Meet the new type

July 24, 2009 9:38 AM

A new type of newspaper for a new type of world One story from it previously.

About us: "The Faster Times is a collective of great journalists who have come together to try something new. As we launch this July, we will have more than a hundred correspondents in over 20 countries. We have someone on the ground in Kenya and someone else reporting from Lebanon. Our arts section will cover not just film and books, but also theater and dance and photography. We will launch with seven writers on books alone. These writers are not “citizen journalists” but among the most accomplished and recognized names in their respective fields."

posted by msalt (43 comments total)

So far I have learned that Hot Dogs are a great hangover cure which might also give me cancer.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:42 AM on July 24, 2009

Where's the "new" part?
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 9:44 AM on July 24, 2009

I like it for the sole reason the the 2nd category under "Tech" is "Jetpacks"
posted by SneakyArab at 9:47 AM on July 24, 2009

Is there a word for site design that inexplicably irritates my nervous system?
posted by zennie at 9:50 AM on July 24, 2009 [1 favorite]

The Bugle: Audio Newspaper for a Visual Word
The Onion: America's Finest News Source
posted by blue_beetle at 9:51 AM on July 24, 2009

So Web sites are the new newspapers or am I missing something?
posted by dortmunder at 9:51 AM on July 24, 2009

Web sites crammed with op-eds are the future of news!
posted by mr.marx at 9:54 AM on July 24, 2009 [6 favorites]

Rachel Shukert is a very dear old friend of mine. I appear briefly in her memoirs, so, thanks to her, I am in the Library of Congress, which I think was my only goal in life.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:54 AM on July 24, 2009

Just because they call themselves "A New Type of Newspaper for a New Type of World" doesn't actually make it true. There's some interesting stuff, but I don't really see anything innovative or that new here. I even looked at a few articles about Faster Times to get a little insight about what makes it so different, but couldn't find anything outside of their own claim. But I'll bet that Jet-Packs played a big part in the PR piece they sent out.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:56 AM on July 24, 2009 [1 favorite]

The apparently have a Bathrooms Correspondent.... actually, that's kind useful here in NYC.

I heard once that hotels were legally obligated to let you use their bathrooms. No idea if that's true or not.
posted by Afroblanco at 9:57 AM on July 24, 2009

Looks like HuffPost with annoyingly large fonts. This should not be taken as an endorsement of Huffpost.
posted by Pragmatica at 9:59 AM on July 24, 2009

I thought HuffPost was the HuffPost with annoyingly large fonts?
posted by kmz at 10:03 AM on July 24, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think this might be more correctly be called a new americacentric online collection of opeds.
posted by adamvasco at 10:04 AM on July 24, 2009

So, is this like a set of pre-aggregated blogs? I mean, if it is, that's a good and worthwhile idea. Especially if it digs up new contributors and has a strong overall message. I would like to see something like that for every city and country, it's the fyoocha, you know.
posted by Sova at 10:07 AM on July 24, 2009

tf;dr
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:08 AM on July 24, 2009

This puts Sports Illustrated in an awkward but self-imposed position. The engine of Hegel’s dialectic is an internal contradiction; for Hegel, concepts have within them their negation or contradictory tendency. (For Hegel, for example, the idea of Being — existence — contains within it the contradictory notion of “Nothingness,” or Non-Being, and so, according to Hegel, a new concept must overcome this internal contradiction, hence “Becoming,” or the coming into Existence from Nothingness, is generated.)

Immediately to the right of this paragraph, a picture of Oscar the Grouch appears. I do not understand.
posted by drjimmy11 at 10:12 AM on July 24, 2009

We have someone on the ground in Kenya and someone else reporting from Lebanon

Something about this sentence makes me very amused. "We have someone there. We're not positive who it is, to be honest. Most of us thought it was Andy but then he called to say he's been in the hospital, his appendix burst."
posted by Tomorrowful at 10:16 AM on July 24, 2009 [3 favorites]

This almost feels like it should be living in projects, if anywhere. msalt, why do you think this site is best of the web?
posted by Static Vagabond at 10:39 AM on July 24, 2009

Is there an international edition ?
posted by Postroad at 10:46 AM on July 24, 2009

What is the ideal combination of screen resolution + one's own age in order for their typography to actually back up the implication of rapid ingestion? Or did I read into it?

