[HN Gopher] Vox Media is cutting pay and furloughing 9% of emplo...
___________________________________________________________________
Vox Media is cutting pay and furloughing 9% of employees
Author : gullyfur
Score : 68 points
Date : 2020-04-17 15:32 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| zarkov99 wrote:
| Good fucking riddance. The Internet will be a better place
| without them.
| gxqoz wrote:
| Uh, why? In what world does reducing the number of media
| outlets benefit the internet?
| zarkov99 wrote:
| This world, were many media outlets,and most specially Vox,
| make their money by rabidly pandering to ideological
| fanatics, truth or anything close to truth be damned. Vox is
| nothing but InfoWars for smug hipsters.
| redisman wrote:
| Are you saying they mostly report on conspiracy theories?
| friedman23 wrote:
| It really depends on the quality of the media outlets being
| reduced.
| simonsarris wrote:
| I don't have any opinions here but for added context and
| interest, the two unions involved released statements:
|
| NY Mag Union statement on the cuts:
| https://twitter.com/NYMagUnion/status/1251218401688772608
|
| Vox media union on the cuts:
| https://twitter.com/vox_union/status/1251174537120616454
|
| > While we appreciate Vox Media talking to us in good faith, we
| don't agree with the company's decision to furlough employees --
| especially after hundreds of us told the company we were willing
| to take wider pay cuts to save all jobs.
|
| > We won a guarantee of no layoffs, no additional furloughs, and
| no additional pay cuts through July 31, along with enhanced
| severance for any layoffs that occur in August-December. The
| company also agreed to reduce the number of furloughs.
| ajross wrote:
| I made this point earlier, but contrast the difference in tone
| between Vox workers and Amazon workers in what is really a very
| similar dispute. Cultivating a healthy working relationship
| with your unions means that when the world blows up, making
| hard choices doesn't get covered as an existential disaster.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| didn't Vox got like $200 million from NBCUniversal? why not ask
| for another round of funding?
| bearcobra wrote:
| They did raise $200 million from NBCU in 2015. Now probably
| wouldn't be a great time to try to raise money given that their
| revenue streams (ads, events, etc.) are under extreme pressure.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| The context is interesting:
|
| https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317812260499456
|
| https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317824394653697
|
| https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317820800086016
|
| https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248318363538837504
|
| The same company that considerably increased the damage the virus
| did in their country is now in financial difficulty as a result.
| They mocked people for avoiding handshakes, repeatedly told
| people that masks were ineffective and dismissed the virus as
| just a flu.
|
| It's also interesting their political opponents, including the
| president adopted their original positions a few weeks later.
|
| It's mind-boggling that analysis of the severity of a virus
| became so highly politicized. I don't think the same could have
| happened in the US a generation ago.
| scott_s wrote:
| I read Vox and listen to Ezra Klein's podcast as well as The
| Weeds. They have been covering Covid-19 since before it had
| that name. They are a part of my regular media diet, and I
| consumed their coverage before the US had its first case. I
| knew this was seriously partially because of their coverage. I
| am baffled by this narrative that Vox is somehow specially to
| blame.
|
| Ezra Klein has a list of early stories when someone else
| accused them of the same:
| https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1241202132604162050
| camgunz wrote:
| I would say don't use the news that lots of people are losing
| their jobs at News Outlet X to say News Outlet X is a bad news
| outlet. Feels opportunistic at best.
| javagram wrote:
| > "Vox: advises citizens not to buy masks while Vox founder is
| buying masks"
|
| Vox is not a monolith. Matty Y, the "founder" mentioned,
| tweeted in February that the CDC mask guidance didn't make
| sense, right around the time he purchased the masks.
|
| https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1233806758843383810?...
|
| "I have never understood this message -- are the masks
| ineffective or are they vital for health care workers? If it's
| the latter shouldn't we explicitly ration rather than trying to
| discourage purchases informally?" February 29, 2020.
|
| he later wrote on March 30
|
| https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1245046686621327360?...
|
| > I'm not sure how _important_ the mask fiasco is, but the way
| public health officials did this is by (successfully!)
| manipulating media outlets that were trying to be responsible
| into amplifying misleading messages so I'm personally very
| angry about it.
