Bio not provided
@jamesroth If NPR is mis-managing their Facebook presence and pushing the wrong articles to their fans, then that is unfortunate. That said, it is clear that Facebook is connecting the right content with the appropriate readers for most of their 1 billion users. Hopefully they will improve their product to a point where all users find a great experience, as yours sounds unsatisfying.
4 months, 4 weeks ago on Facebook is no longer a social network. It’s the world’s most powerful news reader
It's the right investment and the right media narrative for Bankoff.
The more that he can position Vox as a "media + technology company", the greater revenue multiple he will get when he sells it.
It's unclear how big a role the technology plays in their editorial and audience development — 64 product people sounds high to me — more likely it plays a big role in their advertising capabilities.
But, either way, I think he is making the right move by hiring and focusing his talk on technology. I'm sure his BOD agrees.
6 months ago on Vox Media’s Jim Bankoff continues to acquihire everything under the sun, snatching up Editorially founders
@NosFeratu1 You are not totally off base here -- but let's also remember that the "real estate interests" were able to transform a lot of Brooklyn, Queens, and Northern Manhattan into thriving/desirable neighborhoods. I don't think that many people were excited to live in Harlem twenty years ago... today, people are moving there eagerly.
11 months, 2 weeks ago on Awareness accomplished. Now let’s actually do something about San Francisco’s housing problem
Yup, as this article points out... there is no solution to the problem (as the problem has been framed by the media and the protesters).
Some want San Francisco to be "authentic" -- i.e. inhabited by people like them or who fulfill their definition of what a "real" San Franciscan should be. A big part of the authenticity is the small neighborhood vibe. Unfortunately, there are millions and millions of people who would like to reside in those Victorian homes in those small neighborhoods, and most of the people who can afford to do so are working 60-hour jobs in highly compensated fields...
This is what one might call an "end game" situation... and when we exhaust all possible alternative outcomes... that's when people get angry and throw things.
@DirtySexyEdtech Great comment. You are correct on all of the above.
11 months, 4 weeks ago on Look Who’s Gawking: Inside Nick Denton’s phony, hypocritical class war against tech workers
@paulcarr @bgoldberg Generalizations are fine, so long as the people you are generalizing look a certain way...
@ipvideo Many of them do. It depends upon the specifics of the jobs. The average highly-skilled software engineer probably makes more than the average sanitation worker, yes. The average BART worker probably makes more than the average AdOps manager.
Special thanks to Paul for highlighting how these "poor, destitute" BART workers make a huge salary, despite their efforts to hide overtime/bonus from all public discourse about their hearty incomes. It's hilarious how hypocritical this narrative has become. The increase in rents is driven just as much by the sheer quantity of workers moving to SF as it is by their salaries. I know plenty of 'techies' at big-name companies who make $70-95k, which is a fine salary, but less than a police officer will make. The financial advantage that many 'techies' have is that they are young, aren't supporting families, and don't yet care about saving. And so they will happily (and irresponsibly) pay $3k/month for a single room apartment.
@redhat @Scott_Allison Medium has a long way to go... the founders were able to get it some attention, not sure it is changing much or gonna get that big.
1 year ago on The top 20 most viral companies of the decade (and how they ultimately performed)
@Scott_Allison That's exactly right. Both of those companies grew fast, but in a sustained way.
@edwkim Great comment -- totally agree!
1 year ago on The Facebook content game: Who will win and who will lose?
I'm not sure that the criticisms against Upworthy are valid. There is nothing wrong with writing engaging headlines. There is nothing wrong with being hyper-attentive to curation. I think people are just jealous.
Now, whether they are a fad/gimmick or whether they last... that's another question.
But I don't see any reason to give them a hard time. Cynics can blame Facebook or Mankind for Upworthy's success, but not Upworthy.
1 year ago on Upworthy hits 87M monthly uniques, says “Don’t call us clickbait”
This is a very one-sided Pando House Rock.
