On Thursday, Forbes.com launched a new blog page utilizing the platform first developed by the blog network True/Slant, which it recently acquired. News last week that True/Slant was being shut down was met with a bevy of nostalgic posts and comments on the True/Slant site and elsewhere. But it is now evident that the experiment is not over, and that site founder Lewis Dvorkin is merely testing its guiding principles on a “bigger stage.”
True/Slant was a loose organization of individual writers, a range of voices who covered the political spectrum and had the freedom to write whatever they liked, from Winona Ryder’s film career to David Foster Wallace’s posthumous book sales. It was a model similar to The Huffington Post, in that the goal was to attract as much content as possible, but with a wider range of political viewpoints and a higher barrier to entry. The site explored the idea that online readers were more likely to respond to individual writers than to an institution.
Writers on True/Slant were paid stipends for their pieces, but they were also free to solicit advertisers that would match up to their content, if they liked, and share in the revenue they brought to the site. Dvorkin calls this model “entrepreneurial journalism.”
Forbes Media—one of the original investors of the project in 2008—was intrigued with the results. In April, the company brought Dvorkin on as a consultant to their own site redesign. (Soon thereafter, they hired him full time as chief product officer.) As Peter Kafka at All Things Digital wrote at the time,
Employees there say COO Tim Forbes has been particularly enamored of True/Slant’s low-cost, high-frequency approach to content generation, so you can read into this move what you will.
Following that move, Forbes bought True/Slant, and just as quickly shut it down. Some True/Slant writers stayed on to contribute to the new Forbes.com blog and some did not. The clean layout, heavy emphasis on social media, and prominent page-view rankings were all transferred to the new Forbes blog. The bloggers (some, not all of whom are Forbes staff writers) post their own content as well as “headline grabs” showing what they’re reading online at the time. Parts of the blog page are similar in feel to a Facebook feed, which jives with Dvorkin’s own description of the page as “a blogging platform that puts news…at the center of social media.”
It being Forbes, the blogs’ content is business-focused, but in general Dvorkin seems guided by a “more is more, faster is better” content philosophy. Shortly after he arrived at Forbes.com, Dvorkin explained his overarching strategy for the future of the site in an interview with New York Observer reporter Zeke Turner:
“Moving forward, when I look at an operation like Forbes, I look at a mixture of a full-time staff base and hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of freelance contributors. It’s that blend,” Mr. D’Vorkin said.
“That’s what we did at True/Slant,” Mr. D’Vorkin continued. “We let the reporter self-publish-boom! We’re working through that at Forbes: How do you create a less layered process at the magazine?”
As it turns out, Dvorkin is not just allowing Forbes writers to run their own blogs, he is requiring it. Earlier this week, when news of the re-launch reached Business Insider, Joe Pompeo reported: “We also hear that every reporter will now be required to have his or her own blog, and that most are starting from scratch.”
It will be interesting to see how this transition goes. True/Slant writers who wrote, voluntarily, as little or as often as they wished, about whatever struck their fancy, are not necessarily the same breed of writer who reports business news for Forbes on deadline, and presumably have other responsibilities at the magazine. Still, early signs are promising. Judging from the day of their launch, the blogs are filled with substantial, original content, rather than “story behind the story” introversions that news sites sometimes use to beef up online content.

Thanks for the thoughtful take on our early days with the new blog platform. It's going to catalyze a lot of changes at Forbes. I think you underestimate the ability of our writers to mix up the tone and pace of their posts, mixing up news and the off-the-cuff. The conversations that fly around the office or over cubicle walls are often worth putting down into a blog post in between phone calls to report facts. And since when was Forbes ever staid in tone or approach?
#1 Posted by bruce upbin, CJR on Fri 6 Aug 2010 at 09:53 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful take on our early days with the new blog platform. It's going to catalyze a lot of changes at Forbes. I think you underestimate the ability of our writers to mix up the tone and pace of their posts, mixing up news and the off-the-cuff. The conversations that fly around the office or over cubicle walls are often worth putting down into a blog post in between phone calls to report facts. And since when was Forbes ever staid in tone or approach?
#2 Posted by bruce upbin, CJR on Fri 6 Aug 2010 at 09:53 PM
I see potential here but I definitely want more of a gatekeeper. There are already some contributors who are, um... conflicted to say the least and perhaps worse. The staff will be fine, of course and its natural for writers to build a personal brand (it's something that's been missing from most business magazines for a long time -- why has Forbes never had its own Tom Wolfe or Michael Lewis?) but opening up the forum to the entire world, especially to an investment community where everybody had a product or political point of view to sell (usually both), is a big mistake.
Look at Glenn Beck's problems with Goldline... There you have a for profit company selling overvalued gold coins to people based on the premise that Obama will ruin the economy and destroy the American dollar. It's a silly argument and an obvious attempt to take advantage of a specific audience. What will happen when these people use Forbes' blog network to run the same scam (but for free, at least they have to pay Fox for ad space when they prey on his audience).
#3 Posted by Mike M., CJR on Sun 8 Aug 2010 at 07:27 PM
A well written and informative article even for the common person like myself, thanks.
#4 Posted by Jun, CJR on Tue 30 Nov 2010 at 03:52 PM
Very well said. Hope all the information I learned from this web review will be useful for me someday.
#5 Posted by kim sanders, CJR on Tue 30 Nov 2010 at 07:52 PM
An article “worlds-most-powerful people, 2011” by Forbes Staff When it says that the Pope is one of the most powerful people that is a joke. Most catholic countries like Poland, Mexico, Spain, Ireland, and other don't listen to the Pope. What you hear from other news the world is becoming less and less Catholic. Vatican has less money and can't support itself from. I am catholic and I know most catholic give almost give no money to the Catholic Church. Plus, Most Catholic don't listen the Pope. Just because you see a lot people in world youth day does not mean that we listen 100% to the Pope. Have you ever heard about a country obeying the Pope or when you hear him or make comment on subject about doctrine does the world changes? No, He may be leader for many Catholic but does not mean they listen to him. This article is a joke. It’s treasure belongs to people’s stats like Egyptian artifacts belong to its people. What is the point of this article by putting the Pope as most powerful could it be anti-Catholic statement or bigotry. May this reporter or Forbes Staff is trying to promote his agenda and politics to the world? This is not news it is an agenda.
#6 Posted by David Garcia, CJR on Wed 2 Nov 2011 at 04:11 PM