I think it’s like how professors in the professional schools at universities (law, business, medicine) usually get paid more than their colleagues in the arts and sciences. It’s because they can apply their skills in their respective fields and make a lot more money than they can teaching—or, in this case, writing.
It’s not surprising that someone with financial expertise, industry connections, and the ability to write would come at a higher price than, say, a style columnist, a journalist with a regional specialty, or even a good editor. #andrewrosssorkin
@Unsolicited Advice: I'd just like to speak out in favor of sanctimonious anti-compensation reporting (here called "shit"). People who are paid more than they're worth are the reason capitalism doesn't work. #andrewrosssorkin
He's got a "standing offer" from Graydon Carter. Surely other opportunities - speaking, going out on his own, etc. - are in abeyance thanks to the Times' money. Leveraging his market to achieve a high salary is the definition of capitalism. It's not that capitalism does or doesn't work; it's that, sometimes, management overpays or makes bad risk judgements. If so, the Times pays the price with failure! #andrewrosssorkin
@Perhaps Not: Depends on who's doing the appearin', I guess. China, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Belarus, Venezuela, the former USSR, much of Africa, south and central America... Well, you'll always have Sweden- the only remotely successful truly socialist nation. Incidentally, Sweden's wealth was built on free trade. The social democrats inherited that wealth in '32. Which leads me to... historical materialism. What works for a small, homogeneous population very well may not work for a huge, incredibly diverse republic.
I don't mean to be smarmy about this subject, and I'm very far from a raging capitalist (education and health care should absolutely not be privatized- externalities and whatnot), but to claim without qualification that socialism appears to work just fine is a massive stretch.
(And Gawker's new notification system is great! I feel much less like I'm farting in the wind now. Instead of no chance that anyone will read a late reply, there's a slim chance that one person will. Huzzah!) #andrewrosssorkin
@Bottle-Of-Smoke: I think it's no more of a stretch than claiming that capitalism is the best system in the world. To me, it appears to be the best system for burgling poorer nations and classes, so it is necessarily the WORST system for a large number of people.
And yes, the notification system will enable us to keep this up for years - perhaps decades!
@Perhaps Not: But that burglarization isn't an inherent result of capitalism, though it may be inevitable under the more virulent strain of American capitalism- i.e. capitalism combined with soft and hard-power hegemony and a lingering sense of manifest destiny. I know that has been the dominant history of capitalism, but just as socialism doesn't necessarily engender oppressive military dictatorships (socialism's dominant history), the ideology shouldn't be defined by it's misuse. A kinder, gentler capitalism- one in which developing nations could actually harness capital and create wealth- would result if property rights across the world were (a)well-defined, (b) well-respected, and (c) enforceable. This is essentially an off-shoot of Hernando De Soto's work, and I think it's compelling.
Capitalism does a great job creating wealth. Current political infrastructures do a crappy job of redistributing that wealth equitably and, in my opinion, humanely. The American public hears something like "redistribution" and freak out, thinking it means socialism. It doesn't. The laissez-faire crowd hear it and cry that it will kill incentives and decrease production. It won't, at least not in the long run. I think there's a happy-medium somewhere that will allow the wealth-creating power of capitalism to run smoothly along a far more equitable distribution method, but it's a question of personal, collective and political will. And that's what drives me to drink. #andrewrosssorkin
@Julia Allison: Translation: "I'm a shallow, semifamous for being-semifamous bubblehead, and I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, and have never read any of that complicated business stuff Sorkin writes, but he's nice to me in person (and kinda cute!), so he's immune from any criticism ever, even when it's deserved, which it might be in this case, I don't know, because I'm a bubblehead."
@johnnypotatoes: $25ok really isn't that much money in Manhattan. Like any other business, you have to pay to keep your top talent. Whether the guy is sweet or an asshole is beside the point. #andrewrosssorkin
@johnnypotatoes: JohnnyPotatoes, you just made my day. You hit the nail on the head with regard to Ms. Allison's dim view on her co-worker. #andrewrosssorkin
@johnnypotatoes: I'm thankful I have no idea who this person is and have never watched whatever show (The City? Hills? Hill City? Rock of Love?) she's on. #andrewrosssorkin
Mr. Cook has this thing about "worth" - if the collective firm isn't making money, the individual employee shouldn't be. If the firm is somehow backed by taxpayers, large salaries for executives are unjustifiable. He's a populist who doesn't seem to believe that anyone could be worth all that much more than HE is, or his fellow members of the so-called creative underclass. Certainly this best-selling author generating loads of publicity can't be worth a sizable salary to a newspaper if said newspaper is dying! #andrewrosssorkin
Hold on, before I finish the article, didn't Gawker previously pay out page view bonuses? If they're so horrible, why was this a part of their business practice pre-recession?