I think that you need to point out a few things:
1) Many of the neighborhoods that are being 'gentrified' were absolute shitholes before the "Twitters" moved in. Mid-market is still pretty bad, but it's headed in the right direction. What is the percentage decrease in needles on the street??
2) You can have a city of just rich people -- look at most of Manhattan. The good news is that the increased rents in prime Manhattan have lead to the improvement of Brooklyn, Harlem, and Queens. The same thing is happening now to Oakland.
3) Rents can only go up when the local economy is creating high-paying jobs. That is happening. I do feel bad for those who are not employed in such lines of work, but the jobs ARE being created.
4) There is no solution to increased rents. None. Rent control is a dangerous myth and will only hurt the city while creating arbitrary winners/losers.
5) The Ellis Act is perfectly fair. This is America. People own their property and can do what they want with it.
1 year ago on Pandohouse Rock: Income inequality in San Francisco
@@chrisamccoy Lots of good thoughts here, thanks for the thoughtful response.
1 year, 3 months ago on Great entrepreneurs do not know their audiences
@Alyssa Royse I'm open to speak on this topic with you after the flurry dies down a little bit here. I have advised a lot of men and women in media on how to raise venture capital... it's something I put a lot of time into and talk about very little.
1 year, 4 months ago on Take Two
@JoshuaBolin Thanks. There were a lot of mistakes. One of them is that I was speaking to the Pando audience in the blog post, and assumed that they would be the readers. That was a mistake upon which many other poor judgements were layered.
@drewreidkerr Yes, the people who have run the publishing industry over the last twenty years have managed to destroy it. That is why the biggest-name publications are selling for small fractions of their value, and the rest are going out of business quickly. There are exceptions, but not many.
1 year, 4 months ago on I’ve raised $6.5 million to build and grow my new company: Bustle.com
UPDATE: After a lot of comment thread discussions, I now have a better sense of why some people have taken exception to my fundraise announcement...
Indeed, there are a lot of successful feminist publications — xojane and thehairpin are two that have built great followings. I regret not referencing them in my announcement, and the launch of Bustle, and my excitement about it, were not meant to convey that these sites don't exist. Nor was I trying to suggest that we are the first-ever website to cover this specific array of topics. I should have discussed some of these successful sites.
Bustle is a very different company from xojane or thehairpin. I would like for Bustle to be one of the fifty largest sites on the internet within this decade, and I would like to see it generate $100 million in revenue by that point. That's not to say that it is impossible for a feminist site like thehairpin to also achieve this, but I think that we are approaching things differently. Raising a large round of venture capital is one such difference in approach. Partnering with a major media company like Time Warner is another.
I appreciate the feedback and criticism, and I really intend to take it all in. I appreciate Anna and Rachel taking the time to elaborate on their reactions to this post and their patience in helping me to better understand the specific point.
@annaholmes @bgoldberg @ElizabethSpiers1 @rachelsklar There are many great feminist publications out there. I am agreeing with that, and acknowledging that I should have mentioned that more clearly in my post.
I do not believe that those websites are in a position to become Top 50 websites, or achieve the scale necessary to generate substantial advertising revenue on their own. In many cases, I do not believe that to be their aim.
The entire fundraise announcement was wrapped in the context of trying to build a highly mainstream, large-scale publication with a feminist voice. After looking at the competitive landscape, i do not believe that any of them achieve that. Jezebel is a great site, but it is one part of Gawker Media (which reaches mostly men), just as xojane is one part of Say Media.
I think that a lot of people are reading my post to suggest that I discount existing feminist blogs. That was not my intention, and after re-reading my post with an eye towards that context, I see why that sentiment is conveyed.
There are dozens of women who are working hard to make Bustle great, and I am proud of every one of them. They are not responsible for any contextual shortcomings in my fundraise announcement, nor do they justify such shortcomings.
A great part of starting Bustle is gaining a greater understanding of women's publishing and the feminist landscape. I bring a lot of value to the table for this company, but there is no question that there are challenges ahead for me and many things to learn. Constructive feedback like this is helpful.
Bustle is a really great site that is going to keep getting better. If people were turned off by my fundraise announcement, then I am convinced that our editors will win them back. I will try to do so as well.
