According to Huffpo, Ezra Klein is leaving the Washington Post to begin a new venture, and has enlisted the aide of fellow Juicebox mafioso, Matt Ygleisias:
"Klein's possible departure from The Washington Post had been the talk of D.C. media for the past month, with the paper finally announcing Tuesday that he, Melissa Bell and Dylan Matthews were leaving for a new venture.
Yglesias, a longtime friend of Klein who came up in the same political and policy blogging world, is the first non-Post journalist to join up [now that he will be leaving Slate].
Klein has not yet announced the site's name or his financial backer, but speculation within the Post has focused on Vox Media as investing in the project. The New York Times reported Tuesday that Klein has been in talks with Vox -- which owns sites like The Verge, SB Nation and Curbed -- among other potential investors."
For some background on the origin of the term, Juicebox Mafia:
(2009) "Much internet attention has been given to the “Juicebox Mafia”, a group of very young, Jewish, liberal bloggers who have been sharply critical of Israel, especially in the wake of the recent Gaza incursion. The terms Juicebox Mafia was coined and popularized by ideological opponents of the group (Noah Pollack in Commentary, Marty Peretz in the New Republic); but like the terms “Tory” and “queer”, it’s an insult which fast became a badge of honor. The core of the Juicebox Mafia would include Matthew Yglesias, Spencer Ackerman, Ezra Klein and Dana Goldstein." -Jeet Heer
(2008) Marty Peretz of The New Republic stated the the "tag-line" was specific to the "Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein and Ackerman trio," and was "provided by a regular contributor to TNR," which according to Spencer Ackerman, was Eli Lake (scroll to third comment). In the same piece Peretz also said: "I pity them their hatred of their inheritance. Actually of both their inheritances, Jewish and American. They are pip-squeaks, and I do not much read them. But when any one of them writes a real doozey it is likely to come to my attention.I have known one of them, Spencer Ackerman, a smart young man but, alas, not as smart as he thinks and certainly not as smart as he needs to be. He worked at The New Republic for maybe two years or even three for which I apologize; you can look up his trash by yourself."
I recall when fifty-something Mickey Kaus was let go by Slate, and a short time later Ezra, then in his early twenties, was brought aboard. You know that left a mark.
32 comments:
"How will Ezra do?"
Ezra will get pounded for his antisemitism.
Good ol' Marty P. was never one to leave an invective unhurled.
In my many, many years of reading TNR one could always count on M.P. to defend Israel & to spit in the eye of folks to the left of him far more than folks to the right.
As for the Juice Box Kidz, I suspect that they found some wealthy liberal who will bankroll their endeavor as a tax write-off vanity project. It probably wasn't even that difficult. I don't think they're risking their DC townhouses on this venture.
Jeff Bezos is a genius. He's cutting costs and letting the puffy poodle egolibs think it was their idea!
Who bankrolls Slate? I don't think it has ever turned a profit. Could it be Soros?
AJ, I think it was originally a subsidiary of Microsoft(?) The MS in MSNBC stood for Microsoft.
Sully did okay branching out on his own. Now we have to see how Greenwald and Klein will do.
@AJ,
Slate is owned by the WaPo, which in turned is owned by Bezos.
My guess is that the Juice Box Kidz were uncomfortable with Bezos or he with them no matter what their present roost.
@Deborah,
When Andrew Sullivan went out on his own he had years of a very successful editorship at TNR under his belt. He was also a pioneer in the new world of on-line journalism, getting in when the getting was good. None of the JBK has Sullivan's proven track record, and they are not original by any stretch of the imagination.
I agree Sullivan was better seasoned and in the right place at the right time, but the JBK's certainly have made their mark, considering their youth. At least Ygleisias and Klein.
The key question, how much longer till the field becomes too full?
I could hope he fails, but he won't, even if this venture fails to pan out. He's part of the sycophant class whose job is to constantly fluff the egos of the people at the top of the political food chain. Good fluffers keep working.
