This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/13/howard-kurtz-fired-daily-beast-newsweek

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Howard Kurtz isn't the problem at The Daily Beast, it's Tina Brown Howard Kurtz isn't the problem at The Daily Beast, it's Tina Brown
(4 months later)
When the media writer Howard Kurtz lost his job at the Daily Beast earlier this month, the details of how he screwed up managed to obscure the greater particulars of his boss, Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, and her lacklustre performance. Kurtz and Brown are really joined at the hip.When the media writer Howard Kurtz lost his job at the Daily Beast earlier this month, the details of how he screwed up managed to obscure the greater particulars of his boss, Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, and her lacklustre performance. Kurtz and Brown are really joined at the hip.
The Daily Beast was founded in 2008. As other web entrants in the news, politics, and personality field built viable businesses, the Huffington Post, Business Insider, Politico, Buzzfeed, Gawker, among them, Brown's Daily Beast foundered.The Daily Beast was founded in 2008. As other web entrants in the news, politics, and personality field built viable businesses, the Huffington Post, Business Insider, Politico, Buzzfeed, Gawker, among them, Brown's Daily Beast foundered.
Its ever-constant staff turnover has been bloody and operatic (Wikipedia can't keep up with its management changes); it sorely lagged behind in the race to build traffic; it Quixotically acquired the Newsweek corpse and then, humiliatingly, had to rebury it; and it has invested as much or more than any of its rivals. I can't imagine there is anyone who would bet on the Daily Beast's long-term future, or, at least, on Brown's.Its ever-constant staff turnover has been bloody and operatic (Wikipedia can't keep up with its management changes); it sorely lagged behind in the race to build traffic; it Quixotically acquired the Newsweek corpse and then, humiliatingly, had to rebury it; and it has invested as much or more than any of its rivals. I can't imagine there is anyone who would bet on the Daily Beast's long-term future, or, at least, on Brown's.
In other ways, however, The Daily Beast offers a markedly higher-quality product than other digitally native journalism sites. Or, anyway, a more ambitious one. It has tried to be an orchestration of diverse comment and opinion writing; it has sought out the best writers it could afford (and a number it probably could not afford); it has a design which puts aesthetic considerations ahead of click tricks; and its advertising strategy has been to encourage big buys, with innovative visual approaches, rather than everybody else's underhanded sponsored content tactic.In other ways, however, The Daily Beast offers a markedly higher-quality product than other digitally native journalism sites. Or, anyway, a more ambitious one. It has tried to be an orchestration of diverse comment and opinion writing; it has sought out the best writers it could afford (and a number it probably could not afford); it has a design which puts aesthetic considerations ahead of click tricks; and its advertising strategy has been to encourage big buys, with innovative visual approaches, rather than everybody else's underhanded sponsored content tactic.
Arguably, the Daily Beast has been hopelessly handicapped by Brown's famously mercurial and attention-deficit management style. Still, it has had the benefit of being lead by someone with vast and sophisticated editorial experience. Neither Arianna Huffington at the Huffington Post, nor Henry Blodgett at Business Insider, or Jim VandeHei and John Harris at Politico, or Jonah Peretti at Buzzfeed, or Nick Denton at Gawker, had run a publication before launching their businesses.Arguably, the Daily Beast has been hopelessly handicapped by Brown's famously mercurial and attention-deficit management style. Still, it has had the benefit of being lead by someone with vast and sophisticated editorial experience. Neither Arianna Huffington at the Huffington Post, nor Henry Blodgett at Business Insider, or Jim VandeHei and John Harris at Politico, or Jonah Peretti at Buzzfeed, or Nick Denton at Gawker, had run a publication before launching their businesses.
On the other hand, Brown's professional bias is, likely, among the Daily Beast's problems.On the other hand, Brown's professional bias is, likely, among the Daily Beast's problems.
The Kurtz incident is instructive. While the Daily Beast's competitors have mostly staffed up with neophytes and nobodies, whose primary, and often only, professional experience is in low-resourced digital journalism (all of these sites now regularly exchanged their personnel), Brown went out of her way to hire established figures.The Kurtz incident is instructive. While the Daily Beast's competitors have mostly staffed up with neophytes and nobodies, whose primary, and often only, professional experience is in low-resourced digital journalism (all of these sites now regularly exchanged their personnel), Brown went out of her way to hire established figures.
Kurtz, reportedly paid more than $250,000 (in one report $600,000) by Brown, and allowed various outside activities, had been at the Washington Post for many years, and has his own show at CNN. The Daily Beast's talent pool has also included writers from the New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and Vanity Fair.Kurtz, reportedly paid more than $250,000 (in one report $600,000) by Brown, and allowed various outside activities, had been at the Washington Post for many years, and has his own show at CNN. The Daily Beast's talent pool has also included writers from the New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and Vanity Fair.