@annaholmes @bgoldberg @ElizabethSpiers1 It wasn't a straw man, because this article was precisely about me raising the money, hiring talented women, and enthusiastically entering a market. Most of the criticism has been from people inferring things that I did not say.
In hindsight, I regret that I did not highlight that there ARE many great feminist publications out there. There are a ton of them. But creating a great feminist publication that generates substantial revenue is a different challenge, and one that I am excited to embrace.
The article was predicated on the idea that my team and I are trying to build a large/mainstream publication that can be a Top 50 website on the internet. A billion dollar company. And one that has a feminist voice from day one. I'm not sure that Rookie Mag or TheHairpin are currently on such trajectory. I don't know if it's their goal. That's not a criticism, it's just an observation.
This was a business publication, and I would be happy to write a guest post on a different publication that is a more appropriate forum for discussing feminism. I am happy to go into great detail about how we differ from, say, xojane. I discussed that with Jane herself last week, and am happy to do it publicly.
@Cynthia Schames @bgoldberg @tbauckhage @AmyWillardCross I think that a lot of people, yourself included, were inclined to dislike Bustle, because the founder was a man. There may now be other reasons as well, though I think my comments on this article have been thoughtful, and (unlike your comment here), respectful.
@annaholmes @bgoldberg @ElizabethSpiers1 I'm sorry if it came across that way. Most of the people who are talking about Bustle today in the Twittersphere are analyzing it from a strictly editorial perspective, and that's totally ok. But there a lot of other forces in play when we look at what constitutes a "highly successful" publication, and unfortunately, a lot of very quality publications have failed to achieve large-scale financial success.
There are many great female-focused websites out there, and some great explicitly feminist ones too. Very few have raised venture capital. Very few attract eight-figure advertising revenue. Very few have been acquired for $100,000,000's.
My goal is for this to be massive. An easier path would have been to create another tabloid. That's not what my team and I wanted to do.
Creating a publication that can reach a wide audience, advance a great message, and be profitable... well, that's a big challenge. There are very few that have done it. Gawker Media is very successful, and according to the statistics, has mostly reached a male audience. Jezebel is an exception under that umbrella, and I have never said bad things about it, privately or publicly. I have done many interviews in advance of this announcement, and in many of them, I said great things about Jezebel.
To be honest, I think that a lot of people who are raising skepticism (or flat out trashing) Bustle are as perturbed by the messenger as they are the message.
If it's a bad thing for a man to go out and raise millions of dollars, hire a ton of women, provide paid work opportunities to young/talented female writers, and enthusiastically discuss it on a business publication... then I don't know what to tell you.
I was hoping that a lot of great feminist bloggers would welcome a 'different type' of entrant into this space... clearly that isn't happening. Doesn't change the mission, nor does it change that we are creating something valuable and different. I am no stranger to positive and negative criticism, and I far prefer the latter. We will grow from it. My last website received no shortage of hate, and we grew from it... and then sold it for a lot of money, because we embraced that feedback.
I am always happy to talk about Bustle's mission, and why we are different. And also where we overlap with existing sites.
@rachelsklar @bgoldberg @annaholmes @ElizabethSpiers1 All very good feedback. The "mascara, concealer, and eye-liner" quote was tongue-in-cheek, clearly did not come across that way.
There are few people working harder to support and advance female entrepreneurs than you. But, believe me, I am putting a LOT of my time into supporting women in tech, and I hope that some of them will crawl out of the woodwork in coming weeks.
You and I both know that a fundraise announcement is a time for celebration, and it is a time to explain how you plan to approach a market. It is not a time to lament that other (very talented people) are not able to raise cash. There are a lot of great women's sites out there, and I recognized some in this post. There are many that I did not mention.
On the whole, I am disappointed that the reaction to Bustle has been one of "he fails to recognize that others, like me, are already doing this..." and not one of "welcome to the party, let's continue to change things."
I am no stranger to criticism, and I will listen to all of it, and it will make Bustle better.