My eyes are 20/13 and this site grinds my reading speed to a halt.
posted by rahnefan at 10:47 AM on July 24, 2009

i keep getting an "F67E8945AC3 Error - Spoon Attachment Not Found" pop-up - someone please hope me
posted by pyramid termite at 10:51 AM on July 24, 2009

Any newspaper that gives me my Health Care Reform information as a professional wrestling metaphor is ok by me.
posted by jermsplan at 11:09 AM on July 24, 2009

I've been following them since they launched. The site's well written, apparently employs staffers in a number of countries, has an interesting business model and is trying very hard to generate unique, fun content.

But still, I get the feeling from their articles that they haven't quite settled down yet or figured out who their audience is. And frankly, the site's design sucks. One of the reasons HuffPost, Salon and The Street do well is they generate content aimed at a specific reader demographic. They know their respective audiences. For now, The Faster Times' content seems like it's all over the map and that feels a little weird.

Perhaps it's an intended style that they're hoping will work for them and set them apart from other grassroots/homegrown media outlets. One way or another, I'm curious to see how they evolve.
posted by zarq at 11:27 AM on July 24, 2009 [1 favorite]

Under the food section, the first subsection is "Drinking". I think this says it all.
posted by redbeard at 11:43 AM on July 24, 2009

yeah, I'm confused too... this feels like an ad...there's no context to the post.

we could link to about 80 gazillion blogs, news sites... that's not what metafilter is for.
posted by HuronBob at 11:49 AM on July 24, 2009

This puts Sports Illustrated in an awkward but self-imposed position. The engine of Hegel’s dialectic is an internal contradiction; for Hegel, concepts have within them their negation or contradictory tendency. (For Hegel, for example, the idea of Being — existence — contains within it the contradictory notion of “Nothingness,” or Non-Being, and so, according to Hegel, a new concept must overcome this internal contradiction, hence “Becoming,” or the coming into Existence from Nothingness, is generated.)

Immediately to the right of this paragraph, a picture of Oscar the Grouch appears. I do not understand

Obviously a reprint from the Village Voice.
posted by scratch at 11:50 AM on July 24, 2009

The name is no good, the design is horrible. If they actually do have correspondants in other countries who can write, I'll give it a chance, but god is it hard to look at. Who the hell thought that giant pictures of the writers all over every page was a good idea?
posted by Huck500 at 12:01 PM on July 24, 2009

i keep getting an "F67E8945AC3 Error - Spoon Attachment Not Found" pop-up

Merely confirming what we all know - there is no spoon.
posted by scalefree at 12:07 PM on July 24, 2009

Immediately to the right of this paragraph, a picture of Oscar the Grouch appears.

Oscar is the apotheosis of Kantian deontology, vis a vis his struggle against his environment as embodied by his inability to leave his trashcan. It is only through this lens that Hegel ultimately becomes relevant.
posted by scalefree at 12:13 PM on July 24, 2009

This almost feels like it should be living in projects, if anywhere. msalt, why do you think this site is best of the web?
yeah, I'm confused too... this feels like an ad...

Are you implying that I have some sort of connection to this website? I don't. Seems like a pretty harsh and reckless charge to throw out randomly. I found it via TPM.

Do I think this is literally the best of the web, today? No. I think it's an interesting attempt to tackle the transition from print to web, that is worthy of the attention of MeFites. One that might with time and adjustments become the best of the web. Already, one individual article from it was the subject of a well-received FPP.

Specifically, it seems to be trying to mix the lighter, funner tone of, say, Metafilter, with the authority and credentialed writers of print media. Kind of funny that so many people here have criticized it for that.
posted by msalt at 1:03 PM on July 24, 2009

Here is an actual headline from the Faster Times:

Writing Advice: The Strap-On Ending

Sub-editing matters, folks.</small?
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:24 PM on July 24, 2009

msalt... nobody said you were connected to the site...
I think the point is, this was presented a legitimate news site... this page, and it's links, doesn't smack of "Journalism"
posted by HuronBob at 2:22 PM on July 24, 2009

I feel like most of the negative reaction is to their tagline and 'mission.' I wonder if people would have liked it more just as a general interest site.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:26 PM on July 24, 2009

HuronBob: OK, sorry if I over-reacted. I still don't know how else to interpret "belongs in Projects" (isn't that precisely for self-made sites?) and "feels like an ad." Am I missing something?

I think The Faster Times IS presenting itself as a legitimate news site, and apparently they think that the key to survival of proper news on the web is to make it more fun. That's not ultimately different than, say, USA Today and only slightly more satisfying to me personally, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.