|
| So attacking Vox as a whole over this seems misleading. While
| they haven't been helpful on this issue, they were just
| repeating CDC and WHO guidance that dates back over 10 years -
| The CDC was telling people masks didn't work even during the
| 2009 swine flu pandemic.
| https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...
| Traster wrote:
| First tweet: Vox saying face masks aren't the best way to avoid
| Coronavirus. Actually basically the mainstream view in the US
| at the time, and still arguable. Note how right now the states
| aren't mandating masks, they're mandating social isolation.
|
| Second tweet: Vox factually reporting the tech industry is
| eschewing handshakes. Tweet author editorialises that Vox is
| telling them not to.
|
| Third Tweet: Vox factually reporting that tech companies are
| providing 9million masks. Factually states that it's not enough
| to solve the problem. Tweet author contends that's not true -
| but provides no evidence .
|
| Fourth tweet: Author tries to claim Vox is responsible for
| Coronavirus.
|
| I find this hilarious, because we all know perfectly well, if
| that tweeter had found a Vox contributer tweeting that 4th
| tweet he'd be apoplectic.
|
| I'm sure this tweet thread has nothing to do with Vox's
| coverage of that tweeter and his previous attacks on the FDA:
| https://www.vox.com/2017/1/14/14276530/balaji-srinivasan-tru...
| iateanapple wrote:
| > Vox factually reporting the tech industry is eschewing
| handshakes. Tweet author editorialises that Vox is telling
| them not to.
|
| When you describe techies as terrified in the context of
| handshakes you make them sound terrified _of handshakes_
| which makes them look irrational to the average person.
|
| When you immediately follow that up with "experts" saying
| everything is fine you cement the view in the readers mind
| that tech people are acting irrationally.
| specialist wrote:
| About those mask recommendations...
|
| Edit: Surgical masks vs respirators. Any advice omitting the
| distinction is _suboptimal_.
|
| Surgical masks are still useless. Best case is they serve as
| sneeze guards and visual reinforcement.
|
| N95 rated respirators are useful. And in short supply. Since
| healthcare workers desperately need them and most people
| don't, their use is currently weakly recommended.
|
| Face shields plus respirators are good. I'm not sure about
| shields and surgical mask combo.
|
| IMHO, Vox has been superior. Especially in comparison. They
| have explainers and podcasts dedicated to just coronavirus
| and COVID-19. Updated frequently. When the truth &
| reconciliation process starts, Vox is pretty far down the
| list of belligerents.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| > Surgical masks are still useless.
|
| Not according to the research I've been reading: https://tw
| itter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1249698787666399235
| ac2u wrote:
| >Surgical masks are still useless
|
| Useless at what? Be specific, this constant anti-mask
| reinforcement is bizarre.
| rajup wrote:
| > First tweet: Vox saying face masks aren't the best way to
| avoid Coronavirus. Actually basically the mainstream view in
| the US at the time,
|
| Well, it was definitely mainstream after Vox reported on it.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| I am not sure if the comment to which you are replying has
| since been edited, but the first tweet is a comparison of a
| Vox article from February, advising against buying face
| masks, next to a tweet by Vox's founder, saying he ordered
| his in February when they were available. I agree that that
| is not a reasonable comparison because the article was not
| written by the founder, but your commentary does not reflect
| the essence of (current) first tweet.
| iateanapple wrote:
| > Vox saying face masks aren't the best way to avoid
| Coronavirus. Actually basically the mainstream view in the US
| at the time
|
| It was the mainstream view in the US because the media built
| the narrative that masks wouldn't help...
| scott_s wrote:
| They were reporting what the CDC told them.
| sampsonitify wrote:
| What is the role of journalists? The defence that "basically
| the mainstream view in the US at the time" seems to me the
| antithesis of why we need journalists at all.
|
| Far too much journalism is either weakly factual, where ideas
| like masks are taken prima facie and without much thought, or
| opinion pieces with an ideological bent.
|
| What happened to investigating ideas, to see where they lead?
| To questioning everyone, no matter their credentials?
|
| The role I would hope journalists would play is to hold
| people accountable, to question deeply the assumptions that
| "the mainstream view" entails. This Eric Weinstein tweet hit
| this home for me: https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/1
| 24298155901717299..., which ends with:
|
| > Bring us the heads of the incompetent for removal.
| andrepd wrote:
| It wasn't only the mainstream view in the US, it was the
| leading medical advice by the World Health Organisation.
