[HN Gopher] BuzzFeed investors have pushed CEO Jonah Peretti to ...
___________________________________________________________________
BuzzFeed investors have pushed CEO Jonah Peretti to shut down
entire newsroom
Author : danso
Score : 158 points
Date : 2022-03-22 18:25 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| richardfey wrote:
| They have a reporter in Ukraine, Christopher Miller:
| https://twitter.com/christopherjm
| InCityDreams wrote:
| And?
| spoonjim wrote:
| Investors are the worst possible people to tell you how to create
| something great. I've never seen a notable public market investor
| who made the world a better place.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| I want to say Carl Icon's push to separate PayPal from eBay was
| beneficial. Not that PayPal stock has done so well lately, but
| it's a real company providing a real service now, and overall
| the calculus is positive
|
| This doesn't really dispute your point though. Rules tend to
| have an exception or two.
| Traster wrote:
| Paypal separating from eBay was good financial engineerings,
| but at the end of the day you've got two crappy companies
| with 1 sinking faster than the other, neither has done well
| since, and separately they're both too small to compete in
| their markets.
| mimikatz wrote:
| Here is the funny thing. People want to throw shade at the
| investors, but Buzzfeed staff themselves frothed when they
| couldn't sell off their stake in the company.
| https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/how-...
|
| "As it turned out, for many former employees, it was all too good
| to be true. This past Monday, as BuzzFeed went public, many of
| them learned something alarming: they weren't able to trade the
| stock that they had waited years to exercise."
|
| When you have skin in the game it aligns interests.
| simulate-me wrote:
| Why do the interests of former employees need to be aligned?
| robocat wrote:
| https://archive.ph/nVEYM
|
| "As the markets opened on December 6th, former BuzzFeed
| employees contacted their brokerages to initiate trades, but
| later found out that the type of stock they held, known as
| Class B, couldn't be publicly traded yet. That evening,
| Continental, a stock-transfer company that BuzzFeed had engaged
| to facilitate the spac merger, sent an e-mail informing former
| employees that, in order to trade their Class B shares, they
| would have to convert them into Class A shares. In order to
| complete the process--which would take three to five business
| days--former employees were informed, they would need to print
| the e-mail, sign, scan, and return it.".
|
| "An e-mail circulating among former employees this past week
| raised the question of whether they could have a legal case.
| "This is rotten and definitely slimey, but I have not figured
| out if it's illegal," a person wrote. When asked whether
| anything illegal had occurred, Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for
| BuzzFeed, said 'of course not.'".
|
| And this only applies to past employees that exercised their
| options - paying some money and taxes for their equity.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| If you don't have the majority youre not the owner but an
| employee.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > If you don't have the majority youre not the owner but an
| employee.
|
| By that definition Bezos is (well, was) an Amazon employee. And
| Musk is Tesla employee.
|
| Zuckerberg owns a minority of shares but a majority of votes,
| so I don't know where he falls in your calculus. But I disagree
| with your statement as a whole, so I don't care too much about
| the line.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Bezos does not own Amazon. Neither does Musk own Tesla. I
| would say Zuckerberg does own Facebook due to his majority
| control of votes.
| wlakjlkjkerg wrote:
| exogeny wrote:
| This was easy to see coming. Prestige doesn't matter if you're a
| public company, all that matters is this quarter's results.
| Buzzfeed could play that game when their investors were happy
| that Jonah was incinerating their money, but now that they're
| public and their SPAC dropped like a rock, anything unprofitable
| has got to go.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| "Prestige" BuzzFeed was always a tainted name there inability
| to realize how shitty their reputation was and release real
| news under a different name directly lead to this.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| I have no idea why you are getting down-voted. It's 100% true
| that the absolutely terrible brand that is BuzzFeed spilled
| over BuzzFeed News and hurt its public perception.
| torbTurret wrote:
| Yep. Literally every thread about buzzfeed news has
| multiple posts explaining the different pods of the
| business, with the caveat that BFNews is serious.
|
| An absolutely awful branding decision.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I have no idea why you are getting down-voted. It's 100%
| true that the absolutely terrible brand that is BuzzFeed
| spilled over BuzzFeed News and hurt its public perception.
