Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AOL To Buy Huffington Post

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the gobble-gobble-gobble dept.

The Media 160

Hugh Pickens writes writes "The La Times reports that AOL has agreed to purchase the Huffington Post for $315 million. The purchase will increase AOL's news portfolio as it competes against Yahoo's growing online news publication profile and Google's news efforts, as well as traditional media companies online. The purchase has yet to acquire government approvals, but the boards of directors of each company and shareholders of the Huffington Post have approved the transaction."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

flurrrp pssslost (0)

SpokeBot (884906) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125484)

lol lol what what

Wow, who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125492)

Go die in a fire already. AOL? Huffington Post? Can you get more irrelevant than this?

Re:Wow, who cares? (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125516)

Go die in a fire already. AOL? Huffington Post? Can you get more irrelevant than this?

Well your comment makes a good attempt at it.

Re:Wow, who cares? (0)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126034)

Noooo..... AOL die in a fire?
  - If AOL goes, so too does my cheap $7 dialup access which I use in hotels (and work to skirt around the filtering).

AOL are still going? (2)

makomk (752139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125508)

AOL are not only still going, but actually buying up websites? Who'd have thought it. Wonder how long until they kill this one off.

Re:AOL are still going? (1, Troll)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125564)

I don't know. Huffington Post and DailyKos were the two big attempts of the left wing to create their own "viral" websites. The end result's been a lot of hate speech, a whole lot of banned commentariat, and very little if anything accomplished.

Huffington Post's biggest claim to fame in recent years has been as a haven for the anti-vaccination lunacy of retards like Jenny McCarthy, Dana Ullman, and followers of Andrew Wakefield.

Re:AOL are still going? (-1, Flamebait)

bev_tech_rob (313485) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125720)

I don't know. Huffington Post and DailyKos were the two big attempts of the left wing to create their own "viral" websites. The end result's been a lot of hate speech, a whole lot of banned commentariat, and very little if anything accomplished.

Huffington Post's biggest claim to fame in recent years has been as a haven for the anti-vaccination lunacy of retards like Jenny McCarthy, Dana Ullman, and followers of Andrew Wakefield.

Yawn.....go back to Fox News where you belong....

Re:AOL are still going? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125844)

Aw someone make a point about a news source you like?

Finding news that really does not have a 'spin' on it is hard. Fox is right up there with spin. However, you can not sit there with a straight face and say Huffington is any better. Fox is just more blatant about it. It is the subtle ones you need to watch out for. They do that by fact stacking and putting opinions after the facts or running them together. Another way is to put the facts that make something look bad at the top of an article and the ones that they dont like so much near the end (as many people only read the first few paragraphs and they know it).

People say 'reality has a liberal bias'. What big pile of steaming ... (see how I put an opinion in the middle here) The stories will have whatever spin the editor of the story puts on it even if they do not realize they are doing it. 'Blogs' are even worse as they are usually by people who are interested in the story. So they put their own take on it.

What it comes down to it though, is facts based news does not sell as well. As it is rather dull and boring. "If it bleeds it leads".

People also like paying for self affirmation. "see I was right and those xyzs were total loon jobs". So while you may not like Fox news there are many out there that like hearing that sort of news. Just as there are many out there who like watching CNN/MSNBC.

Filter out the opinions on stories (many many many have them). You will see much of the 'news' is just opinion fluffer. The op'ed pieces are easy to filter. It is the ones where they bury it in the story... Do not let others tell you what your opinion is. Make up your own mind with the thing holding your ears apart. That is why I do not watch the newsertainment stations.

Re:AOL are still going? (3, Insightful)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126038)

Agreed, blatant spin is easier to deal with, bullshit filter gets triggered early. News sources that pretend to be "fair and balanced" (to steal the Fox line) but are really spun to buggery are the hard ones to deal with. I prefer to get my news from multiple sources and make up my own mind.

Being spoon fed any news is a bad thing.

Re:AOL are still going? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126040)

Ah yes, the tried and true reply of a non-biased /. poster. The ever boogie man Fox News. The only thing you could have done to make your post better was to put in "Faux News".

