Journatic CEO answers critics

“I get that anything different in media is worth fretting over. Or laughing at,” Journatic CEO Brian Timpone wrote me this morning after I emailed him about comments he made on Mathew Ingram’s Google+ page.

Brian Timpone

Here’s what he wrote to Ingram:

Journatic is precisely the opposite of a “content farm,” if Demand Media is the definition of one.

Our work, all public as that is the point, would tell you as much.

Not that any journalist (“some”) making such a casual pejorative characterization bothered to look (or ask) to see it. They didn’t ask Tribune or any of our (many) other media clients– “can I see what Journatic produces for you?”

To be sure, we’ve been producing news for media companies for several years. We produce whole newspaper sections for some of them. There’s a track record– a very long one– and it is all public, if not brashly labeled “Journatic.”

We also don’t pay “$2-4 per story.” An inquiring mind might ask– “how on earth is that possible,” or, maybe more logically, “maybe they are paying $2-4 for the writing of something that isn’t a story, so what is it?”

Haven’t had a journalist ask that yet, either. Will wait by the phone.

I told Timpone that I laughed when I read his complaint about journalists not asking about Journatic, because just days ago it was reported that his company was paying employees $50 to snitch on reporters who were asking questions about Journatic. He didn’t address that point, but he did suggest that I “look at what we actually deliver for Tribune and our other clients, then tell me whether it is better than what we replaced, or not. The first edition of ‘our’ Triblocal came out today.”

* Journatic CEO responds to post on Mathew Ingram Google+ page
* Earlier: Chicago Tribune outsources hyperlocal news to Journatic

Comments

comments