This is sad, on three levels. Firstly, of course, a lot of hugely talented journalists have lost their jobs. Which, ugh. Secondly, the husk that remains has immediately descended into doubletalk and disingenuousness. “We lost”, of course, means “we fired”. And “as we evolve our platform to better serve you” means “as we move to a model of user-generated content which doesn’t require paying anybody to commit journalism”.
And then, on a very minor level, there’s the Bitcoin story which I was meant to have in the lastest issue of the magazine, but which was cut “because we got a combination of extra ad sales and some kind of late-breaking data visualization”. (Which, I’ve had stories dropped because there weren’t enough ads before, but never because there were too many.) It was meant to appear online, but in the wake of this tweet, I doubt they want such material any more, and in any case I don’t think I want to give it to them.
Good is actually the third magazine to ask for this story and then decide not to run it, which is my own personal record! Should I try to make it four? I think at this point I just want to find a website which will make it look really good online. Any suggestions?