How original (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126618)

So you support the anti-vaxxers, bev_tech_rob?

We can safely say that BEV_TECH_ROB is anti-vaccination?

Or was your tired old Fox news swipe just anti-thinking?

Re:AOL are still going? (2, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126926)

Yawn.....go back to Fox News where you belong....

Yeah! Everyone knows there is only bias on one side.
The side you do not like.

Re:AOL are still going? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125732)

Well thank god we have the bastions of intelligence and civility over at Fox News, Free Republic and Conservapedia to help usher in a new dawn of meaningful political discourse, right?

...Right?

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125890)

Did I say they were any better? No.

Slanted news is slanted news. Makes no difference whether it's Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Drudge, DailyKos, or even the freak-of-the-week-show from over at Little Green Fucktards.

Re:AOL are still going? (0)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125936)

Well thank god we have the bastions of intelligence and civility over at Fox News, Free Republic and Conservapedia to help usher in a new dawn of meaningful political discourse, right?

There's no such thing as 'meaningful political discourse', politics in its entirety is just apes throwing turds at each other.

The difference is that you won't see those sites being sold to AOL any time soon. The left just can't build a viable online community because they're always fighting over who gets to be Supreme Leader of the Glorious People's Website.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

jeff4747 (256583) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127142)

Yes, a $1M investment leading to a $315M buy-out clearly demonstrates how unsuccessful the left is. Let me know when Free Republic gets bought out.

Btw, "the left" doesn't care who is "Supreme Leader". We're just not into authority, as evidenced by the left's general dislike of Obama after the election.

Re:AOL are still going? (2)

CaptSlaq (1491233) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127360)

"The left" "not into authority". I have a new one for an icebreaker comedy routine.

Re:AOL are still going? (3, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126882)

Huffington Post's biggest claim to fame in recent years has been as a haven for the anti-vaccination lunacy of retards like Jenny McCarthy, Dana Ullman, and followers of Andrew Wakefield.

The HP might be fine for political commentary but it is a haven for quacks, woos and snakeoil salesmen peddling all kinds of pseudo scientific new age nonsense. It is as anti-science and anti-reality. Not surprisingly many liberals, especially scientists and academics are as ashamed by what the HP promotes as conservatives are of creationist drool that infects their blogs.

Re:AOL are still going? (4, Insightful)

Remus Shepherd (32833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126908)

I don't know. Huffington Post and DailyKos were the two big attempts of the left wing to create their own "viral" websites. The end result's been a lot of hate speech, a whole lot of banned commentariat, and very little if anything accomplished.

I'd say that turning a $1 million investment into a $315 million buyout is one hell of an accomplishment.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127340)

Me too!

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

gfreeman (456642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127422)

+1 Funny

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125574)

Until their base of "confused old people who pay $20 a month to hear 'You've Got Mail' whenever their bloated AOL client connects over the (cheaper, faster) DSL they are actually using..." dies off, AOL should be able to operate with a certain degree of freedom.

Longterm, their prospects are rather grim(which is presumably why they are buying up non-doomed properties while the cash holds out); but anybody who hasn't switched away from an AOL subscription by now(either to DSL for incrementally less money and more speed, cable/fiber for more money much more speed, or no-name dialup for the same product at 1/2 to 1/3 the price) is probably a till-death-do-us-part customer...

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126930)

I think AOL knows the writing is on the wall for their service. It costs a lot of money to run and their user base is literally dying off. It must be an expensive pain in the ass to maintain that client, and run all those dialups and field support calls, and an infrastructure of mail servers, and put content into the thick client to justify its existence. At some point the user base will drop below a point that it is economical to do and they'll kill the service in phases. I think AOL are smart to diversify. There is a lot of money to be made from selling advertising space in blogs and the like and they must be relatively cheap to buy and run compared to old media websites.

Re:AOL are still going? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125598)

Wonder how long until they kill this one off.

Who would notice? Most all the front page stories are ads now. And AOL could hardly make the place look any uglier...