There are a lot of women who have worked hard to build Bustle, and they will eventually convince the skeptics that we are doing something valuable and different. We are not totally different, but our approach is unique in many ways.
Thanks for taking the time to write such smart comments. As mentioned, I have heard nothing but amazing things about you, and I am sure that we agree on 90% of matters. :)
@tbauckhage @AmyWillardCross Smartest thing that I've read all day. Not sure that a lot of these bloggers see it that way, though.
@rachelsklar @bgoldberg @annaholmes @ElizabethSpiers1 Rachel, everyone here at Bustle has a high opinion of you, and we've written positive things about you in the past. Nobody here is trying to set back the clock.
Not sure I get why someone as highly regarded as you needs to react to this with such snark and anger on day one of our announcement...
There's no way to write a fundraise announcement that will perfectly articulate the site's mission, and clearly this feedback would have been instructive a day ago. So things go...
I'm working very hard to support female editors and entrepreneurs here in New York — there are few people here working harder for that mission — and Bustle is a project that I believe in. I'm confident that our mission is on target, and that we will succeed in fusing feminist publishing and mainstream appeal. Not super interested in knee-jerk criticism, but always happy to discuss thoughtfully.
@annaholmes @ElizabethSpiers1 *complements*
@annaholmes @bgoldberg @ElizabethSpiers1 For starters, I specifically cited Gawker in my article, and I said nice things about Jezebel in the copy I submitted for publication, which (believe it or not) were edited out for some reason. No idea why, I don't own Pando.
The lens for this post was about how I want Bustle to be different from mainstream publishers, most of whom are magazines that have been around for decades. Jezebel is an outstanding site, but I think that the voice and content mix is pretty different from what we are aiming to do at Bustle.
Furthermore, the Gawker sites are part of a media company that takes pride in being 'alternative' in its voice. That's fine. But it's not what Bustle is trying to do. We are aiming to reach people across this country who are still reading Cosmo, and are not used to seeing the Egyptian Revolution side-by-side with Fashion tips.
I'm aware that many people on Twitter are expressing concerns (and anger) at Bustle and me, but I'm just not sure I understand why. This company has four men and about forty women working at it, and it's disappointing that all these great women's publications are picking fights.
I had a long meeting with Jane Pratt last week, and I think the world of her site, but it is VERY different from what I am doing, and she agreed with that assessment.
You ask how this will be mainstream? Well, building a huge publication is not easy, and one of the main things that hold publications back is a lack of resources. Raising a lot of capital to hire talented women as editors and writers is part of that. Yes, we will also cover a lot of topics, including some things that you may write off as "crap". There will be a lot of Miley and Amanda Bynes articles. Personally, I don't like how women are made to feel ashamed for reading about celebrities in the news. Men don't get mocked for reading about Alex Rodriguez's latest gossip.
On the whole, I think you will find that Bustle is going to prove a lot of skeptics wrong, by doing one thing... producing a lot of really good content and winning over readers, especially ones who might not otherwise think of themselves in a feminist context.
I'm totally open to criticism, and a lot of people don't like me or Bleacher Report, etc. At the same time, I am confident that we are doing a good thing here, and building a site that compliments the existing ecosystem.
@ElizabethSpiers1 @bgoldberg What are you really perturbed about here, Elizabeth? That my team and I are throwing our hats in the ring? That we want to bring smart content for women into the mainstream (where it currently does not exist)?
There are a lot of great women's publications out there — but the FACT is that very few of them are garnering the 10 million+ visitors and tens of millions in revenue that many of these male-oriented sites bring in. I'm trying to change that.
I applaud all of the niche women's sites that are trying to build large audience. I wish them the best of luck. I'm not saying anything bad about them, nor am I discounting them. But I think that my team and I can build one too, and grow it to be quite large.
Appreciate you taking the time to discuss this stuff -- I have always been a fan of Gawker, as mentioned in my article.