"pageview bonus to us. Which is an ugly practice that distorts news judgment and induces reporters to chase down attention-grabbing and salacious gossip" So the objection is Denton's pissed someone stole his pay structure idea? #andrewrosssorkin
@Cinjun: "Real journalists" cried bitter tears over that innovation in general, and when it is suggested at "real newspapers" in particular
That said, Sorkin adds little value to the NYT -- he's the Jim Cramer of print. If someone is willing to pay him more, he should go and cash that check before it isn't offered again. #andrewrosssorkin
Actually, what I heard from a close relative of Sorkin's -- I can't be more specific without blowing that person's identity -- is that one of Sorkin's ambitions is to go into finance and work for a private equity group. That's what this person told me about a year ago.
Obviously a lot has happened since then, so his plans might've changed, or maybe that was just one of several things he was considering. But that's what this person told me. #newyorkobserver
Sorkin is a star. Too much so to go to the Observer, unless it were to be remade into a real newspaper, maybe focusing on real estate and finance (and the incestuous relationship between the two). But that would take an investment by Jared, which he doesn't need to do if his whole point is to promote his wife. #newyorkobserver
I'd heard a reasonably well-sourced estimated that Sorkin was making about $200,000 a year. But that included something for DealBook.
The real question would be this: what is the nature of Sorkin's fee for running the financial blog and email newsletter?
Even if it's only a flat amount, other New York Times writers would start asking questions about compensation for their own blogging.
And if these "unusual incentive arrangements" included some kind of bonus for hitting targets for DealBook subscriptions, for instance? That would go against Times orthodoxy, the belief that journalism is necessarily compromised by any obvious quest for popularity. #newyorkobserver
Andrew Ross Sorkin, whose DealBook column normally appears on this page, is on a book tour.
The New York Times didn't run its 32-year-old superstar's weekly column. He's now in the UK. And the note (above) suggests that's why his piece didn't appear.
But a usually reliable tipster tells us that wasn't the whole explanation.
"I gather that the New York Times pulled Sorkin's column on Tuesday on the grounds that they thought it was not comprehensible, or not good enough - he had filed his regular column that day but the editors decided not to print it so they put something else in instead."
"Larry Ingrassia - man who issued the statement saying that all was well between Sorkin and the NYT business writers - made the final decision. I don't know what the column was about."
"Sort of interesting in view of the ongoing oldsters vs Sorkin tensions. NYT business desk abuzz about it, of course."
The ultimate success of Sork's book will be determined by how many unread pallets are purchased by bankers, PR firms and even proxy solicitors in an effort to buy a favor.
I've already gotten one as a "gift" from one of those constituencies, and can confirm that nobody wants to read that thing. It's too big, ironically. #andrewrosssorkin
Sorkin is a leech sucking on hoary reporters' leathery hides and one Gray Lady's teat. Reporters can't bite the hands that feed them crumbs (and sometimes more) so willingly. One so blow-dried and pretty also is incapable of being an 'outsider'. Sure he'll get face time on TV but don't expect him to do anything other than reveal the status quo. He's just another celebrity. #andrewrosssorkin
"easy way to fact check: FOIA the FOIAs. It will show when the Sorkin's first request for the docs was actually made."
I suspect that this will show serious inconsistencies in his claims. People like Sorkin, however, live in the realm of "benefit of the doubt" and "lack of evidence." It's very easy to lie. It's very hard to catch people who do it. #andrewrosssorkin
11/10/09
It’s not surprising that someone with financial expertise, industry connections, and the ability to write would come at a higher price than, say, a style columnist, a journalist with a regional specialty, or even a good editor. #andrewrosssorkin
11/10/09
(Gasparino's book is vastly better anyhow) #andrewrosssorkin
11/10/09
11/10/09
He's got a "standing offer" from Graydon Carter. Surely other opportunities - speaking, going out on his own, etc. - are in abeyance thanks to the Times' money. Leveraging his market to achieve a high salary is the definition of capitalism. It's not that capitalism does or doesn't work; it's that, sometimes, management overpays or makes bad risk judgements. If so, the Times pays the price with failure! #andrewrosssorkin
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/12/09
I don't mean to be smarmy about this subject, and I'm very far from a raging capitalist (education and health care should absolutely not be privatized- externalities and whatnot), but to claim without qualification that socialism appears to work just fine is a massive stretch.