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126590)

The people who use AOL are not the people who read Huffington Post. I don't see how this deal makes a lot of sense.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

gfreeman (456642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127440)

You've just answered your own (unasked) question. They're buying it BECAUSE it brings in eyeballs that they've not had before.

Re:AOL are still going? (-1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125608)

Noooo..... if AOL goes, so too does my cheap $7 dialup access (which I use in hotels) (and work to skirt around the filtering). I guess I could switch to Netzero but it costs twice as much.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125670)

Perhaps it's time to get a smartphone? Tethering to your phone in 3G areas is at least 10 times faster than your dialup, too.

Re:AOL are still going? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125716)

but that might cost MONEY! *gasp!*

Re:AOL are still going? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125736)

I think you missed the 'cheap' part. Basic data plans start at $15 a month (capped at like 200mb), and tethering is an additional $20 on top of that usually.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125750)

Well let's see - Dialup is $6.99 times 12 == ~$84.
Tethering is $35 (clear) times 12 plus tax == ~$450.

And for what purpose? Just to read email and facebook? I appreciate the suggestion but don't think it's worth paying almost 400 dollars more.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

psyopper (1135153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125820)

Rooting your phone is free, as are several tethering apps in the Android market. If you are already paying for data on your phone, why not use it.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125924)

>>>If you are already paying for data on your phone

Nice idea, but I don't pay anything for my cellphone ($0.00 per month + per-call billing). So yes I would have to pay an extra several hundred extra, if I switched my travel laptop over from dialup to cellular internet.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125788)

>>>3G areas is at least 10 times faster than your dialup

I don't know how you figure. Dialup is 53k while 3G is 200k (or so I've heard). It's only four times difference. ----- Also my dialup squashes the images to almost no space, so it's actually faster (pages load as fast as my 1000k DSL).

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127952)

I think this is a confusion of KB vs Kb probably dialup is 56Kb and 3G 200KB.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125682)

They haven't managed to kill off Time Warner yet, and to be honest netscape had been killed off by microsoft long before AOL got involved. AOL seems to be little more than a hedge fund these days.....

Re:AOL are still going? (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126460)

Of course, Time Warner spun off AOL last year, so they won't be killing Time Warner at all.

As for the rest of it, AOL actually made a (small) profit last year, unlike pretty much every year since 2005 or before.

AOL still makes money off of Granny, but that's no longer their business model. They're a content and advertising company now, and one of the biggest, if not THE biggest internet advertising business around courtesy of advertising.com.

Having said that, the CEO has mentioned in the past that, unlike the previous execs, he recognized that AOL still made some good money off of its shrinking subscriber base and that perhaps the company should not just ignore that part of the business any more.

Its an open question as to whether AOL will kill the Huffington Post, since there is no doubt it has killed other sites. Still, their record is better than Yahoo's Touch of Death(tm) to just about every interesting technology that it has bought as well. And unlike that abortion known as Bebo, the HPost is actually a purchase in line with AOL's current direction as a content provider and ad hub. The price still seems a little on the silly side, but not as batshit insane as the 800 million for Bebo.

Only time will tell, I suppose.

Re:AOL are still going? (2)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125704)

I think I see their plan..

They buy up *all* the websites, then take them off the 'web' and make them accessible only through their 'AOL keyword'.

Re:AOL are still going? (2)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125840)

There's a lot of hate directed at AOL, but people forget it was the first national service to provide a full graphics interface (rather than plain text) in the 1980s.

Whatever they are now, they used to be a great service (just like Mac used to be a great computer) (j/k). - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjgH27p-FAM [youtube.com]

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127806)

No.

AOL was *NEVER* a great service. When I had a 1200 baud modem, AOL was a joke. When I was first discovering usenet, AOL was unknown, but a few years later became a bad joke. (And arguably led to the eventual death of usenet.) When a tech preview of Mosaic rendered our Gopher site better than Gopher itself, AOL was a joke and a ghetto.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126942)

Just when you thought Huff Post couldn't get any worse.

