Alex Pareene Joins Matt Taibbi’s New Digital Magazine as Executive Editor

[octoberlib]

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The new digital magazine to be launched by Matt Taibbi as part of First Look Media, today announced that Alex Pareene has joined the site as executive editor. Pareene will work closely with Taibbi on First Look’s second digital magazine set to launch in the coming months. He will oversee political content.


Pareene is an author, columnist and blogger with a breadth of digital experience gleaned from nearly a decade of working for leading online outlets. For the last four years, he served as senior writer at Salon.com, where he covered national politics and analyzed the political press. Prior to that, he was an editor and contributor to Gawker.com, where he wrote regularly on the media, campaigns and the occasionally disreputable behavior of Manhattan’s most powerful residents.

“Alex is well known as one of the sharpest and funniest writers in America," said Taibbi, founding editor of the new publication focused on financial and political corruption. "It's going to be a lot of fun working with him, and I think our readers are going to respond to the wit and the honesty he brings to the job."

Pareene also served as chief editor of Wonkette.com, a Washington-based satirical political site. He has written for New York Magazine, Vice, Rolling Stone, Maura Magazine and The New Republic and is the author of two e-books, “The Rude Guide to Mitt” and “A Tea People’s History.”

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140429006047/en/Alex-Pareene-Joins-Matt-Taibbi%E2%80%99s-Digital-Magazine#.U1-5i_ldWSr

[frazzled]

1. Oh gee, that sounds serious

Not.

Another twenty-something who skipped college to write for Gawker and thinks everything is snark. With an executive editor like that, I'm sure to cancel my subscription to the New York Times and get all my news from this outlet. Not.

[octoberlib]

2. I think Pareene is funny and like reading him. I think most people get their reading material

from numerous sources.

[Blue_Tires]

3. Shouldn't they be trying to work out the problems with

the Intercept first? Aside from a brief glimmer, it has been a hot mess so far in regards to organization and content production...Note that Greenwald elected to put the latest Snowden leak 'story' on Dagbladet(!) instead of his own fucking $250 million outlet at which he has total control...

A media outlet needing a "re-branding" after being in business for less than 6 months is never a good sign...

[octoberlib]

4. The Intercept is a mess.

They haven't updated their content in a while. I don't get it.

[Blue_Tires]

5. I get it...

These are all things I said would be a problem back when the site was first announced -- Anyone who has worked in media could see it coming a mile away...

Just a quick summary:

1. Omdiyar has the cash, but he doesn't know what he's doing...And by several accounts he's interfering with editorial, which is a cardinal sin

2. The Intercept has a vague mission and business model, and they don't have a target audience -- Which in a hyper-competitive field equals the kiss of death

3. Greenwald (who has zero experience in a managing role) was always the wrong person to run it...Of course the first thing he did was hire all of his cronies...I wouldn't let Greenwald manage an alt weekly, and Omdiyar gave him the keys to this empire?

4. The content on the Intercept has been 90% shit, and it is being produced way too slowly given their immense resources (see #3)

5. There is no proper, disciplined, professional structure (because Greenwald has repeatedly said he doesn't believe in it) to keep writers focused and on deadline...Greenwald also dilutes his authority by trying to run operations from his apartment in Rio (see #3)

[octoberlib]

6. You've just explained it. Thank you.

[stevenleser]

7. Excellent summation. I've spent a lot of time the last few years around magazine Editors in Chief

and Executive Editors and I've talked to them extensively about what it takes to run a successful magazine.

With dwindling readership across that media, it is an extremely challenging enterprise under the best circumstances when you have people who really know what they are doing.

If you don't have people who really understand and don't have experience in the leadership of a print or digital media, I think the chance of it being successful is very low.

[Blue_Tires]

8. The money makes people too complacent

I know he was just whoring for headlines last year, but it would have been much better if Omdiyar didn't throw around his "$250 million" investment number at every opportunity...It's one thing for staffers to think "I need to put in my BEST work 24/7 for our site to survive!" versus "Well, we've got the resources and backing to give us time to figure out what we're going to do -- It's not like we'll starve or something"

By contrast, look at how much crisper and cleaner Ezra Klein and Nate Silver's sites have been in less time, and with a fraction of the Intercept's budget:

http://www.vox.com/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/

Because those two know their reputations are at stake, and it's "Go big or go home" -time