General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPierre Omidyar Ready To Spend $250 Million On Glenn Greenwald's News Startup
Whats the best way to ensure the future of journalism: to preserve a powerful institution from the past or build a new one from scratch?
Pierre Omidyar had a chance to do the former but ultimately chose to do the latter. The eBay founder tells NYU professor and blogger Jay Rosen that he was approached early this year and offered the opportunity to buy the Washington Post. He chose not to, leaving that to his fellow e-commerce billionaire Jeff Bezos.
But it wasnt because it was too expensive a proposition. In fact, Omidyar says hes prepared to spend the $250 million it wouldve cost to buy the post on the news startup headed by Glenn Greenwald, the blogging journalist best known for his scoops about the National Security Administrations surveillance practices.
A $250 million war chest would make Greenwalds venture one of the best-funded news startups ever. By way of comparison, the Huffington Post had raised $37 million at the time AOL purchased it, for $315 million, in 2011. It had close to 200 employees at the time. Buzzfeed has raised $46 million and has more than 300 employees.
more at link
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/10/16/pierre-omidyar-ready-to-spend-250-million-on-glenn-greenwalds-news-startup/
mimi85
(1,805 posts)however good for him I guess. Personally I could think of more helpful ways to spend that much money.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)250 million dollars to preserve freedom of the press and truth in reporting. Seems like money well spent in my opinion. Scahill Greenwald and Poitras are fearless and principled reporters. It is a great day for our side.
time to take back the destructive media from the hands of the slime boss and put it in the hands of
those that can deliver proper news.
Enough of these self proclaim aggrandizement by slob owners answering the biggest corporation's
beckon call.
I just hope they don't employ the same mentality and bring in energetic breed that can stimulate
the mind.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)not one dedicated to investigative journalism...
This is fool's gold, people...
And if you're a true believer in supporting honest journalism, PLEASE send in a donation to the Poynter Inst...It's like people forgot they even existed all of a sudden...
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)which is pointless, these guys are not your (and I mean Bezos and Omidyar) are not your
average ghetto superstar owner that made their money through nefarious means. They
understand the market they're entering into better than anyone, so I applaud them
for taking this step.
The only people that will not like this are those that prefer to keep things the way they are, the
ones that prefers authoritarian rules over actual freedom of speech.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)That aside; Omidyar has said this will be a general news site in pretty much all the news stories regarding the startup...I also don't need to point out that plenty of people wealthier than Omidyar over the years have dumped their cash into more spurious ideas, so don't think he's immune...
Like I said, content is king...If they find good, thoughtful, reasoned writers, then they should do well (although the thinner they spread themselves across topics, the more watered-down their news quality will be)...If all they aspire to be is HuffPo part two, it's doomed to failure...
And my invitation for anyone who likes this to donate to Poynter still stands...
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)from where I'm standing if these guys can grow some brass balls there is a market out there for
the Greenwalds of this world, people are more now into fact finding than they were before and
are eager to separate the bs from the truth.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Psst Mr. Omidyar, you will never see that $250mil again.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)1. Omidyar gets to use Greenwald's weight to establish credibility for the site, lure the best writers away from the competition, and draw traffic...
2. Greenwald gets to be his own boss with a bigger paycheck, and is almost certainly leaving after a year or two to write his book or whatever...
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Absolutely nothing. It's the same ignorant hatred and unspecified anger directed at those who have done them no harm.
Anyway, good post, xiamiam. Thanks for the info.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Human beings are complex, having a great many qualities that sometimes conflict and sometimes one human will disagree with another while both humans still desire the same outcome.
Oh. And Greenwald is not a Libertarian despite what some propagandists would have you believe. I don't think he's a Democrat but then I don't blindly hate anyone who isn't so that's not a big deal to me.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Back then - when I was writing every day to criticize the Bush administration - Bush followers tried to apply the label "far leftist" to me. Now that I spend most of my energy writing critically about the Obama administration, Obama followers try to claim I'm a "right-wing libertarian".
These labels are hard to refute primarily because they've become impoverished of any meaning. They're just mindless slurs used to try to discredit one's political adversaries. Most of the people who hurl the "libertarian" label at me have no idea what the term even means. Ask anyone who makes this claim to identify the views I've expressed - with links and quotes - that constitute libertarianism.
I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:
* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);
* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);
* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);
* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);
* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);
* praising and defending the Occupy Wall Street movement as early and vocally as anyone (here, here and here)
* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;
* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardin, JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);
* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);
To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Just ask any actual libertarian whether those views are compatible with being a libertarian. Or just read this October, 2012 post - written on Volokh, a libertarian blog - entitled "Glenn Greenwald, Man of the Left", which claims I harbor "left-wing views on economic policy" and am "a run-of-the-mill left-winger of the sort who can be heard 24/7 on the likes of Pacifica radio" because of my opposition to cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
There is no doubt that I share many views with actual libertarians, including: opposition to a massive surveillance state, support for marriage equality for LGBT citizens, restraints on government power to imprison or kill people without due process, opposition to the death penalty and the generally oppressive US penal state, contempt for the sadistic and racist drug war, disgust toward corporatism and crony capitalism, and opposition to aggressive wars and the ability of presidents to wage them without Congressional authority. It's also true that I supported the Citizens United decision on free speech grounds: along with people like the ACLU and Eliot Spitzer (the only politician to put real fear in the heart of Wall Street executives in the last decade and probably the politician most hated by actual libertarians).