What's funny is that AOLnews [aolnews.com] actually looks like a professional news site, like Politics Daily. Huffington Post looks like a carnival side show.

Re:AOL are still going? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127482)

They still have $$$?

Instant Message from Shivalolz (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127676)

Now I r become death, the shatterer of websites

If they waited another year (3)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125550)

If they waited another year it would have been Huffington Post buying AOL.

Re:If they waited another year (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125592)

AOL learned their lesson very well; back with Time Warner: Buy now, while they still think you are worth something...

Re:If they waited another year (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125876)

If they waited another year it would have been Huffington Post buying AOL.

Even HuffPo isn't that dumb.

Color me surprised (3, Interesting)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125584)

I'm surprised that anyone would think the Huffington Post was worth $315 million. I'm even more surprised AOL still has that kind of money.

/rimshot

Re:Color me surprised (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125722)

That was actually my first though.

An article I read mentions that this wasn't so much buying the site as it was buying Huffington herself as a way to perhaps revive AOL's dying economy.

My personal take: AOL doesn't stand a chance with the AOL name. That branding is tainted. Reinvent yourselves, guys.

Re:Color me surprised (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126188)

It only recently turned a profit, IIRC. I'm not sure how you can value a project that only recently got into the black, at $315m. Maybe it's the HuffPo's advertising gross, although if it was that high I would've expected it to go into profit long ago. Maybe it's their anticipated ad gross based on projections into the near future. Maybe the intangable value of a zeitgeisty outlet is factored in somewhere.

Re:Color me surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126398)

AOL has the stink of death on it. I'm surprised HuffPo's board approved this. On the other hand, I won't be sad to see HuffPo's editorializing masquerading as journalism die.

Will the "unpaid contributors" stick with it? (5, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125588)

Correct me if I am wrong but on the news this morning they said that most of the content of the Huffington Post came from unpaid bloggers, usually with a liberal outlook. It seems to me that they might not be as happy working for nothing for AOL as they were with an independent outlet. What are the chances that a good number of them will move elsewhere?

Re:Will the "unpaid contributors" stick with it? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126994)

1. Works for Slashdot. Basically it depends on whether people feel the site is a community as well as a business.

2. For people who have something to say, and want to say it to a lot of people (millions), free is a good price. Yeah, you're not getting paid, but you're not paying anything either.

Re:Will the "unpaid contributors" stick with it? (1)

mkw87 (860289) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127114)

1. Start Website
2. Gain followers.
3. Sell website for obscene money.
4. Profit.
5. Rinse, repeat.
6. ?

AO Who? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125596)

Or were they the ones whose users always posted responses to porn trolls on Usenet groups in the early 90's, "Add me to the list!" . . . "Me, too!"

Online media aggregation (1)

ronocdh (906309) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125642)

It used to be that people heralded the internet as a death knell to the media conglomerates like ClearChannel and News Corps. Now we're seeing just how simple it is for even a dying internet presence to gobble up prominent venues for discussion, whether of technology (Engadget, TechCrunch) or politics (HuffPo). There's no reason to break out the tin foil hat just yet, but it's surprising how a left-leaning blog such as Huffington Post is not immune to a major league buyout. I'm sure many fans of the blog will defend this acquisition as a huge increase in journalistic capability, and claim that the authors will remain as interested in maintaining an independent politic voice, but only time will tell.

Re:Online media aggregation (4, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125792)

It used to be that people heralded the internet as a death knell to the media conglomerates like ClearChannel and News Corps. Now we're seeing just how simple it is for even a dying internet presence to gobble up prominent venues for discussion, whether of technology (Engadget, TechCrunch) or politics (HuffPo). There's no reason to break out the tin foil hat just yet, but it's surprising how a left-leaning blog such as Huffington Post is not immune to a major league buyout. I'm sure many fans of the blog will defend this acquisition as a huge increase in journalistic capability, and claim that the authors will remain as interested in maintaining an independent politic voice, but only time will tell.

The thing is, people are mobile on the web. Network execs hated the invention of the remote control because they counted on people being too lazy to get up off the couch and change the channel. The last thing they wanted was the ability for people to change channels as quickly as the impulse hit them.

