只要你對硅谷或加密貨幣有那么一點了解,就很可能聽說過安德森?霍洛維茨基金(Andreessen Horowitz),這可是科技領域里最知名的風投公司之一。圈里人稱其為a16z。該公司之所以出名,部分原因是它投資了Facebook、Coinbase和其他一些大名鼎鼎的公司,還因為它擅長吸引(以及左右)媒體之道。
因此,聽說a16z在打造一個媒體帝國也就不足為奇了。具體細節(jié)正在一點一點流出,但簡而言之,a16z在花了十年時間通過雞尾酒會培養(yǎng)和記者們的關系之后,決定不再需要他們了。該公司正在招聘一支屬于自己的大型編輯團隊,以積極的基調(diào)報道有關加密貨幣、金融科技和其他主題的故事。
a16z之所以要自己做媒體,其中一個原因是它有能力。過去,企業(yè)需要依靠《紐約時報》(New York Times)之類的媒體讓公眾了解自己的故事。這些出版物(包括《財富》雜志在內(nèi))實際上壟斷了報紙和雜志等新聞傳播的通道?;ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)打破了這種壟斷,一開始速度不快,但隨著推特(Twitter)、Medium和Substack等平臺的出現(xiàn),壟斷被加速打破。
a16z棄用傳統(tǒng)媒體的另一個重要原因是,正如科技界的許多公司一樣,在a16z看來,媒體無知又不公平。這些批評人士說,記者們從不贊揚科技改變生活的諸多方式,而是專注于負面報道,為了服務自己的議題,極盡攻擊詆毀。這些高科技公司還會說,記者們總是輕松發(fā)表文章,哪怕他們根本不知道自己在寫什么。那么,最好還是把寫文章的權利留給知道自己在寫什么的人,比如a16z的合伙人和他們的寫手。
那么,我們應該怎么看待此事?不出所料,許多記者對a16z的舉動感到恐懼厭惡,說他們進軍媒體僅僅是為了宣傳,而不是做“真正的”新聞。這其中有一部分是酸葡萄心理。記者們總是自視甚高,他們在批評a16z等公司試圖和他們做切割時,可能只是在哀嘆權力和威望的喪失。
雖然批評a16z的動機很容易,但要抨擊他們的內(nèi)容卻很難。我一直在閱讀該公司的金融科技通訊,不得不承認它們做得非常出色:復雜精妙、消息靈通、文字清晰。這種情況下,也許我們應該贊揚而非批評。畢竟,他們發(fā)布的信息是免費的,而且非常有用——比那些被稱為“真正”新聞的標題黨垃圾要好。
但是,盡管我十分欣賞高質(zhì)量的內(nèi)容,但一想到a16z的媒體影響力會超過《紐約時報》或《華爾街日報》(Wall Street Journal),我就不寒而栗。因為就像硅谷在許多其他領域的做法一樣,這些新崛起的媒體大亨看上去想得到財富和榮耀,卻不愿意承擔顛覆并日益主導整個行業(yè)的責任。
據(jù)報道,a16z的創(chuàng)始人厭倦了主流媒體中越來越多反對科技的聲音,這點可以理解。硅谷盡管存在缺陷,但它創(chuàng)造出的技術仍然是解決疾病、污染和貧困等全球性問題的最大希望。但同時,科技行業(yè)也加劇了從虛假信息到不平等等一系列其他問題,一刀切地采取支持科技的立場顯然不負責任。
然后是“真相對權力的影響”,a16z的一位內(nèi)部人士最近用這句話向我表明,新聞業(yè)的理想古怪又天真。我不同意。上個世紀,傳統(tǒng)媒體大無畏地對抗強權的企業(yè)和總統(tǒng),在法庭上為言論自由而戰(zhàn),還有個別記者為了保護消息源而鋃鐺入獄。為了自由民主社會的正常運轉(zhuǎn),這些活動必不可少。但從目前來看,a16z似乎沒有興趣參與。
從這個意義上說,a16z的媒體野心讓我想起了加密貨幣行業(yè)——該公司也正試圖占據(jù)這個行業(yè)的主導地位。比特幣信徒會告訴你,比特幣及相關行業(yè)的意義在于自由,在于逃離政府和大銀行的控制。哪怕這么說有些道理,但對于如何幫助數(shù)百萬在饑餓、失業(yè)和醫(yī)療缺失中掙扎的美國人,加密行業(yè)卻幾乎閉口不談。我擔心,如果被追問這個問題,他們的回答恐怕是:“這和我無關?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng))
譯者:Agatha
只要你對硅谷或加密貨幣有那么一點了解,就很可能聽說過安德森?霍洛維茨基金(Andreessen Horowitz),這可是科技領域里最知名的風投公司之一。圈里人稱其為a16z。該公司之所以出名,部分原因是它投資了Facebook、Coinbase和其他一些大名鼎鼎的公司,還因為它擅長吸引(以及左右)媒體之道。