Liberals and libertarians share the same views on many issues, particularly involving war, civil liberties, penal policies, and government abuse of power. That is why people like Alan Grayson and Dennis Kucinich worked so closely with Ron Paul to Audit the Fed and restore civil liberties.
But "libertarianism" has an actual meaning: it's not just a slur to mean: anyone who criticizes President Obama but disagrees with Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who applies this label to me in light of my actual views and work is either very ignorant or very dishonest - or, most likely, both.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)That's my favorite line, given the times Greenwald has called critics "Obots" and worse on twitter and elsewhere...
Like I said, *very* thin-skinned when some of what he dishes out comes back in his direction...
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)engage in pissing contests on social media with internet yahoos or critics in the first place...A professional is always supposed to be above that, instead of spitting out snark like some nerdy teen on a gamer blog...And who could forget his tweets about Obama creating an embassy terror crisis JUST to distract America from the NSA story?
The irony is Greenwald has no qualms whatsoever publicly calling out mainstream journalists he sees as unprofessional lapdogs with compromised ethics...But the moment some people start scrutinizing his methods or body of work, he lashes out at the entire world like a rattlesnake...His little "essay" is overflowing with so much hypocrisy it makes my brain short out...
mimi85
(1,805 posts)but that was the perfect post when discussing GG.
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)one media outlet at a time.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Content? $250 million sounds like a lot until the operation is hemmoraging millions per year.
Hopefully it's not just used as a platform for Libertarian and anti-Obama screeds.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That is what the owner is about, so that is what that organization will be about.
They are going to do their best to elect Rand Paul President and as many like him into congress and the Senate.
Their attacks are going to be concentrated on Democrats.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Worthless speculation.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Especially if people frame this for what it is--a direct challenge to FixNews' primacy as political mouthpiece.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)For one thing, there are several outlets now that are occupying the market space this entity seems intent on occupying. Sort of a anti-US interventionist, anti-us exceptionalist, civil libertarian position loving Rand and Ron Paul, praising Greenwald, Wikileaks, Snowden and Assange. RT is there, Assange already appears frequently on RT and even had a show there for a while, Al Jazeera America is there, China and Iran's offerings are trying to grab a piece of it, etc.
If they move even more toward the right part of the libertarian right, Blaze is trying to grab that market and they are very well funded. If they move more towards the mainstream Democratic left, then they are competing with MSNBC who are more entrenched.
That's before we get to what I think will be a surprise for Omidyar when he sees what Greenwald is really about. If Omidyar tends to support Democrats, that's a major bone of contention. Greenwald is a for lack of a better term, a firebagger/Naderite who is more interested in attacking Democrats than helping them. Also, the way Greenwald reacts to criticism does not suggest a personality for overseeing a large media organization. Omidyar seems like a nice guy who is well adjusted and takes criticism in stride. That's not true of the person with whom he is aligning himself.
xiamiam
(4,906 posts)lol
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Response to leveymg (Reply #14)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)He's overwhelmingly donated to Democratic candidates, gave 55 mil to Clinton's initiative and works with the Obama admin on it's anti-trafficking program.
Crazy Libertarian!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Simplistic cartoon characterization of the world.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I can understand why you don't find it as much fun.
Greenwald is all about attacking Democrats to the benefit of the libertarian right. That's his schtick. If that wasn't Omidyar's intent, the two of them are headed for a massive conflict about direction.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)FSogol
(45,488 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I'm thinking they will shoot for a Libertarian-based Politico which was a Republican-based Huffington Post.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Making this a general news site also covering sports/technology/business/entertainment/etc. was the big head-scratcher for me, since no investigative journalist worth his salt would want to be part of it...That's how I know Omidyar is really running the show, using Greenwald to jump-start it...
All these people celebrating and believing Omidyar gave Greenwald/Poitras $250 million with free reign to create the news outlet they want are sorely mistaken...
BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)You know, one of the assholes that held our entire country hostage for 2 weeks.
They were upset just the other day that a moderate Republican might be challenging Amash in a primary.
Anyone that thinks this will be a news organization that is good for the Democratic Party and the country should contact me for a good deal I have on a bridge.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Is there a Media Club (hard right/right/center right/center) that is all-powerful here in the US and would this potentially add a center left voice? Cable companies?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)But "Democracy Now" has been doing their thing for years...Helped me get through a lot of rough days during the Bush years....
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and I wish them both the best of luck in their new endeavor.
It may be difficult for Greenwald to adjust, though, from being primarily a writer to being one of the people running an enterprise. I hope he makes the transition successfully.
Many of us have been shouting for years, Where are the liberals who will spend $$$ on media outlets? Well, this appears to be a case of just that. I hope they succeed beyond their, and our, wildest dreams.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)he can afford to lose.