with more than three dozen staffers and a multiyear budget north of $10 million — the Post said enough is enough. Indeed, Jeff Bezos, the Post’s new owner, and Katharine Weymouth, its publisher, never even offered an alternative figure, sources familiar with the negotiations said.

it's funny that after bezos bought the post everyone was like "hundreds of million dollars is pocket change to the guy!!" and now ezra is like "throw me $10+ million over a few years" and they're like "...nah"

he prob thought it was the perfect time to fleece this rube

i think this is smart of the post

well the idea of ezra having a "brand" is a pretty myopic DC thing imo and it probably didn't help that it took like 3 months for wonkblog's upworthy site to outpace the original

maybe the rich whiteness of his readership really is more important than the pageviews but like.... my parents know who nate silver is. ezra is no nate silver.

seems like if they couldve kept him happy w a smaller operation it might not have been a bad idea to give him his own site, idk about his ownership demands and whatnot, but obvs his initial pitch was a lil extravagant

leaked pic of the pitch meeting:

http://mystery756.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/rushmore-max-with-brian-cox-headmaster.jpg

waiting for The Corner to appropriate "rich whiteness"

is there a good new nyt paywall workaround?

― flopson, Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:24 PM (Yesterday)

google the headline

get yr dads login

my dad's not a communist he doesn't read the fuckin nyt

the wifi is too slow in the gulag i guess (sick anti-communism zing)

giving $10 mil to ezra k still seems like a better idea than spending $250 mil on the post

no one reporter, even one w/ a brand, is worth it, basically ever

cmon max don't be so down on yourself

hah

it kinda depends on what you can build together no like grantland seems to be doing good

is there a good new nyt paywall workaround?

― flopson, Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:24 PM (Yesterday)

any browser with private browsing option (chrome, firefox) renders nyt paywall irrelevant

somewhat-relatedly, it looks like foreign policy recently eased their reading policy. i haven't seen a paywall in a while.

espn couldve let simmons go, wouldntve been a big deal for them in the end, and grantland would probably not exist, certainly not in its present form. but espn also has soooo much more money than the post or the times or wsj that i think their calculations are pretty different

sure they couldve let him go but instead they kept him and it was a win win cause of synergies and shit

lol i mean... was it tho?

just from a bottom-line perspective i think its about even. maybe espn loves having the Cool Brand of grantland but they dont need bill simmons for that shit, they just need to hire better editors and writers for their website and magazine

simmons is as important to ESPN as any 1 person could be but grantland definitely seems like something espn loses money on just to keep him around to do other stuff

good for us though

lol i mean... was it tho?

― max, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:14 PM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

obvs we have no way of knowing but they def seem interested in doing more of the same type things

simmons is def a big thing for espn, their web traffic would take a huge hit if he dipped & '30 for 30' is a big thing

simmons is huge max r u living under a rock bro

yeah and the times traffic takes a big hit w/ silver gone. its not that espn would keep chugging along but that in the long term its not a big deal. there is always newer, cheaper talent

yeah simmons is prob the most popular writer on the nets, as to whether his deal w espn is working financially for them i dont know, their willingness to roll up nate silver points to yes tho

and like, simmons is WAY bigger than klein, and also WAY more important to espn's brand than klein is to wapo's

grantland itself idk it's just a website, how much money does it take to run a website? espn has enough money anyway tho you're otm about that i think

xp thats fair, idk. i think if the nyt had espn-level dough they wouldve kept silver... its kinda apples to oranges comparing a multiplatform sports brand to a newspaper

i mean grantland is pennies to espn im sure but have you seen their masthead, they have like 20 people working for that shit, and im sure their traffic is shit

the formula might be more like its not really worth paying for brand writers unless you can leverage that brand, like now all that newer cheaper talent has been infused w the sweet simmons bro-juice, i just wish they wouldnt let him on tv during basketball broadcasts

and im sure their traffic is shit

― max, Wednesday, January 22, 2014 12:20 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

idk man i think theyre doin pretty good, at least the sports stuff, the more pop culture things i could see absolutely no one reading

stuff that gets the espn homepage pipeline probably does pretty well yeah

~synergies~

i enjoy simmons on basketball broadcasts

omg that is so terrible, u need to go on a visionquest

the whole new yorker has always been a big red line for conde nast, afaik

i think it's just an ancient thing that owners run prestige media for their own nefarious cultural capital reasons

what kind of cool ski resort ideas summit hookup parties do the people at tv guide throw, i ask u

nyer is profitable or very nearly so over the last decade, im pretty sure! not that i dont see your point

oh huh i seem to recall a profile of remnick that said the opposite.