|
| Don't you have that backwards? I was always under the
| impression that BuzzFeed News existed to help prop up the
| BuzzFeed brand's reputation.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| BuzzFeed News was created later, years after BuzzFeed
| established its reputation as the internet equivalent of
| a shoddy tabloid. That crippled the News org's
| credibility from the very start; I know I still have a
| "drivel alert" instinct from their domain name, despite
| the knowledge that they have, in fact, produced
| impressive investigations at times.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| Eh, going public, by itself, doesn't necessarily result in this
| kind of outcome. There's plenty of public companies that are
| operating with little in profits or even at a net loss.
|
| Presumably the way this SPAC was structured resulted in a
| change of control, and if you make that decision, you get what
| you get.
| klyrs wrote:
| More toxic investors who think the world needs more ads, less
| investigative journalism. Good to hear that Peretti is pushing
| back, but somehow I doubt that he'll last if he keeps it up.
| eatonphil wrote:
| Maybe some investors are ok with an organization in a company
| losing $10M yearly but it doesn't _really_ strike me as toxic
| for them not to be ok with this.
| lupire wrote:
| Maybe the problem is having investors instead of patrons.
|
| This is what people mean when they say capitalism won't solve
| all our problems.
| icedistilled wrote:
| IT is a "cost center." Cut it all?
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| Every time I change the oil in my car it loses me money, but
| it's important to the overall function of the car.
| eatonphil wrote:
| A CEO of a public company is responsible for selling
| investors on what he/she is doing. If News is fundamental
| to the company or to his vision then he is responsible for
| explaining that or selling that vision. If investors don't
| believe in it I don't blame them per se I'd just say the
| company either shouldn't be public or they should have a
| CEO that can reasonably explain to investors why they
| should care that News exists.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Tale as old as time
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30768059
| manicdee wrote:
| It's much harder to go private than it is to go public.
| Blaming the CEO is a short sighted perspective.
| naoqj wrote:
| buzzfeed news is not important or even relevant to the
| overall function of buzzfeed.
| randomsilence wrote:
| >Buzzfeed said quarterly revenue grew 18% year over year to
| $146 million. Profit rose to $41.6 million
|
| It's not the organization, just the division.
|
| News is responsible for the very good image that Buzzfeed
| has. Why do they give it up when they can finance it?
| belval wrote:
| Oh please, Buzzfeed does not have a good reputation, yes
| some articles were pretty good, but it's far from something
| people would be willing to defend as a good news source.
|
| Investors don't have to shoulder costs for a service that
| no one cares about. You want a "what flavour of jelly bean
| are you" quiz you go to Buzzfeed. You want serious news you
| read one of the countless other site that covers world
| news. Yes it's cynical, but if I had money in Buzzfeed I
| would have pressured the CEO too.
| purephase wrote:
| They did just win a pullitzer for their international
| reporting last year. I'd say that goes quite a way
| towards improving their reputation.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| It would make more sense to split it off into a different
| brand.
|
| I rank BuzzFeed on the same level as the Huffington Post.
| You want real news? Go to the Associated Press directly,
| or Reuters.
|
| NYT can be ok, but their monetization tactics are kind of
| weird
| lupire wrote:
| Buzzfeed is goofy. NYT is establishment partisan.
| Buzzfeed is a better brand.
| bavell wrote:
| Yeah and Cuomo got an Emmy LOL. I found out how much
| these awards are worth when that turd got polished.
| afavour wrote:
| I mean, it's not like every award every given is
| equivalent, is it?
| belval wrote:
| That's not what I meant, the articles from Buzzfeed News
| were good, I don't deny it.
|
| That being said, their reputation as "Buzzfeed" is bad,
| if you repeat a piece of information to someone and say
| that you "read it on Buzzfeed", there will be an inherent
| bias that the source is bad, because most people
| associate them with terrible pop-culture articles on
| Facebook and don't even know that they won a pullitzer
| prize.
|
| In that context, their reputation is permanently damaged
| for most people. If Buzzfeed really want to create
| "serious" news branch they'd have to call it something
| else at the very least.