And as far as the web goes, the content producers are just as mobile. If the Huff name dies, everyone can make the jump to a new site, easy-peasy.

As for her selling the site, I suppose there's absolutely nothing illegal about it though it does seem to go against the basic assumptions someone would make about why she put it together in the first place. The assumption would be that it's intended to be a megaphone for getting progressive values into the public sphere, gaining suitable publicity, and any money-making activity there should be limited to the non-profit, self-perpetuating kind. But if none of that was spelled out in a charter and bylaws then there's nothing illegal about it even if it is terribly disappointing. Might be an impetus to put together something with those expressed interests instead.

The thing that surprises me is AOL of all companies. I thought they were in their death throes.

Re:Online media aggregation (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125812)

this is italicized

this is blockquote

plain test

Ok, looks like Italics don't work anymore but blockquote does. Once again slashcode amazes me. Didn't meant to steal the comment I was quoting above, tried putting it in italics.

Re:Online media aggregation (2)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126018)

For italics, you have to use <em>

Re:Online media aggregation (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126552)

It looks italicized on this PC.

IE7 on XP.

Re:Online media aggregation (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126642)

Or you could use the <quote> tag, which is what you get when you hit the Quote Parent button. It also doesn't show in a collapsed message. (Why they never did that to blockquote too, I don't know.)

As for italics, they do show in preview (and the tags even show up when I hit the Quote Parent button!), which makes this even more of a WTF.

Re:Online media aggregation (1)

dachshund (300733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126838)

As for her selling the site, I suppose there's absolutely nothing illegal about it though it does seem to go against the basic assumptions someone would make about why she put it together in the first place. The assumption would be that it's intended to be a megaphone for getting progressive values into the public sphere, gaining suitable publicity, and any money-making activity there should be limited to the non-profit, self-perpetuating kind.

I don't know that HuffPo ever promised its readers or contributors that it was going to be, say, the Wikimedia foundation. Is that something you heard?

If there's a counterargument to what you say, it's that there's a dearth of well-funded, corporate backed left wing media (as compared to the political right). Rectifying this imbalance is one of the biggest tasks that facing the left. To whatever extent the HuffPo sale does this, it's a very good thing for the left.

If contributors don't like it, they'll probably go elsewhere or start their own blogs.

Re:Online media aggregation (1)

jeff4747 (256583) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127196)

I suppose there's absolutely nothing illegal about it though it does seem to go against the basic assumptions someone would make about why she put it together in the first place. The assumption would be that it's intended to be a megaphone for getting progressive values into the public sphere, gaining suitable publicity, and any money-making activity there should be limited to the non-profit, self-perpetuating kind.

Yeah, but the the anti-vaxx, alt-med and new-agey crap spewed all over the site, and there really wasn't much of a reason to keep it "pure" anymore. So take the money and run.

Re:Online media aggregation (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127302)

The internet has certainly disrupted many media models and the purchase of virtual online assets by less virtual companies is part of this. Newscorp is putting huge investment into an iPad app because the other physical assets are going to performing less well over time. The Fox news channel will lose viewers quickly as the death camps kill the old people that make up most of it viewers. The purchase of the WSJ was only a stopgap as the journalism has been declining for years and now it is mostly just dress up. Eventually the Simpsons is going to end. People are going to move to internet delivery of content, and when that happens the biggest moneymaker for NewsCorp is going away.

What is fascinating about AOL is that they use their assets to reshape the company rather than buying toys. AOL wants to increase the amount of original content and decrease the cost per item. HuffPo allows it to do exactly this. It also establishes AOL as a particular perspective on news that is different from the other major players. It is not going to be more of the same. Many companies are not so clever.

But such purchases are hard to be classified as aggregation. The barriers of entry are low so it is easy for the unpaid bloggers to move to another site. There are a few that could explode if there is mass exodus from the HuffPo.

Re:Online media aggregation (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125794)

You don't need a tinfoil hat. Pure old greed will do just fine. Sad really because Huffington Post was one of the few worthwhile who reported real news instead of Brittney Spears gossip.