| This isn't a matter of questioning politicians, but of
| trusting reputed experts and expert authorities on
| technical matters.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| It's fine if you disagree, but it would be constructive if
| you can at least disagree with what was actually written
| instead of your interpretation of it.
|
| Also, please keep in mind that "that tweeter", as you call
| him, taught bioinformatics at Stanford, has published papers
| in the field of clinical/microbial genomics and founded a
| biotech startup that sold for 375M. He's considerably more
| informed about the topic than any of the reporters sparring
| with him.
| https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1228752554022068226
|
| And yes, he does have an axe to grind with Vox:
| https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1228447944287932416
|
| As someone watching the whole thing unfold for months, from
| far away in Taiwan, I think he's completely right on this
| one.
| Traster wrote:
| You want me to be fastidious in my representation of his
| tweets, but you're okay citing this guy who is literally
| arguing literally just about headlines of articles. He's
| not linking to the articles and talking about them - he's
| literally taking headlines and even then he's
| misrepresenting them.
|
| I'm fine talking about his qualifications, but I think it's
| unfair for you to talk about his biotech start up without
| talking about the fact that we're talking about a guy that
| basically wants to gut FDA regulations - regulations that,
| if they were in place in China, would have prevented this
| outbreak. And of course the fact that he was called out on
| that bullshit by... Vox media!
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| > You want me to be fastidious in my representation of
| his tweets
|
| I want you to be _honest_ in addressing what you disagree
| with. That 's it.
|
| > this guy who is literally arguing literally just about
| headlines of articles.
|
| That's just not true. He's dug into the contents of the
| articles both in podcasts and threads like this one (very
| near what I just shared):
| https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1228447960008183808
| Traster wrote:
| I think I gave a fair representation of what he was
| saying, if you disagree, you're welcome to actually point
| at something specific I said that you think doesn't
| represent him fairly but I can't address just general
| gripes.
|
| So let's take your specific tweet here:
|
| He claims recode said :
|
| > "cases...have been contained to those who have recently
| traveled to Wuhan and their direct family members"
|
| What recode actually said:
|
| > "Public Health officials in the area have said there's
| currently a low risk to public health; the cases __they
| say __, have been contained to those who have recently
| traveled to Wuhan and their direct family members "
|
| I don't want to accuse you of being disingenuous or what-
| not,but really? Pretending something is a direct claim of
| Vox, when actually it's a claim that they're reporting
| from public health officials in Silicon Valley is a
| dramatic mis-representation.
|
| Ok, so let's lay aside what I think is mis-
| representation. The things that this tweeter seems to be
| claiming are counter points:
|
| >"We're probably going to see human-to-human cases within
| the united states" Dr Robert Redfield said in an
| interview with stat.
|
| A claim about the current situation within Silicon Valley
| cannot be countered with a forward looking statement
| about the entire US. It just can't. I just don't think
| this criticism is serious.
| andrepd wrote:
| >any of the reporters sparring with him
|
| This is rather telling of the way you view things; perhaps
| it may be part of the problem? "Sparring"?
| foob4r wrote:
| Almost makes you wonder if balajis has a personal gripe with
| vox or recode or Ezra or Kara.
|
| Balaji is a crypto bro and epitome of technocrats who thinks
| just because they are (rich|famous|networked), they are
| experts on everything. Fact of the matter is, Balaji doesn't
| know any more about Covid than what is reported. He's using
| hindsight bias to claim that media reported was false.
| icelancer wrote:
| >> Balaji is a crypto bro and epitome of technocrats who
| thinks just because they are (rich|famous|networked), they
| are experts on everything. Fact of the matter is, Balaji
| doesn't know any more about Covid than what is reported.
| He's using hindsight bias to claim that media reported was
| false.
|
| This is definitely not correct.
|
| Balaji taught bioinformatics at Stanford and has published
| papers in the fields of clinical/microbial genomics.
|
| As for hindsight bias, Balaji was promoting the use of
| masks very early.
| dang wrote:
| Please keep personal attacks off HN, regardless of whom
| you're attacking. Maybe you don't owe crypto bros better,
| but you owe this community better if you're posting here.
| Your comment would be fine with just the last two
| sentences.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| buboard wrote:
| Whatever. Thanks to him i knew about Coronavirus and warned
| everyone back in February.