| alexc05 wrote:
| Their news does have a good reputation. Their news org is
| high quality.
| [deleted]
| eatonphil wrote:
| Yeah by organization I meant "org" not the entire company.
| klyrs wrote:
| Sure. Just like TI, HP, and many others killed off their
| R&D departments because they didn't make direct profits,
| only ate money and produced ideas that other departments
| would monetize. Penny wise, pound foolish. Fuck the
| future, I want my money now.
| eatonphil wrote:
| Unless you're indicting the entire Western economic
| system (which is fair but also not something I'm going to
| argue about), blaming investors is nonsense. Corporate
| officers are responsible for having and selling a vision.
| If these companies got rid of the R&D departments,
| management owns that, not investors.
| manicdee wrote:
| Investors are the ones making the decision for higher
| profits in the short term over long term viability of the
| company. It is absolutely in the investors, usually
| profit hungry corporate investors like superannuation or
| the local equivalent.
|
| Foresight isn't profitable. Sustainability isn't
| profitable. They want next years bonus cheques not a
| healthy retirement fund.
| Aunche wrote:
| Talk is cheap if you aren't the one footing the bill. The
| investors are likely in the top .001% in spending money on
| investigative journalism, but if they don't spend even more
| money on it, they get to receive criticism for killing
| journalism from people who made more lucrative investments.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > "Though BuzzFeed is a profitable company, we don't have the
| resources to support another two years of losses," [Peretti said]
|
| This part confuses me. The newsroom is a loss, but buzzfeed as a
| whole is profitable, got it. But if buzzfeed as a whole is
| profitable even with the news division in the red, what does it
| mean to say you "don't have the resources to support another two
| years of losses"?
| Markoff wrote:
| I guess it means it's waste of money and they could be more
| profitable without news division, which is their responsibility
| to stockholders.
| supercheetah wrote:
| Buzzfeed should have never gone public. Pretty much the entire
| purpose of the rest of Buzzfeed was to ensure funding of Buzzfeed
| News.
| Kylekramer wrote:
| Buzzfeed's purpose was to make money. Buzzfeed News was a semi-
| successful attempt to take money from advertisers who preferred
| high minded NYT/WSJ type audiences by gaining the reputation of
| "no, no, you see Buzzfeed News is the serious part, it actually
| does good stuff!".
|
| It didn't work because the financial cards are stacked against
| print media, there is basically NYT and then tech billionaire
| charity cases like The Post and The Atlantic.
| barney54 wrote:
| I agree that Buzzfeed should not have gone public. For those of
| us who are more cynical, we see Buzzfeed News as the reputable
| veneer on the listicle business. The actual news organization
| was started 5 years after the listicle business.
| iamleppert wrote:
| Shut it down and move all the employees to contractors, get rid
| of all benefits, put up a paywall, and only pay the employees
| when they actually deliver quality material that you can run ads
| on.
| nojito wrote:
| News doesn't make money unless you're a solo operation out of a
| basement or behind a paywall with 100+ years of experience under
| you.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > News doesn't make money unless you're a solo operation out of
| a basement or behind a paywall with 100+ years of experience
| under you.
|
| A solo news operation sounds a lot like a OS written by one
| person. At some point, it takes more labor to build something
| than one person is capable of.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Losing 10 million a year with 100 employees? Either journalists
| make a lot of money or Buzzfeed News makes next to nothing.
| devmor wrote:
| It costs a lot of money to run a business.
|
| 100 employees is a lot of people. Even if you paid them nothing
| more than median wage (~$52k), with healthcare and other HR
| costs that easily adds up to the lions share of $10 mil. And
| this is just talking about people. Not servers, office space,
| equipment, contracts & rental fees, licensing, etc.
| [deleted]
| prometheus76 wrote:
| I don't know. If you just straight-out divide 10 million by
| 100, it comes out to 100,000 per employee. If you spread that
| out with some management, and take into account that the
| burdened rate of an employee is typically 1.4 times their
| salary, that sounds pretty accurate if the company has very
| little revenue.
| TylerE wrote:
| If we're talking real journalism, I'd expect cost per head to
| be quite a bit higher than average, due to lots of expensed
| travel.
| antattack wrote:
| BuzzFeed News had interesting reports on Peter Thiel.