According to Wikipedia, USA Today has the highest circulation of any newspaper in the U.S. and second highest worldwide, trailing only the Times of India.
posted by msalt at 3:46 PM on July 24, 2009

this page, and its links, doesn't smack of "Journalism"

Heh. At first glance, the column seemed to be titled "Sex and Dating Meghan Pleticha", which takes web narrowcasting ("the long tail"?) way too far for my taste.

Then again, I've seen a lot of NYT blog posts that aren't far different, and alternative weeklies -- which have delivered much of the best journalism of the last 40 years -- went down that road long ago.
posted by msalt at 3:54 PM on July 24, 2009

Okay, this is nice and all, but after reading this I still don't have any understanding of how they are actually tackling the problem of making money and supporting good journalism. As the editor says,

The crisis of American journalism is, instead, a financial crisis. Opinions posted on blogs are cheap. Great journalism is expensive. So, the question is not whether there is a way to keep up with the constant appetite for news, but whether there is a way to keep up without foregoing great writing and reporting.

There will be many different answers to the questions facing the journalism industry in the coming years. Our answer is The Faster Times, a new type of newspaper for a new type of world.

And...how does that work again? I don't really get it, and frankly, I don't see how this could be anything better than the NY Times online, only with less cachet. And we all know how well the NY Times is doing.

spot.us is a more compelling idea, methinks.
posted by dubitable at 8:04 PM on July 24, 2009

zarq: I've been following them since they launched. The site's well written, apparently employs staffers in a number of countries, has an interesting business model...

Which is? Please say more, I don't see how it is much different from, say, Slate (other than having less interesting content, as far as I can tell).

I'm not trying to be a dick about this, to be clear, I just sincerely don't get it and would like some explanation of what I may be missing...thank you!
posted by dubitable at 8:08 PM on July 24, 2009

This almost feels like it should be living in projects

Or living in THE projects. It reads like a welfare-to-work scheme for unemployed journalists.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:11 AM on July 25, 2009

O.K., to resume all the comments : IT'S A CRAP.
posted by zouhair at 2:47 AM on July 25, 2009

dubitable: Which is? Please say more, I don't see how it is much different from, say, Slate (other than having less interesting content, as far as I can tell).

The Faster Times is soliciting content from a very wide variety of sources. ( "Its staff, led by Faster Times’ founding publisher and editor in chief Sam Apple, 33, will consist of several dozen editors and writers, including correspondents in 20 countries worldwide.") Wider than Slate, Talking Points Memo and HuffPost. Slate, Salon and TPM pay their contributors, and offer benefits for full timers. HuffPost / Arianna Huffington does not pay contributors.

Most sites pay flat rates. The Faster Times is basing pay rate on ad revenue, which is to say that writers will be mostly volunteering their work for little to no pay. Revenue sharing certainly isn't a new concept, but it is somewhat unusual for a news site that is looking to generate new content.

From that same link:

The staff will not be drawing salaries. Instead, writers will earn 75 percent of the revenue brought in through ads sold against their individual pages, while editors will get 10 percent of the revenue drawn from all the pages they oversee and be rewarded with a percentage of equity in the company.

Their business model is interesting to me because print and online journalism are currently at a bit of a crossroads. It is apparent to everyone that the internet has drastically changed the way the media reports news. Should journalists be expected to work for free, or do publishers have a responsibility to compensate them for their work? If some do, does that diminish the value of others' work in their field? When a journalist is writing content specifically to generate ad revenue, does that bias their stories? Can and should we expect them to remain objective? To be able to resist sensationalism? There are many possible questions to ask here, and this business model may call into question obvious or expected answers. A few have already been touched on by Chris Anderson's book, Free.
posted by zarq at 3:31 PM on July 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

zarq: thanks, that was a really good explanation. Now I do agree with you, this is an interesting, new business model (to the best of my knowledge). Frankly, I think your explanation at the start would really have made this entire thread more compelling (no offense msalt).

Most sites pay flat rates. The Faster Times is basing pay rate on ad revenue, which is to say that writers will be mostly volunteering their work for little to no pay.

But, does this mean that, potentially, they could make a lot more than in the past? Or still unlikely? They'd have to to find the idea of continuing to write for them compelling, right?

When a journalist is writing content specifically to generate ad revenue, does that bias their stories?