因此,聽說a16z在打造一個媒體帝國也就不足為奇了。具體細節(jié)正在一點一點流出,但簡而言之,a16z在花了十年時間通過雞尾酒會培養(yǎng)和記者們的關系之后,決定不再需要他們了。該公司正在招聘一支屬于自己的大型編輯團隊,以積極的基調(diào)報道有關加密貨幣、金融科技和其他主題的故事。
a16z之所以要自己做媒體,其中一個原因是它有能力。過去,企業(yè)需要依靠《紐約時報》(New York Times)之類的媒體讓公眾了解自己的故事。這些出版物(包括《財富》雜志在內(nèi))實際上壟斷了報紙和雜志等新聞傳播的通道?;ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)打破了這種壟斷,一開始速度不快,但隨著推特(Twitter)、Medium和Substack等平臺的出現(xiàn),壟斷被加速打破。
a16z棄用傳統(tǒng)媒體的另一個重要原因是,正如科技界的許多公司一樣,在a16z看來,媒體無知又不公平。這些批評人士說,記者們從不贊揚科技改變生活的諸多方式,而是專注于負面報道,為了服務自己的議題,極盡攻擊詆毀。這些高科技公司還會說,記者們總是輕松發(fā)表文章,哪怕他們根本不知道自己在寫什么。那么,最好還是把寫文章的權利留給知道自己在寫什么的人,比如a16z的合伙人和他們的寫手。
那么,我們應該怎么看待此事?不出所料,許多記者對a16z的舉動感到恐懼厭惡,說他們進軍媒體僅僅是為了宣傳,而不是做“真正的”新聞。這其中有一部分是酸葡萄心理。記者們總是自視甚高,他們在批評a16z等公司試圖和他們做切割時,可能只是在哀嘆權力和威望的喪失。
雖然批評a16z的動機很容易,但要抨擊他們的內(nèi)容卻很難。我一直在閱讀該公司的金融科技通訊,不得不承認它們做得非常出色:復雜精妙、消息靈通、文字清晰。這種情況下,也許我們應該贊揚而非批評。畢竟,他們發(fā)布的信息是免費的,而且非常有用——比那些被稱為“真正”新聞的標題黨垃圾要好。
但是,盡管我十分欣賞高質(zhì)量的內(nèi)容,但一想到a16z的媒體影響力會超過《紐約時報》或《華爾街日報》(Wall Street Journal),我就不寒而栗。因為就像硅谷在許多其他領域的做法一樣,這些新崛起的媒體大亨看上去想得到財富和榮耀,卻不愿意承擔顛覆并日益主導整個行業(yè)的責任。
據(jù)報道,a16z的創(chuàng)始人厭倦了主流媒體中越來越多反對科技的聲音,這點可以理解。硅谷盡管存在缺陷,但它創(chuàng)造出的技術仍然是解決疾病、污染和貧困等全球性問題的最大希望。但同時,科技行業(yè)也加劇了從虛假信息到不平等等一系列其他問題,一刀切地采取支持科技的立場顯然不負責任。
然后是“真相對權力的影響”,a16z的一位內(nèi)部人士最近用這句話向我表明,新聞業(yè)的理想古怪又天真。我不同意。上個世紀,傳統(tǒng)媒體大無畏地對抗強權的企業(yè)和總統(tǒng),在法庭上為言論自由而戰(zhàn),還有個別記者為了保護消息源而鋃鐺入獄。為了自由民主社會的正常運轉(zhuǎn),這些活動必不可少。但從目前來看,a16z似乎沒有興趣參與。
從這個意義上說,a16z的媒體野心讓我想起了加密貨幣行業(yè)——該公司也正試圖占據(jù)這個行業(yè)的主導地位。比特幣信徒會告訴你,比特幣及相關行業(yè)的意義在于自由,在于逃離政府和大銀行的控制。哪怕這么說有些道理,但對于如何幫助數(shù)百萬在饑餓、失業(yè)和醫(yī)療缺失中掙扎的美國人,加密行業(yè)卻幾乎閉口不談。我擔心,如果被追問這個問題,他們的回答恐怕是:“這和我無關?!保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng))
譯者:Agatha
If you have even a passing familiarity with Silicon Valley or cryptocurrency, you've likely heard of Andreessen Horowitz, one of tech's highest-profile venture capital firms. The firm, which tech insiders call a16z, is famous in part because of its investments—Facebook, Coinbase and other familiar names—but also because of its mastery at charming (and manipulating) the media.