@ElizabethSpiers1Those *are* the publications that are attracting big advertising dollars. There are a lot of great/niche sites out there that reach women. Not arguing that. Have they tried to enter the mainstream and bring great feminist content to TENS of millions of readers? Probably not. Are they making $50 million per year in revenue? Nope. Most are making less than 1/20th of that.
Any suggestion that Bustle or I are demeaning other women's sites is ridiculous, and in no way a reasonable take-away from what was in my announcement.
@LoraKolodny @bgoldberg So.. "hustle and bustle" is dated, but a 19th century fashion piece is not dated? :)
I'm not saying that a woman couldn't have started Bustle, but what I am saying is that to-date, there have been very few venture-backed women's publications that seek to operate at large scale and generate substantial advertising revenue.
Any suggestion -- and there is plenty of it on Twitter -- that there are "no good publications for women or feminists" is preposterous, and I've made no such claim. Are there many great sites for women? Of course. Do those websites generate big revenue from mainstream advertisers? Rarely. I'm trying to use my experience, contacts, etc, to create a mainstream publication for women, edited by smart/talented women, with a feminist lean to it.
If that's so bad, then people are free to hate on us, one day into our launch...
@LoraKolodny Thanks for the thoughtful comment. The "bustle" name has several meanings, and for me, the primary meaning is the first one that appears in the dictionary. The site is for busy women, who love the hustle and bustle of our crazy world. As for the clothing item, I'm not sure that it should be taken so literally... of course our writers dont long for Victorian days. Also, fwiw, a female editor came up with the name.
I think it's pretty clear that the site cares about way more than cosmetics. At the same time, we also don't want people to feel apologetic about liking cosmetics -- or feel that it renders them less likely to be taken seriously.
As for me being a CEO -- of course there are women who would be more credible feminists, and who would be a better face for the company. Are those same people able to assemble a team of world class engineers, advertising experts, audience developers, investors, etc? Everyone brings their own casserole to the picnic.
@ianb1 @MikeKazanjy My first Apple Macintosh cost $5,600 in 1989 terms -- which is closer to $10,000 in today's dollars... that was a far great luxury than spending $60,000 on a car.. especially one that will probably save you a good portion of your gas money. Gotta love the hindsight view of history...
1 year, 4 months ago on Now it’s not even close – Elon Musk is more important to society than Steve Jobs ever was
@ryanvailbrown "Competition" from an advertising standpoint will be Vogue, Hearst, and many of the large womens publishers with established sales teams. Very few of the new media womens publishers have achieved the scale and infrastructure necessary to compete in the revenue marketplace.
There are many great women's sites out there, but tend to be niche. Very few investors have put big money into a female-focused content venture. Are there any favorites of yours that you think I should check out? Always on the look out for great sites.
@curtwoodward Glad the "Journalism Witch Hunter" is on the case!
@ianb1 Your sentence re: Tesla has got to be the stupidest and most laughable dismissal of a point that I have read in quite some time. Is that all Tesla is doing? Nothing potentially groundbreaking to speak of??
Is your disdain for the "1%ers" so hot that you can simply hurl the word "luxury" at it -- and suddenly it loses all of its credibility?
There is a reason why Tesla went from a $3 billion to $15 billion company overnight, and why it will grow another 10x this decade. It is going to single-handedly achieve the impossible by making electric vehicles a mainstream alternative to gasoline powered ones.
And, in so doing, will help the planet and help rid us of the petrol-powered dictators of the world.
Sounds like one of the tech world's most common problems...
1%ers creating products for other 1%ers.
I'm just not sure that the average American is really interested in longform journalism...
But, then again, I'm not sure that these are commercial endeavors.
1 year, 4 months ago on Epic launches, Politico goes deeper: Why longform is the new necessity
America is making all the correct investments for the future: end-of-life care so that 88-year-olds can live an extra few months, obscene pension plans for our government employees, and prisoners...
1 year, 4 months ago on Hey Ayn Rand devotees: Startups and markets alone won’t fix our cities
I think that this focuses more on the symptoms — and how we measure those symptoms — than it does the cause.