|
| You re making the exact same remarks that tech hating
| journos did
|
| If you re claiming the journos knew something he didnt,
| then it means they criminally misreported it
| renewiltord wrote:
| It turns out that all those people who write software and run
| startups _do_ know better than the so-called experts. In tech
| everyone sounded the alarm way before. The last day I wasn 't
| SiP was the day Google announced Google Next cancellation. And
| then for the month that followed, all this crap about masks
| being worthless and now suddenly they aren't.
|
| Turns out a valid epistemological basis becomes more valuable
| rather than less valuable in a crisis.
| redisman wrote:
| It's easy with hindsight to go through any news reporting on
| covid and point out the mistakes because the situation has been
| quickly evolving for the last few months. You're comparing what
| you know now to what was known at the time of each report. Most
| of the recommendations line up with what the CDC/FDA/WHO/US gov
| was saying at the time.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| > You're comparing what you know now to what was known at the
| time of each report.
|
| That's a bold claim! I've been following this since December
| and talked about it in my podcast before people in the US, my
| co-host included, were taking it very seriously.
|
| Not only that, I was ordered by the Taiwanese CDC to wear a
| mask for 14 days back in February after taking a brief
| weekend trip to Japan.
|
| I haven't put much faith in the WHO since experiencing their
| politically-driven incompetence during SARS 18 years ago when
| I was a student. In many ways, this entire experience has
| felt like a replay of SARS, but with a few new verses.
| iateanapple wrote:
| > You're comparing what you know now to what was known at the
| time of each report.
|
| Not at all.
|
| We are using what we know now to _evaluate_ what tech people
| said vs what the media said - and the tech people were
| overwhelmingly right and the media overwhelmingly wrong.
| Traster wrote:
| I think this is basically par for the course for media
| organisations. Let's face it, ad spend is gone and it's not going
| to be coming back for a while. I suspect we'll be see a lot more
| of this coming in the near future.
| vanattab wrote:
| I wish they would axe the entire staff! I can't stand their style
| of "explanatory journalism".
| Jagat wrote:
| Why? They do a pretty good job of distilling information and
| presenting them in a way most people can understand.
| josephh wrote:
| This is a media outlet that spreads misinformation and
| shamelessly covers their tracks[1]. Their readers deserve
| better.
|
| 1. https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1242537366620966912
| jariel wrote:
| 'Distilling' I think is the wrong word. They describe a
| person/event/situation from their highly ideological
| position. It's high-quality writing, but I stopped reading it
| for this reason.
|
| Edit: from 'AllSides' analysis [1] "Vox's Explainers provide
| only one side of an issue, making it seem as if the
| information provided is all readers need to know, when in
| reality, Right-leaning individuals would likely include other
| facts or make different points about the topic. This prevents
| readers from getting a holistic understanding of the
| highlighted issues."
|
| Which I find to be true. The most interesting thing is they
| are literally trying to 'explain' something, whilst pursuing
| their explanations in an obviously biased manner, ignoring
| information and viewpoints which might contradict their view.
| Which is to say ... it's the 'opposite' of explaining.
|
| I don't have a problem with the publication, it's well
| written, but I question the ethics of telling people they are
| 'explaining' or 'distilling' the news when that's clearly not
| happening.
|
| [1]https://www.allsides.com/news-source/vox-news-media-bias
| egypturnash wrote:
| Do you have a similar problem with right-leaning sources
| pushing their own ideology?
| ac2u wrote:
| What makes you ask that of them? Are you already
| approaching their point from the opposite angle and want
| to find out if they've got a bias rather than challenge
| their point directly?
|
| Are people not allowed to criticise a publication any
| more without throwing in a token caveat of: "by the way,
| publications on the other end of the political spectrum
| do this too, and I equally don't approve of that" to
| ground their perceived neutrality before someone
| challenges their argument rather than their motivations?
| ironmagma wrote:
| It's a shame, too, because they have the great opportunity
| to be a news organization that actually delivers the source
| material in a more complete manner. Vox is incredibly
| disappointing and all their messaging sets you up for a
| complete letdown.
| ketralnis wrote:
| You can choose not to read it without them having to sack
| anybody
| kgantchev wrote:
| If people choose not to read Vox, then Vox will certainly
| have to sack people.