Brown made a quintessential chattering class mistake of thinking that the business of journalism was about expertise, talent, or prestige instead of about scale.Brown made a quintessential chattering class mistake of thinking that the business of journalism was about expertise, talent, or prestige instead of about scale.
While Brown was having to shepherd divergent styles, egos, and salary demands, her competitors were creating extremely precise models that could be easily mimicked by inexperienced and low paid employees.While Brown was having to shepherd divergent styles, egos, and salary demands, her competitors were creating extremely precise models that could be easily mimicked by inexperienced and low paid employees.
It is the obvious accomplishment of the Huffington Post, Business Insider, Buzzfeed, and Gawker: enormous amounts of copy produced with a consistent voice and style, interchangeable short takes that can be written by anybody in the stable. Henry Blodget might be more identifiable than his writers, but all his writers sound like Henry.It is the obvious accomplishment of the Huffington Post, Business Insider, Buzzfeed, and Gawker: enormous amounts of copy produced with a consistent voice and style, interchangeable short takes that can be written by anybody in the stable. Henry Blodget might be more identifiable than his writers, but all his writers sound like Henry.
Doing it one way is much more efficient than multiple individual approaches. (Gawker occasionally lets its young reporters write a longer, personal piece, often with hilarious results).Doing it one way is much more efficient than multiple individual approaches. (Gawker occasionally lets its young reporters write a longer, personal piece, often with hilarious results).
The Daily Beast acquired Newsweek, but it was actually its rivals that adapted a newsweekly, one-tone, one-sentence-structure, style. What's more, largely anonymous bylines don't call that much attention to themselves. Kurtz's minor fact-check mistake (his final and fatal mistake was the last of a number of them) was of the kind made on a pretty much daily basis by everybody else, but without drama or even note.The Daily Beast acquired Newsweek, but it was actually its rivals that adapted a newsweekly, one-tone, one-sentence-structure, style. What's more, largely anonymous bylines don't call that much attention to themselves. Kurtz's minor fact-check mistake (his final and fatal mistake was the last of a number of them) was of the kind made on a pretty much daily basis by everybody else, but without drama or even note.
The Beast's competitors often seem to specialize, in fact, in compounding mistakes, because the overwhelming source of their information is aggregation, that online form, adapted from television news, of merely rewriting, in house style, stories from other news outlets. The Daily Beast, but for one specifically designated section, has eschewed aggregation and emphasized actual opinion writing, which, in Brown's former professional life, had the benefit of editors and fact checkers.The Beast's competitors often seem to specialize, in fact, in compounding mistakes, because the overwhelming source of their information is aggregation, that online form, adapted from television news, of merely rewriting, in house style, stories from other news outlets. The Daily Beast, but for one specifically designated section, has eschewed aggregation and emphasized actual opinion writing, which, in Brown's former professional life, had the benefit of editors and fact checkers.
Curiously, the Daily Beast has largely stayed the course since its inception. It tries to be an op-ed page or an opinion magazine in the manner of Britain's Spectator. Its competitors, on the other hand, have followed user traffic patterns and each transformed themselves multiple times with an abject fealty to the market.Curiously, the Daily Beast has largely stayed the course since its inception. It tries to be an op-ed page or an opinion magazine in the manner of Britain's Spectator. Its competitors, on the other hand, have followed user traffic patterns and each transformed themselves multiple times with an abject fealty to the market.
Newly minted editors like Huffington, Blodget, Denton, and Peretti, seemed to more easily grasp that the real job of journalism is to find a form that fits the financial limitation of the medium, however low. Brown, often with those limitations slapping her in the face, nevertheless keeps trying to transcend the medium.Newly minted editors like Huffington, Blodget, Denton, and Peretti, seemed to more easily grasp that the real job of journalism is to find a form that fits the financial limitation of the medium, however low. Brown, often with those limitations slapping her in the face, nevertheless keeps trying to transcend the medium.
Now, the problem may be that Howard Kurtz was just the wrong person to turn to for transcendence. Or, it may be that people who are hired precisely because they are thought to be superior to the form, end up inevitably condescending to it.Now, the problem may be that Howard Kurtz was just the wrong person to turn to for transcendence. Or, it may be that people who are hired precisely because they are thought to be superior to the form, end up inevitably condescending to it.
Brown projects a sense that the new world is not only lesser but unfair in its insistence that she adapt. Now, Kurtz has failed her too, as all her well-paid associates seem to do. But, taking advantage of Kurtz's blunder to get out from under his ill-advised salary, it seems she will, with martyred fortitude and clear distaste, once again try to meet the market where it is.Brown projects a sense that the new world is not only lesser but unfair in its insistence that she adapt. Now, Kurtz has failed her too, as all her well-paid associates seem to do. But, taking advantage of Kurtz's blunder to get out from under his ill-advised salary, it seems she will, with martyred fortitude and clear distaste, once again try to meet the market where it is.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.