The reason we have such inequality is because we have become more of a meritocracy, and there are fewer 'support systems' in place that can translate hard work into guaranteed income. It used to be that a person who is willing to work hard and get his hands dirty was able to make a decent wage. Now you have to be hard working AND clever/savvy just to get a job. Most people do not fulfill both of those adjectives.
The good news is that we still live in a country where the best and brightest, and hardest working, are able to separate themselves. There are lots of myths about the 'dream' being gone, but that just isn't true. I continue to see the people who most deserve to make money be the ones who make money.
The reason why Sarah Lacy is not only making a living in journalism, but also is the CEO of her own publication, is because she simply works harder than all the others. I say that with the knowledge of knowing many writers/editors/media executives. Nobody works harder than her, which is why she is where she is...
Fifty years ago, the United States was a game where anyone could make a living. Today the rules are far more complex, the expectations are higher, and the playing field is rougher.
1 year, 4 months ago on America can kiss its ass and consumer economy goodbye: The view from dystopia
@The Expert Not sure how you define it, but I would gladly "fail" for a second time...
1 year, 4 months ago on The most important managerial skill
@john22harrison I barely ever get to use it.
1 year, 5 months ago on Search traffic vs. social traffic — It’s not equal
@danielschiller Sponsored content is a subset of display advertising, as far as I'm concerned. On TV, we have seen sponsored content replace commercials, thanks to DVR's. How often have you seen a baseball game where the "Starting lineup is brought to you by Chevy Trucks..." or seen all the product placement for Coca Cola in American Idol...
These deals are still priced and planned in ways similar to rectangles or pre-rolls...
Yup, I am pleased to be helping this company grow. To add to Hamish's disclosure, the Hoffman brothers took interest in my columns here on Pando and had the initiative to reach out to me. My opinion then, as it is now, is that WSCS is a site with a whole lot of upside. They have managed to get the 'big things' right — building audience, driving revenue, garnering subscribers in large numbers, etc. Improvements to design, ad layouts, tech, etc, will come with time. There are thousands of Silicon Valley darlings who would kill to have the type of numbers that WSCS can boast.
I am a stock market nut — always love the debates about which companies are on the rise, and which ones are dogs. It is one of the hardest forms of content to do properly (harder even then sports), and I think that the Hoffman bros are in a position to win. The fact that they have done it in such a bootstrapped way, and far from Silicon Valley, makes their achievement all the more impressive.
Pleased to be involved with this business, and think that it will keep getting bigger from here.
1 year, 5 months ago on Not pretty, but profitable: Wall St Cheat Sheet writes its own rules for new media
@UnMarketing @bgoldberg @nathanielmott I don't think that it is — but I think that this debate is worthy of a separate article. Perhaps I will write one.
(Cue the booing and hissing)
1 year, 5 months ago on Which is worse for crowdfunders, naiveté or honesty?
@nathanielmott @bgoldbergIf we can't figure out who the report was, then so be it.
I don't think that there are any ethical scruples with crowdfunding — you get exactly what you pay for: nothing.
Everyone on Kickstarter needs to assume that they are making a very small-scale donation to an entreprenuer. Whether they get their watch or bike or what not is a cherry on the cake. They will usually get *something*, but they should keep their expectations in check.
It's hard for me to be sympathetic about some random guy losing $75, when a lot of angel investors lose $75,000 on similar companies — often for reasons even more frustrating than a manufacturing snafu. The dynamics of risk and reward are not reserved for the very wealthy. It's a boat in which every single person finds themselves.
This article — which I consider to be uncontroversial to the extreme — appears to have been prompted by "one reporter" at a press conference. Do you have a link?
@kpkelleher @bgoldberg Yup, there are plenty of puff pieces in Silicon Valley. It's generally an overtly-positive environment where people cheer for you and give you a gold star even if you fail.
Beyond that, we are talking past each other, and it does not appear that either of us are in search of common ground.
1 year, 5 months ago on What the hell is a “real journalist” anyway?