Now we have to see how Greenwald and Klein will do.
Greenwald is much more likely to fail. He seems to actually have some principals that he isn't willing to sell out. Which makes him a crappy fluffer.
YH, originality is not an asset for the kind of work they do. They have to parrot the orthodoxy of their side. That's it.
True, Ice, very true.
They probably balked when Bezos demanded they use a cheap door and some saw horses as a desk.
YoungHegelian, I thought Bezos did not get Slate when he bought the WaPo? I remember that aspect of the deal being specifically noted. The WaPo parent company kept Slate.
JournoList in the open.
They disseminate the talking points for the lesser beings.
PS deborah, I don't think Slate was a subsidiary, but Microshaft (or Gates) provided the original seed money on a proposal by Michael Kinsley.
Ed, after I posted to AJ I looked it up:
"Slate is a United States-based liberal, English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley, initially under the ownership of Microsoft as part of MSN. On 21 December 2004 it was purchased by The Washington Post Company. Since 4 June 2008 Slate has been managed by The Slate Group, an online publishing entity created by Graham Holdings Company to develop and manage web-only magazines.[2]"
Bezos probably insisted the WaPo parent company keep Slate.
Why the assumptions that Jeff Bezos had anything to do with this? I'm not saying he wouldn't but it would be nice to see some evidence or decent reasoning to that effect beyond just "He's the boss and he gets to do what he WANTS nyah nyah nyah nyah!"
Also, I don't read either of those guys at all (I think I tried once or twice) but one can't assume that they decreased the value of the WaPo. If anything, being of a generation capable of relating to consumers of on-line media is always a plus and I think Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert definitively prove that non-neocon opinion is no commercial death knell. Perhaps they should try being more animated/comedic like their televised versions or more emotional like Sullivan.
Every now and then Sullivan gets away with a wry underhanded quip that justifies the massive melodrama he serves up while discussing his favorite projects.
"The Huffington Post first reported on Dec. 20 that Klein was considering starting a new media venture and may leave the paper. On Thursday, The New York Times revealed more about Klein’s plans, including that he asked Post executives for an “eight-figure” investment to launch a new site focused on explanatory journalism. Jeff Bezos, the Amazon chief who bought the Post in October, and publisher Katharine Weymouth, reportedly turned down that initial business plan."
"They are pip-squeaks, and I do not much read them. But when any one of them writes a real doozey it is likely to come to my attention.I have known one of them, Spencer Ackerman, a smart young man but, alas, not as smart as he thinks and certainly not as smart as he needs to be. He worked at The New Republic for maybe two years or even three for which I apologize; you can look up his trash by yourself."
I don't know who this Peretz guy is but he sure does have a poison pen.
I can't see this going well. These people are a bit dull. I read Matt Ygleisias because my son thinks he is good but I largely do it out of a sense of duty and he is easy to find on Slate.
Sullivan is a bit of a different case because he wants to avoid all corporate input, both from a sugar daddy or through advertising. It is a tougher road but you have to respect this aspect of his efforts. I thought it unlikely that he could raise close to 1 million each year from subscriptions but he has done it. I don't even subscribe to the NYT. If it ain't free I ain't readin' it. Weirdly I am perfectly happy to buy a newspaper. Apparently I value the paper more highly than the content printed there on.
This will be about as possible as Air America or MSNBC.
Most of the people who consistent vote for the liberals are not reading blogs on the computer.
That is why they are called low information voters.
There is not a market for liberal thought. Sorry but it has been proved again and again.
phx, when it's about Israel with these guys, the gloves are off. And really, Ackerman wasn't the brightest bulb in the box.
ARM, absolutely, they are a bit dull. Ygleisias wrote a piece once on gentrification of a particular neighborhood, and even non-financial wizard that I am could see the holes. As far as Ezra, he can talk a blue streak. He's sincere and charming. He's probably the brightest of the bunch, but I have seen him write a line about Medicaid, or was it Medicare, being an excellent model because it streamlined costs, or something. Of course making doctors take a hit on fees would streamline costs. How would that translate if everyone were on it? Hee hee...I know you're pro Obamacare. Anywho, his piece that day was in reply to a McArdle piece.