It's called cashing out... (1)

slk (2510) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125646)

For the Huffington Post, this was no doubt a ridiculously good offer. $300m cash for a web site, which has fairly good traffic but a limited amount of really unique content; they'd be idiots not to sell. The owners / investors make out very well, and future value becomes AOL's problem. Even (liberal, conservative) bloggers can do math well enough to know when it's time to sell out!

On the other hand, I'm surprised that the activist investors of the world haven't been trying to force AOL to turn this cash into dividends instead of bad web investments. I guess that would involve said activist investors seeing enough cash flow potential to actually buy AOL stock first.

So what's wrong? (-1, Troll)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125648)

The Huff Post and Assholes On Line.......sounds like truth in advertising to me.

who's taking over whom? (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125778)

This reminds me of Disney's "take over" of Pixar, in which Pixar effectively took over Disney Animation.

Re:who's taking over whom? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125906)

There is no reason to look outside of the history of AOL for something like that. When Time Warner split off AOL everybody talked about "Why did Time Warner buy AOL in the first place?" when in fact AOL had bought Time Warner and then kept Time Warner as the overall corporate name.

Re:who's taking over whom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126028)

Disney took over Pixar. Disney has its eggs in several other baskets besides animated feature films.

Re:who's taking over whom? (1)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126402)

Yet in the end, didn't Pixar's CEO became Disney's largest shareholder. Though I don't really think the whole thing was more of an executive-recruiting play, where the shareholders were trying to get someone competent on their board that they could trust.

Re:who's taking over whom? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126688)

I imagine that is why he wrote "Disney Animation" and not "Disney".

You're right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126568)

According to the NYT:

Arianna Huffington will also "take control of all of AOL's editorial content."

Re:who's taking over whom? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35127312)

Agreed, everything I've read about it suggests that HuffPo will basically be running the show, and at least they've figured out a way to become profitable. Nature abhors a vacuum, and I can see an online left leaning network becoming something akin to Fox News (as a medium, not editorial style) as an outlet for reaching that type of voter/activist.

Unbelievable (1)

Azghoul (25786) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125838)

Sure, the focus will be on AOL: Who? They have money? WTF?

But to me it's about two things:

1. Huffington Post was supposed to be some kind of independent voice. So much for that. Good job Arianna, sell your soul.

2. Really? We need f'ing government regulators to "approve" the sale? That's what our country has come to, huh?

Re:Unbelievable (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127558)

Ok, let me see if I've got this straight. You make two points: one to complain about corporate media consolidation, and the other to complain about the regulations that were once an effective barrier to media consolidation, before they were gutted by people who love them some corporate media.

Do YOU see any inconsistency there?

The Best Huffington Post Yet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125862)

The merger of two worthless companies - yawn

Well that's the end of that --- (1)

mwfolsom (234049) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125864)

So long HuffPo it was good to know ya' -

Next up... (1)

morgauxo (974071) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125884)

AOL buys SCO!

Re:Next up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126154)

...and based on AOL's latest research, SCO tries to claim a patent on landline connections to the internet and troll for cash. The rest of the world hurts itself laughing. Someone sends AOL a cell phone and a brochure for FIOS. Many AOL executives fire up WordPerfect and polish their résumés.

Huff OL (2)

Cartman's Mom (1956666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125904)

The Huffington Post totally belongs on AOL. I believe it’s one of the few “commercially viable” new sites, but I think it’s pretty awful. Misleading teaser headlines, Hollywood gossip obsessed, thin on content. ”You’ve Got News”. Not.

"Rate this picture" (1)

rwade (131726) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127338)

I've been reading HuffPo for a number of years and there is one thing that they do that is just so tacky, the "rate this picture."

There are always topics like "The 10 best cities to raise a kid" and then pictures of each city and then everyone votes on which picture is best. What is the point of that? About 50% of the time they'll put up a picture of a different city than that indicated.