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/peter-t...
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosiegray/peter-thiel-d...
| [deleted]
| Vaslo wrote:
| News? Not seeing a single thing that isn't biased far left
| nonsense.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Hardly. Clearly they are left leaning but they back up their
| opinion with facts. For example calling out Republicans using
| half-truths against Jackson to try and make her look bad.
| That's some good reporting.
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/ketanji-
| brow...
|
| We need more of this kind of journalism to keep the facts out
| there and point out lots of pols twist things to fool the
| public.
| thebigman433 wrote:
| Just because a source looks biased doesnt mean its not
| factual. Saying "republicans are saying awful things to/about
| XYZ person", if they were doing it, wouldnt be biased, it
| would be the truth.
|
| And I wouldnt consider them "far left" anyway, just left of
| some other mainstream news sources.
| okino wrote:
| Regardless of thoughts on Thiel, the second link feels like a
| hit piece --- the entire article hinges on one paragraph
| "BuzzFeed News can reveal that in at least one instance during
| the summer of 2016, Thiel hosted a dinner with [white
| nationalist]... And then Thiel emailed the next day to say how
| much he'd enjoyed his company." How many other people were at
| the dinner? How many other people received this email? What
| were the contents of the email, i.e. was it a generic thank
| you? Left to suspect these details would make the story less
| interesting
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| "Hosting a dinner for" means the white nationalist was the
| star of the event, a proud Thiel introducing this fellow to
| his contacts.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| Using quotes when the quote doesn't exist should be enough
| to get this comment deleted.
|
| I know nothing about Thiel, but the actual quote is "hosted
| a dinner with" which like the one you responded to here
| said, could easily mean there were 50 guests at a party and
| one of them was this guy.
|
| Your made up quote is something entirely different.
| [deleted]
| elliekelly wrote:
| Does it matter? You couldn't pay me enough to dine with a
| known white nationalist and I certainly wouldn't be sending
| any thank you notes as a follow-up. I can't imagine I'm
| unique in this regard.
| exolymph wrote:
| Shrug. I would -- and have -- had dinner with all kinds of
| people whose beliefs and behavior diverge sharply from what
| I think is advisable or ethical. Having dinner with someone
| is not an endorsement of their worldview, full stop.
|
| Maybe this will sound corny, and I guess it probably won't
| land with non-Christians, but I'll offer my heuristic
| anyway: What would Jesus do? I don't think shunning is the
| answer.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| What exactly would your objection be?
|
| Personally, I would be open to such an experience. I am not
| so insecure in my beliefs that I would worry on that front.
| I might learn something about them and the nature of the
| world, and maybe they would too.
| rhino369 wrote:
| The article doesn't establish Thiel knew the guy was a
| white nationalist. Guilt by association is weak by itself,
| but if the two just attended the same party unbeknownst to
| Thiel and then Thiel spammed a list-serve of attendees with
| "THANKS EVERYONE I ENJOYED ALL YOUR COMPANY"--that's not
| association. The article is so threadbare its impossible to
| know whether that happened or whether Thiel purposely
| hosted a dinner specifically for the white supremacist. Or
| something in between.
| elliekelly wrote:
| What are the odds the person at your table widely known
| for founding "Youth for Western Civilization" turns out
| to be a white supremacist? Talk about bad luck, Pete. It
| could happen to anyone, really. And it's not like Thiel
| has access to troves and troves of personal data on just
| about every person with an internet connection and a
| program specifically designed to identify "extremists" by
| analyzing patterns in their social network and interests.
| Oh wait...
| rhino369 wrote:
| This analysis is based on many unfounded assumptions like
| he knew that the guy founded Youth for Western
| Civilization or even what that was. I traveled in right
| wing circles on colleges campuses in 2006-2008 and I
| never hear of them until today.
|
| If Thiel was getting into bed with this guy, then yea,
| you can probably impute some knowledge b/c Thiel would do
| some diligence. But we are talking about a dinner and an
| email.