@kpkelleher @bgoldberg My point — and after re-reading my post, I feel I conveyed this articulately — is that there are only a few thousand people out there who can make a living as journalists, and I think that they have bigger fish to fry than Sean Parker, Dave Morin, or (in the case of Eskenazi) me and my colleagues. I think that journalists play an important role in our society, and given that they are becoming scarcer in number, it is disheartening to see them pick the wrong targets. Maybe you think that Sean Parker is the right target. I don't. Maybe you think that Bleacher Report is the right target. I don't. Maybe you are a relativist who does not believe that anything is 'right' or 'wrong' to target — I'm not.
My brush stroke was not an attack on every single journalist, but it was an attack on a pretty-hard-to-ignore trend of hating on Silicon Valley and the successful entrepreneurs/investors in particular. It's an accelerating wave, and my article was very clearly directed at it. If you can honestly tell me that SV has not been in the cross-hares recently, then we are on totally different pages.
What are my 1950's epithets? I have no idea what you mean by that.
What are you and Nathaniel and Valleywag and everyone else so mad about?
As I mentioned in my criticism of Eskenazi, I am always open to discuss anything. I am easy to reach, always take the time to respond to people, and happy to thoughtfully debate any point.
@orangerobot @bgoldberg There you go! I imagine that VMWare will survive your anti-Bryan views.
I'm really not sure why you — and countless journalists on Twitter — are so worked up about my article.
Contrary to what the angry mob has insinuated, it was not some sort of tirade, ferocious screed, or rambling manifesto.
It was a short blog post that made one very clear and reasonable point: These big-name journalists have better things to do than thumb their noses at (successful) Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. And, despite all the angry responses, the point is a perfectly fair one.
In most cases, I pointed out that my subjects were good writers who deserve praise for their other works. Though some people are angry at me for complimenting Nate Thayer, who was very recently embroiled in some quote-lifting controversy (I guess that I just can't win even when I'm nice).
The only writer who I called out — and, as with many of my articles, connected it to the first person — was Joe Eskenazi. He earned my criticism because of his intellectual dishonesty. He made no sincere effort to reach me before writing 10,000+ words (based on 'hundreds of pages of notes') about my company. I am very easy to reach. Anybody with Facebook or LinkedIn can very easily reach me. He made no serious effort to do so, because it would have inconvenienced his article. Given that he has written little of note other than his anti-Bleacher hit piece, I will assume that his lack of talents are generally manifest. I have no more desire to discuss them, anyhow.
Your article, Kevin, was hastily written and resorted to potty-humor. It was pretty low on the 'lowest common denominator' meter. I'm not sure where to begin responding, and it would be hard to do so, given that you resort to relativism for the most part.
I will leave you with this observation, though...
The reason why my writing is valuable, and the reason why so many people read and share my articles is because of one thing: perspective. Am I the world's greatest writer? No. Does my prose rival Thomas Hardy's? Absolutely not. But there are very few — in fact, probably zero — other people who have the experience of starting a large, successful startup AND who take the time to write about the experience. There are thousands of people who are career writers, and some of them have traveled the world, dodged bullets, or gained incredible access to people of note. Those are the journalists who are famous. The other tens of thousands are just writers with nothing particularly unusual about them. Maybe you are in the former category, maybe you are in the latter.
But I am somebody who does bring truly unique perspective to my writing.
My readers care what an *actual* founder of an *actual* success story has to say. And they care about my views on Silicon Valley, because I am now out there once again fundraising and building businesses. That is a rare perspective, and I am apparently one of the few who is bringing it into the open.
Most of my articles are about fairly mundane topics that you cannot possibly take exception to — fundraising, team building, traffic growth, etc. Sometimes I write about politics, and those are the ones that likely upset you. Deal with it.
Ultimately, the reason why so many of your fellow journalists hated my article is because journalists aren't used to being criticized. They are used to being the critics. They think they have the right to shit all over "rich white elitists" to their hearts' content, but when somebody speaks to the contrary, they write it off as garbage.
Anyhow, I hope that this was therapeutic for you, and that you can once again break bread with your journalists friends, having saved the day at this website you love so much... even if you hadn't written anything in 17 days until now.