| camgunz wrote:
| Come on man, let's avoid hoping for people to lose their jobs.
| NateEag wrote:
| Some jobs should not be done.
|
| That implies there are times we should root for people to
| lose their jobs.
|
| This may not be one of them.
|
| I just felt it was worth pointing out that this is a noble-
| sounding but poor idea.
| kaesar14 wrote:
| Semantically agreed, is there anything wrong with hoping
| lobbyists for oil companies and weapons manufacturers lose
| their jobs, for example? :)
| moodytunes wrote:
| Not really, except it comes off as you hope the people
| _currently employed_ as lobbyists and weapons
| manufactures lose their jobs. Once they get canned,
| someone else could take their place. Sounds like the
| disagreement is with the position itself, not the person
| who happens to be holding the job
| nerdponx wrote:
| _That implies there are times we should root for people to
| lose their jobs._
|
| We should root for people to lose _specific jobs_ by way of
| those jobs disappearing.
|
| We should not root for people to lose their access to a
| baseline level of _income_ , or otherwise a basic living
| standard.
|
| The fundamental problem with modern society is that jobs
| are prerequisite for acceptable living standards, including
| access to healthcare, education, housing, food, and social
| interaction.
|
| In most cases, minimum living standards depend on a minimum
| income, which is usually obtained by way of a job.
|
| Other times income alone is not the only prerequisite. In
| the case of healthcare (in the USA), you need a job through
| a formal employer in order to make healthcare affordable,
| i.e. without a formal job you need a much higher income in
| order to obtain healthcare at an acceptable standard.
|
| In my opinion, diminishing or eliminating the dependence of
| "living standards" on "job" is essential to a high-
| functioning society. Even if the dependence is only broken
| temporarily as part of a "social safety net". The USA has a
| social safety net, but it's frequently insufficient to
| maintain morally acceptable living standards.
| muffinman26 wrote:
| To each their own. I love Vox. Their Weeds podcast has given me
| a whole new understanding of public policy and research papers
| in the social sciences.
|
| They also do research on topics I didn't even know I wanted
| research on. For example, they did an entire article on
| Hallmark movies. Sounds super silly, but they turn out to be a
| _huge_ money-maker. One of my friends works in the film
| industry and was working on pitching Hallmark movies. He was
| super excited about it, but I had no idea how big of a deal
| that was (or what it even meant exactly) until I read the Vox
| article.
|
| Sure, they have a clear bias, but at least they're explicit
| about it and they do a fairly decent job of researching and
| presenting opposing points of view, not just setting up straw-
| mans. They've done some of the best journalism there is on
| things like US public health policies. Sarah Kliff's article
| https://www.vox.com/2019/1/24/18194709/emergency-room-fees-h...
| was impeccably researched and had a direct impact on health
| care legislation.
| bruceb wrote:
| I suggest people reading VOX also read articles on the same
| subject matter from other sources as well. Its easy to explain
| when you control what is put out and don't enable comments.
|
| Same with John Oliver show. Both have value but take their
| explanations with a grain or two of salt.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Reading multiple sources is always a good idea, assuming you
| have the time.
|
| But, can you really blame Vox for not enabling comments?
| There's a reason Hacker News attempts to minimize political
| discussions. Vox doesn't have that luxury given the focus of
| the site.
|
| Less politics-focused Vox Media properties, like The Verge,
| do have a comments section that's quite active.
| kgantchev wrote:
| Vox not allowing comments is certainly reinforcing their
| bubble. If you're in the political field, you better be
| ready for the political disagreements and the criticism.
|
| However, I suspect Vox disabled the comment section not
| because it's hard to manage but because it breaks their
| narrative and it shows the volume of dissent.
| redisman wrote:
| Have you ever looked at the comments section on a news
| website?
| bovermyer wrote:
| Just because you don't like their style doesn't mean they
| shouldn't exist.
|
| That'd be like me saying you should be fired from whatever job
| you have for posting this comment. It makes no sense, doesn't
| help the dialogue, and comes off as unnecessarily antagonistic.
| iateanapple wrote:
| > That'd be like me saying you should be fired from whatever
| job you have for posting this comment.
|
| No it isn't. It is like saying the parent poster should be
| kicked off hn because of the content/bias in their hn posts.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-04-17 23:00 UTC)