|
| I met a new person this weekend under similar
| circumstances. You shouldn't take that as a a sign I
| agree with that person's politics.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| A fictional rendition of this process in modern journalism
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZvXi8W9o_U
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnYVH_Rrp00
| briandilley wrote:
| OH NO! where will i get TOP 100 CELEBRITY DOGS THAT LOOK LIKE
| POISONOUS FROGS lists in the future?
| tablespoon wrote:
| > OH NO! where will i get TOP 100 CELEBRITY DOGS THAT LOOK LIKE
| POISONOUS FROGS lists in the future?
|
| Oh don't worry, you'll still get that. In fact, that's _all_
| you 'll get. Investors know how to sort the wheat from the
| chaff to provide us with the race to the bottom our society
| really needs.
| Sebguer wrote:
| from Buzzfeed, because this isn't talking about the team that
| writes those clickbait listicles
| cwkoss wrote:
| Buzzfeed news is the only part of the organization providing any
| value to society
| danso wrote:
| Note of clarification since the branding is easy to conflate:
| "Buzzfeed News" is a part of Buzzfeed, better known for
| viral/listicle content, but has been its own entity, i.e. the
| "serious"/indepth news and investigations.
|
| Github repo of their open-sourced work:
| https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews/everything
|
| Previous HN submissions from the domain:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=buzzfeednews.com
|
| 2021 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting:
| https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/megha-rajagopalan-alison-ki...
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > Note of clarification since the branding is easy to conflate:
|
| If you need to post this disclaimer every time, maybe the
| branding sucks.
|
| It would be like Monsanto Organic Farming Division.
| kube-system wrote:
| They were bought by Bayer, which isn't much better, but they
| pretty much did do that:
|
| https://media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-
| launch-...
| adolph wrote:
| _Our collection of more than 125,000 microbial strains
| allows us to use genetic diversity to develop new and
| beneficial products for farmers all over the world._
|
| https://www.bayer.com/en/agriculture/agriculture-
| biologicals
| Markoff wrote:
| Bayer, is it that company which made Zyklon B to eliminate
| Jews in WW2 gas chambers? I'm always astounded how are
| these companies still around.
| hbn wrote:
| The name "Buzzfeed" itself, even if you didn't know what it
| was, doesn't bring to mind serious investigative journalism.
|
| It makes you think of content being shoved out as quickly as
| possible, about whatever topic is popular, in hopes of
| getting clicks. Which is exactly what their sans-"News" site
| is.
| lupire wrote:
| "What's the buzz? Tell me what's ahappening!"
|
| More people are interested in buzz than turned off by it.
| Andrex wrote:
| Profit at the expense of all else _is_ toxic, in my book.
| The economic framework of capitalism doesn 't absolve
| individuals of guilt, really. At the end of the day, a
| human being makes a decision.
| zrm wrote:
| Things win by out-competing other things.
|
| Competition works, and is important, because you would
| rather make $1 for yourself even if it reduces someone
| else's profit by $10. Which is how the market gets $9
| more efficient.
|
| Sometimes the status quo sucks. This is often caused by a
| lack of competition or some kind of information problem.
| In media it's a little of both, but the main one is that
| people don't understand how they're being manipulated
| because the people they rely on to help them understand
| things are the ones manipulating them.
|
| Social media algorithms aren't designed to make you happy
| or informed. They're designed to make you spend all day
| on social media.
|
| It's not that hard to design algorithms to do the
| opposite. That's not the problem. The problem is people
| aren't informed of the choice, or don't have a choice
| because the network effect locks them in and the network
| doesn't let them choose the algorithm.
|
| So we need to solve two problems. First, divorce the
| network from the algorithm, so people can choose. Second,
| people need to be informed, so they choose the one that
| works for them instead of against them.
|
| The person who figures out how to do this gets the $1 at
| the expense of costing Facebook $10. But they're
| currently getting nothing, and 10% of what the incumbents
| get is still a lot. So who wants to make money?
| otterley wrote:
| If you can figure out how to make quality journalism
| profitable again, there are plenty of people who would
| love to find out.
| majormajor wrote:
| This assumes that people feel "worked against" by the
| current systems.