(And Gawker's new notification system is great! I feel much less like I'm farting in the wind now. Instead of no chance that anyone will read a late reply, there's a slim chance that one person will. Huzzah!) #andrewrosssorkin
11/13/09
And yes, the notification system will enable us to keep this up for years - perhaps decades!
Seriously, interesting discussion. #andrewrosssorkin
11/14/09
Capitalism does a great job creating wealth. Current political infrastructures do a crappy job of redistributing that wealth equitably and, in my opinion, humanely. The American public hears something like "redistribution" and freak out, thinking it means socialism. It doesn't. The laissez-faire crowd hear it and cry that it will kill incentives and decrease production. It won't, at least not in the long run. I think there's a happy-medium somewhere that will allow the wealth-creating power of capitalism to run smoothly along a far more equitable distribution method, but it's a question of personal, collective and political will. And that's what drives me to drink. #andrewrosssorkin
11/09/09
[www.kidrobot.com]
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/10/09
Or so I've been told, anyway. #andrewrosssorkin
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
11/10/09
Mr. Cook has this thing about "worth" - if the collective firm isn't making money, the individual employee shouldn't be. If the firm is somehow backed by taxpayers, large salaries for executives are unjustifiable. He's a populist who doesn't seem to believe that anyone could be worth all that much more than HE is, or his fellow members of the so-called creative underclass. Certainly this best-selling author generating loads of publicity can't be worth a sizable salary to a newspaper if said newspaper is dying! #andrewrosssorkin
11/10/09
To be fair, Cook also has a thing about Sorkin taking unjustified credit. #andrewrosssorkin
11/09/09
Just asking...
Now, back to finishing this here blog post.
11/09/09
11/09/09
11/10/09
That said, Sorkin adds little value to the NYT -- he's the Jim Cramer of print. If someone is willing to pay him more, he should go and cash that check before it isn't offered again. #andrewrosssorkin
11/06/09
Obviously a lot has happened since then, so his plans might've changed, or maybe that was just one of several things he was considering. But that's what this person told me. #newyorkobserver
11/06/09
11/06/09
The real question would be this: what is the nature of Sorkin's fee for running the financial blog and email newsletter?
Even if it's only a flat amount, other New York Times writers would start asking questions about compensation for their own blogging.
And if these "unusual incentive arrangements" included some kind of bonus for hitting targets for DealBook subscriptions, for instance? That would go against Times orthodoxy, the belief that journalism is necessarily compromised by any obvious quest for popularity. #newyorkobserver
11/06/09
I am sure he loved being approached by Kushner, very flattering; enough so to continue to appear interested in the gig. #newyorkobserver
11/05/09
The New York Times didn't run its 32-year-old superstar's weekly column. He's now in the UK. And the note (above) suggests that's why his piece didn't appear.
But a usually reliable tipster tells us that wasn't the whole explanation.
"I gather that the New York Times pulled Sorkin's column on Tuesday on the grounds that they thought it was not comprehensible, or not good enough - he had filed his regular column that day but the editors decided not to print it so they put something else in instead."
"Larry Ingrassia - man who issued the statement saying that all was well between Sorkin and the NYT business writers - made the final decision. I don't know what the column was about."
"Sort of interesting in view of the ongoing oldsters vs Sorkin tensions. NYT business desk abuzz about it, of course."
#tips #rumormonger #andrewrosssorkin #newyorktimes
10/31/09
The ultimate success of Sork's book will be determined by how many unread pallets are purchased by bankers, PR firms and even proxy solicitors in an effort to buy a favor.
I've already gotten one as a "gift" from one of those constituencies, and can confirm that nobody wants to read that thing. It's too big, ironically. #andrewrosssorkin
10/31/09
10/31/09
I suspect that this will show serious inconsistencies in his claims. People like Sorkin, however, live in the realm of "benefit of the doubt" and "lack of evidence." It's very easy to lie. It's very hard to catch people who do it. #andrewrosssorkin