Yes, this is interesting. This makes me think that they are sort of instantly turned into bloggers, looking to increase traffic by coming up with the most compelling stories that draw people in.

Is this substantially any different than newspapers trying to find good stories to appeal to a wide range of readers so as to get ad revenue? Or, I guess the question is do the editors and writers have a conventional relationship, and therefore there is a filter on journalists just going for the cheap shots all the time? For that matter, what does that revenue model do to the relationship between editors and writers longer term? Do the editors become the ones hunting for easy targets? Isn't this how gawker media works? Hmm. Maybe I'm off base here, I dunno.

But anyways, thanks again for the interesting, substantial answer. Made me think.
posted by dubitable at 6:21 PM on July 27, 2009

For an alternate model that addresses the sensationalism bias problem, read How The Huffington Post Can Pay Its Bloggers.
posted by scalefree at 8:14 PM on July 27, 2009

zarq: thanks...

You're very welcome!

Frankly, I think your explanation at the start would really have made this entire thread more compelling (no offense msalt).

Thanks. :) For me, half the fun of MeFi posts is watching 'em flesh out in the comments.

But, does this mean that, potentially, they could make a lot more than in the past? Or still unlikely? They'd have to to find the idea of continuing to write for them compelling, right?

Sure, in theory. But it's a bit of a gamble. If the site gets large enough then the writers could conceivably turn a healthy profit for their work, though that might take some time.

I'm not at my office right now, but when I am tomorrow, I'll look up the going ad rates for a couple of news sites. (CNN.com, FastCompany or NYTimes.com) This might give us an idea of potential income for a writer making 75% of page revenue. Then again, it might not. Online ads tend to run across an entire site, not just on one page. But still, it might be interesting to look at. :)

By the way... something I should have mentioned earlier: Salon.com keeps itself in the black through paid subscriptions. Ad revenue never made them enough money.

A friend who works in advertising keeps telling me that the 'net is the new "New World" and companies are still exploring the untamed wilds. My sense is that no one really knows yet what business model will work for an unbacked online news startup. Sites like MSNBC.com are backed by their own traditional media powerhouse and aren't too dependent on keeping their advertisers happy. The Faster Times doesn't have that. Begs the question of whether they will be able to maintain neutrality in their reporting if pressured by a VC... or if they even want to.

Yes, this is interesting. This makes me think that they are sort of instantly turned into bloggers, looking to increase traffic by coming up with the most compelling stories that draw people in.

Which by itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, right? But concerns are usually raised that this is the path to sensationalism instead of objectivity. You mentioned Gawker, a great example. More on them below....

Is this substantially any different than newspapers trying to find good stories to appeal to a wide range of readers so as to get ad revenue?

Nope. Not at all. But the financial well-being of their company isn't supposed to be a journalist's primary concern. It always is, though. In the real world, news producers are compelled to cover stories that are "good television" and will bring in viewers and the same holds true for print media.

Or, I guess the question is do the editors and writers have a conventional relationship, and therefore there is a filter on journalists just going for the cheap shots all the time? For that matter, what does that revenue model do to the relationship between editors and writers longer term? Do the editors become the ones hunting for easy targets?

Exactly. It's going to depend on the outlet's rules for reporters, as well as the ethical standards of the journalists they hire.

Isn't this how gawker media works? Hmm. Maybe I'm off base here, I dunno.

You're not off base. That's exactly how they work. You can see it in the headlines they write and the stories they report.

Then came news that Gawker editor Nick Denton announced a new pay scale where bloggers would be paid based on the number of views at a rate of $7.50 for every 1,000 views that posts generate. Felix Salmon, who writes the Market Movers blog over at Portfolio.com, then asked what affect that might have on the quality of posts:

At least two things remain to be seen: whether the new pay scheme will increase the amount of salaciousness at the expense of the sites' broader credibility, and whether the new pay scheme will adequately reward the kind of old-fashioned shoe-leather journalism that Denton wants to encourage at Gawker.

The afterelton blog link discusses the problem at length. It's an excellent post.

Meanwhile, the almighty dollar still rules over there, five years after Nick Denton called for a blogger's ethics committee, two years after everyone was giving the company last rites and a year after he sold Consumerist. :)

Regarding Consumerist... you might like this post. Touches on what we've been discussing. Consumer Reports now owns the site.

Made me think.

Thanks! Me too. :)
posted by zarq at 3:09 PM on July 28, 2009