So perhaps it's no surprise that a16z is building a media empire. The details are still trickling out, but the short version is that, after a decade of cultivating journalists over intimate cocktail affairs, the firm has decided it no longer needs them. Instead, a16z is hiring a large editorial team to cover stories about crypto, fintech and other topics with an upbeat slant.
One reason that a16z became a media outlet is because it can. Once, companies needed to rely on the likes of the New York Times to get their stories out to the public. Those publications, including Fortune, had a virtual monopoly on information because they controlled the bundles—aka newspapers and magazines—through which news got distributed. The Internet blew up that monopoly, slowly at first, and then rapidly once platforms like Twitter, Medium and Substack came on the scene.
The other big reason a16z has turned its back on traditional media is because the firm, like many in the tech world, regards the press as ignorant and unfair. Instead of hailing the many ways tech is changing our lives, these critics say journalists fixate on negative stories, pursuing hit pieces and takedowns that serve their own agenda. What's more, a16z and others would add, reporters are prone to publishing pieces even if they don't know what they're talking about. It's better, then, to leave it to those—like the partners at a16z and their scribes—who do.
So what should we make of all this? Unsurprisingly, many reporters are recoiling at what a16z is doing, claiming its media ambitions are simply propaganda and not "real" journalism. Part of this is sour grapes. Journalists are prone to self-importance and, in criticizing the push by a16z and others to cut them off, they may simply be lamenting a loss of power and prestige.
And while it's easy to knock a16z's motives, it's hard to bash the stuff they are publishing. I've been reading the company's fintech newsletters and have to concede they're excellent: sophisticated, well-informed and crisply written. If this is the case, perhaps our impulse should be to praise rather than criticize the company. After all, the information they're publishing is free and useful—and better than a lot of the clickbait dreck that passes for much of "real" journalism these days.
And yet. As much as I appreciate high-caliber content, I shudder at the prospect of a world where a16z carries more media clout than the Times or the Wall Street Journal. As is the case with so much else in Silicon Valley, this new class of media barons appears to want the money and the glory, but not the responsibility that comes with disrupting, and increasingly dominating, entire industries.
The founders of a16z are reportedly sick of the growing chorus of anti-tech voices in mainstream media, and that's understandable. Silicon Valley, despite its flaws, still creates the technology that offers the best hope for alleviating global problems like disease, pollution and poverty. But the tech industry has exacerbated a host of other problems, from disinformation to inequality, and simply adopting a pro-tech vision feels irresponsible.
Then there is the "truth to power thing"—a phrase an a16z insider recently used to suggest to me that the ideals of journalism are quaint or naive. I disagree. In the last century, traditional media institutions have been fearless in standing up to powerful businesses and Presidents, fighting in court for free speech while individual journalists have gone to jail to protect their sources. Such activities are essential to the functioning of a free democracy. And for now, it appears a16z is not interested in taking part in them.
In this sense, a16z's media ambitions remind me of the cryptocurrency industry—a field the firm is also trying to dominate. Many Bitcoin believers will tell you the currency and the industry around it are about freedom and escaping the power of government and big banks. And while there's something to that, few in the crypto industry have much to say about how to help the millions of Americans struggling with hunger, unemployment and lack of healthcare. I worry that, if pressed, their response would be "it's not my problem."