|
| Facebook _achieved_ market dominance in an open market,
| it 's hard to convincingly argue that they won by doing
| things against the desires of the market. So the market
| would work for a problem like "Facebook is too expensive
| and doesn't need to be." But Facebook is already free, so
| you can't easily beat it on that point (it's unlikely
| that your thing would be so profitable you could
| meaningfully _pay_ users to take them away from FB).
|
| But we don't have to simply blindly accept that the
| result of market competition == the outcome that we'd all
| choose if we thought about the big picture and not just
| the in-the-moment choices.
|
| How does market competition divorce the network from the
| algorithm? Keep in mind that Facebook actively tunes
| their algorithm to give people more and more (short term)
| emotional reward for engagement.
|
| A third party would have to convince people that they
| actually want stuff different than what they've currently
| been responding to, _and_ that they should leave FB to
| get it (versus just behaving differently on FB to get a
| different version of the product).
|
| There's already a lot of alternatives for news - I
| personally decided FB wasn't right for me (nor was any
| "social media" network) and got a newspaper subscription
| instead - but they're hardly seeing mass adoption from
| people migrating away from Facebook.
| specialist wrote:
| Where does ethics fit into your thesis?
| zrm wrote:
| > Facebook _achieved_ market dominance in an open market,
| it 's hard to convincingly argue that they won by doing
| things against the desires of the market.
|
| This is the information asymmetry. People sign up without
| understanding how the algorithm works, or sign up not
| knowing that the corporation can change the algorithm at
| any time to make it more abusive. Then the network effect
| locks them in even if some eventually figure it out.
|
| So beating them in the market takes two things. First,
| yours has to be better.
|
| Designing something which is better at the expense of
| being less (but not un-) profitable is straightforward.
| Let users choose the algorithm, they'll typically want
| one that optimizes for quality over volume etc., so
| you'll make less money but not none.
|
| Second, people have to know yours is better. This is the
| information problem. This is also partially a
| coordination problem. You need everyone to find out
| quickly enough that enough can switch together and
| overcome the network effect before the early people
| forget about it or try it and give up because no one else
| is there.
|
| That's not a trivial problem but it's hardly a violation
| of the laws of physics either. And if you can do it one
| time, the network effect is now in your favor.
|
| > How does market competition divorce the network from
| the algorithm?
|
| Because that's how you get people to switch from
| Facebook. That's the competitive advantage that Facebook
| doesn't have. Not locking you into a specific algorithm,
| which informed users would prefer once they learn the
| consequences of not having that.
|
| In theory Facebook could see this coming and do this
| voluntarily. Then it would lose 90% rather than 100% of
| its profits because it couldn't optimize for getting
| people to spend all day on Facebook once users could
| choose an algorithm that doesn't do that.
|
| Or their refusal to do this creates an opportunity for
| someone else to.
| lupire wrote:
| The claim that Facebook users don't like using Facebook
| needs to be proven.
|
| People who don't want it have moved on.
|
| Facebook is like Congress. People like their part but
| hate the other parts.
| adfgadfgaery wrote:
| zeckalpha wrote:
| Fox News and watching the Simpsons on Fox is a more direct
| analogy. Any problem with the branding there?
| Larrikin wrote:
| The more toxic the news side becomes the more I've tried
| avoiding the Fox shows. Bobs Burgers is about the only
| thing on there I still regularly watch.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| >Fox News and watching the Simpsons on Fox is a more direct
| analogy. Any problem with the branding there?
|
| How? Nobody gets confused between a cartoon and a news
| program. They are completely differently offerings, branded
| completely differently.
|
| Buzzfeed, on the other hand, built up a reputation over
| years for pumping out lowest-common-denominator trash
| journalism, then later set up a serious news website under
| the same brand.
|
| It would be more like if Fox News bought out the BBC and
| called it "Fox News UK".
| sonnyblarney wrote:
| lupire wrote:
| Buzzfeed News isn't selling Buzzfeed to news readers. It's
| selling news to Buzzfeed readers, which is a deeply
| commendable activity and the branding is perfect for that.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Lol the only thing worth keeping in that whole mess.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-22 23:00 UTC)