Internet Bubble 2.0 (1)

Konster (252488) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125926)

Thus begins Internet Bubble 2.0

I mean, I read the news and thought they forgot to put a decimal point in front of the 3.

0.315 million.

Go go Huffington and all that, but damn, 315 million is a LOT of coin for a site like that.

Brutal (1)

GodricL (1898284) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125972)

I wonder how many people they'll have to layoff to counter the $315 million. Considering this article [slashdot.org] a few weeks ago. I can't help but think AOL's days are numbered. But then again we've been saying that for years now.

Fake ISP Buys Fake News Site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126088)

Fail to see how this could register on anyone's care-o-meter, unless you wear a tweed jacket with patches on the elbows.

I thought AOL (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126118)

went out of business in '94...

Huffy Past and A$$OnLine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126186)

Great marriage. A good attempt at Huff to try to gain some legitimacy for themselves. Who uses AOL? Who reads Huff? And yet another Liberal pub has sold out. Not that I really care. We could do with less radical left and right 'news outlets'. The bloggers on Huff? They will probably fly elsewhere. To me the winner is the Huff.

Uh (3, Insightful)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126214)

"The purchase will increase AOL's news portfolio"

The Huffington Post is news? I always thought of it as a mega-blog of commentary. Perhaps there belays a shift in our cultural thinking as traditional journalism dies and commentary from biases become the norm and thus the only thing we can call "news."

Re:Uh (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126740)

Raw news is valueless today. There's little advantage to being the first to break it when the other outlets can be echoing your story in minutes. It's as fungible as water. Commentary is brandable, and unique, and protectable though. That's where the value is.

Re:Uh (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127118)

Commentary is also subjective, though. And can be fraught with mistakes or omissions purposefully to express a point of view. Then again, even pure journalism can't tell the whole story, only give different perspectives. In the end, I'd rather have several perspectives from say witnesses than commentary from an author if I want the news. That's not to say that I wouldn't find the commentary valuable but I would want the story first.

This isn't surprising... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126284)

The Huffing-and-Puffington Post caters to lefties just like AOL. It seems like a match made in heaven.

Re:This isn't surprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126862)

I thought AOL mostly caters to old people who don't know that "the Internet" and "AOL" are different things.

You know, the kind of person who reads the Daily Mail.

You know, right-wingers.

Re:This isn't surprising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126944)

You are obviously a lefty, so therefore by definition you don't think properly, and sure enough, you are wrong.

Is Huffpo dial-up only now??? (1)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126286)

Man, that streaming Bill Mahar video will really suck...

why government approval (1)

Zebai (979227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126346)

I'm astonished that they are still pulling in enough money to buy anything. Also why does this need government approval at all they can't still be considered monopolistic or hold any important stake in our economy, defense, or anything else for that matter.

Best comment from the OP (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126482)

JAKE 671 at 5:25 AM February 07, 2011

AOL absorbs AH, forming AHOL. PERFECT!

Any effect on Arrington's future? (1)

enilnomi (797821) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126794)

From TFA: As part of the deal, Huffington Post co-founder Arianna Huffington will oversee a new group responsible for bringing together all editorial content from both companies including news, technology, music and local media websites.

Does this mean we can look forward to the editorial equivalent of a Celebrity Death Match between Ms. Huffington and Mike Arrington?

In other news (2)

Wireless Joe (604314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126936)

Daily Kos is in talks to be purchased by Adelphia, Crooks and Liars is being taken over by Net Zero, and TalkingPointsMemo will become a part of Earthlink.

The bubble is back, baby! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35127182)

Can there be any doubt?

You buy something to control it. (1)

Marrow (195242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127332)

I cant help but think that this will mean an end to the independence of the HP editorial staff.
This sucks.

Scale Huffington Post (1)

prone2tech (1243532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35127580)

Huffington Post, no doubt has fairly good traffic, however, lately as they've become more popular via links from Google News, the content on their site is almost inaccessible, or incredible slow (they appear to be using Microsoft technology to serve their content). If nothing else, perhaps AOL can help this site scale, or on the flip side, because of this merger, the Huffington Post won't need to scale.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?