Sully sure has his loyal followers. His is the one site I'm loathe to give a click to. But I have to admire him for what you just reported about him.
Excellent insight, Troop. He may well regret leaving the prominence of WaPo.
As far as libs reading blogs, I'd be interested in the breakdown between them and conservatives. After all, sites like Kos, TPM, etc., etc., are really popular.
There is not a market for liberal thought. Sorry but it has been proved again and again.
Lol. That's funny. Is what Limbaugh and the think tanks providing "thought"?
Medicare for All was and is a fine idea. Medicare is probably the least unpopular health plan of them all. Come on.
As for this Klein fella, the WaPo as is was just another aging dinosaur of sunk profits. However Bezos plans to turn around their books, it won't be through better journalism. It will be more of the BS paid advertisements masquerading as journalism. If that's what you like, you'll surely get it.
But the rest of his bunch have standards. Albeit, likely belated standards, as slim as his incisiveness as a columnist. But more than anyone looking to run or turn-around any MSM dinosaur as a "business".
I'm not a fan of these kids. Just of Sullivan (for his model, innovation and willingness to not back down) and probably Nate Silver. An even more archaic MSM dinosaur, NYT, couldn't do what needed to be done to keep him, either. So in this battle, I say I'll pick the kid. WaPo has nothing to do with Amazon's business model and it's hard to say Bezos acquisition (along with how he runs it) is anything other than a vanity project. Remember all those other supposed wonder-matches… AOL/Time-Warner? Lol. Yes, I'm sure you do. His whole operation with them makes even less sense. So let the kid do what he wants; it can hardly amount to anything worse. Who the hell even reads the WaPo or feels they get anything useful from it? And remember Richard Cohen's debacle, of pissing off nearly everyone with ignorance so weird it couldn't be deciphered generously anywhere on the political spectrum?
Whatever the kid does, he's still leaving a losing non-enterprise.
You're correct, Ritmo, he may as well strike out on his own. He's quick on his feet, personable, and I don't think the field is yet saturated.
Here's the article I mentioned. I don't care for his glib,
"Medicare, for instance, is undoubtedly America's largest purchaser of new drugs and devices. That's a big part of the reason that it is so expensive. Without Medicare, in fact, there would be a much smaller market for medical innovations, as a substantial portion of the elderly would not be able to afford heath-care insurance -- much less unlimited health-care insurance -- and could not pay for these innovations. National health insurance for the elderly, in other words, is one of the primary drivers of medical innovation."
If it's true that they're the biggest purchasers of new drugs, let us recall the era of the $600 toilet seat. New drugs often are different from their predecessors by the addition of a chemical group that has little effect on the drug's performance, yet the price gets jacked up because of the new patent. IMO this is Ezra running his mouth without supplying supporting facts.
But as you say, he has a talent. Let him run with it.
If it's true that they're the biggest purchasers of new drugs, let us recall the era of the $600 toilet seat.
Indeed. Those toilet seats were produced and priced under a system which stifled competition or rather smothered it. In the past new drugs were discovered by firms like Merck which in turn colluded with healthcare providers to promote new drugs. Then advertising came along -- viagra commercials? Who paid for that? We did in higher prices all around. The new model will not bring costs down and may instead lead to $600 toilet seats -- for everyone! BTW, the industry is hurting. Last time I check a few thousand were given pink slips at Merck.
New drugs often are different from their predecessors by the addition of a chemical group that has little effect on the drug's performance, yet the price gets jacked up because of the new patent.
Only a clown who never worked around patent law would say something like that.
Hmph. Educate me, doctor. Good-night. I said good-night, sir!
I thought you were paraphrasing Klein, deborah. I'm sorry.
Accepted :)
Post a Comment