|
"The carnage in the world of Web-based journalism continued yesterday, as Salon.com, one of the highest-profile Web magazines, dismissed 13 employees in an effort to make up an expected $7 million shortfall in its $35 million budget. David Talbot, Salon.com's founder, said that the cutbacks would help the site's long-term prospects. But he also made it clear that in this season of investors' discontent with dot-coms, journalism that does not directly bring in viewers or advertisers or partners is unlikely to survive. ... The criterion for the layoffs, Mr. Talbot said in an interview, was the number of readers — as measured by hits, or page views — and the number of sponsors or advertisers. As he described it: 'We looked at the hits and the sponsorship.' "
| |
|
|
|
Round Three: June 9-15, 2000
It's hard to think of a clearer case of market values besting all other values. But maybe that's just my own biases showing. The obvious questions are: what does this (ominous) development mean? Or is it not ominous at all? What else do we have to understand — about the way things are going now — to understand the Salon action? Beyond simply deploring it, what's the right way to think about it? And what kind of reply can be given to the "hey, if people aren't reading you, you're gone and should be gone" attitude? Click on the buttons (right) for commentary from Lamar Graham, Jay Rosen, Ellen Willis and Mitchell Stephens. | |
|
|
|
|
AS THE MEDIA WATCH THE WORLD, WE WATCH THE MEDIA. |
SPEAK OUT |
NY MEDIA CIRCLE ARCHIVES
Round Two:
|
THE VIDEO CRITIC
• Their Eyes |
Navigate the Debate: |
|