PDA

View Full Version : Antiwar.com needs help now




spotics
05-22-2009, 10:47 PM
From Justin Raimondo

Dear Antiwar.com reader,

It's hard to believe that we've been at this - putting out a daily edition of Antiwar.com - for a decade and a half. It seems like only yesterday that I wrote my first piece for this site, an article detailing the great danger posed by a group of ideologues known as the neoconservatives. Back then they were an obscure lot, known only to a few academics and political insiders, while today, of course, they are famous (or, rather, infamous) as the intellectual architects of the Iraq war and our disastrous post-9/11 foreign policy.

As I look back at the record - and it is there for all to see in our archives - I am struck by how much of what we have written on this site has been prescient, almost eerily so. To wit: the coming war in the Middle East, the complete absence of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, the guilt of Scooter Libby, the collapse of the GOP, and the list goes on. As a guide to what is happening - and likely to happen - in our tumultuous danger-filled world, Antiwar.com has been indispensable to the serious student of foreign affairs. Over the years we've built up quite an audience and made Antiwar.com into a Web site that ranks up there with the big boys.

Which is why I find it hard to believe that we're about to close up shop, for lack of funding.

After all that work, all those fundraising drives, all the words written and posted - and all the times we have been right on the mark - it looks very much like Antiwar.com has fallen victim to the great economic downturn that now has the U.S. by the throat.

The great irony is that we warned about this, too, and pointed to one of the major causes - the vast strain on the economy that having an overseas empire entails.

I am told by our accountant that, unless we bring in at least $25,000 over the weekend, we'll have to start making cutbacks by Monday morning, starting with letting go of a good part of our staff. That would leave us with a skeleton crew of perhaps TWO people to put out the most comprehensive and up-to-date Web site devoted to foreign affairs on the Internet - an impossible task.

But the cutbacks won't end there. We'll have to stop paying our contributors, most of whom work for a pittance already. This will undoubtedly lose us a few of our columnists: these days, hardly anyone I know can afford to work for free. And you can't blame them, can you?

A long time ago we made a decision not to take money from certain major foundations whose money has all kinds of strings attached - more like ropes, actually. We thought we could appeal to our readers, every so often, to come up with the relatively slight funding we need to continue operating and still retain our editorial independence.

Were we wrong? It's beginning to look like it, but I still find it hard to believe that we're really on the brink of bankruptcy. Antiwar.com has been so successful in so many ways: we've built a large audience, we've welded together a working coalition of writers and activists who span the spectrum from Left to Right to unclassifiable, and we've begun to have a real effect on the debate over what kind of foreign policy America ought to have.

As America stands on the precipice, staring down into the graveyard of empires, Antiwar.com is needed more than ever - and so, I ask myself, can this really be the end?

Well, it ain't over 'til it's over. Monday isn't here quite yet. We have a whole weekend standing between us and extinction. So what are you waiting for? There's still time to save the patient before the line goes flat.

I've begged before, and I'll gladly beg again: please, if you value peace and liberty, now is the time to dig down deep in your pockets and give what you can, as quickly as you can.

When the staff asked me to write this letter, my immediate response was: Why should anyone respond to an appeal from little ol' me? After all, who am I? Some schmuck who writes stuff on the Internet. There are so many other better writers, better-informed, less - how shall I put this? - flamboyant, more sober, who write for our site. Yet they insisted, and so here I am, asking you - pleading with you - to save Antiwar.com.

We've always depended on you, our loyal readers and supporters, who have come through for us time and again. Now I'm turning to you once again for the support we need to continue our work.

It isn't much, even by the standards of nonprofits. Comparable media outlets spend 10 times what we do, if not more. The big difference is that they have major philanthropic and corporate donors who pay the bills - for a price.

That price is de facto editorial control and a whole list of "forbidden" subjects that can't be touched with a 10-foot pole. And you can bet your bottom dollar that I certainly would not be given a platform if the corporate moguls and establishment mandarins who control the big foundations had their druthers. I'm too "extreme," you know.

Well, to heck with them, and to heck with the establishment. Those guys have brought us to the edge of the abyss, and if they have their way we'll be jumping in head first. We'll never give up our principles. We'll never hand over control of the most widely read foreign-policy site to apologists for evil policies. We'd rather go down in flames - but, remember, it doesn't have to end that way. There's still a whole weekend to raise the relative pittance we need to get by.

So what the %&!@ are you waiting for? Hurry, because there's not a moment to lose. If any of my readers are out there and reading this, if you have valued my work over the years and think I'm making a valuable contribution to the fight for peace and liberty, then

moonshineplease
05-10-2010, 06:29 PM
I love Antiwar.com. Thought I would take a moment to bump this thread and encourage people to donate anything you can.

Travlyr
05-10-2010, 06:47 PM
Central banks starving the opposition?

Fozz
05-10-2010, 08:41 PM
Maybe we should have an antiwar moneybomb every few months.

WaltM
05-10-2010, 09:06 PM
antiwar.com is nice, but I'm very curious what exactly costs so much to run a damn website.

what are they paying their staff to do?

I like Justin, Angela is sexy, and Scott's Show is entertaining, but why do they need $70K every quarter?

Why dont Restore the Republic, Alex Jones ask for that kind of donation? (Because they know how to make money by selling books, movies and bumper stickers)

If I had a few bucks to spare, I'd much rather donate to www.moxnews.com & Cspanjunkie. at least Mike shows that he's a dedicated man staring at the screen nearly 14 hours a day, putting up 500 videos a month.

WaltM
05-10-2010, 09:08 PM
Maybe we should have an antiwar moneybomb every few months.

they already DO essentially do that, anybody who reads their website knows they ask for $70K every quarter and threaten to pull the plug.

silus
05-10-2010, 09:23 PM
Not familiar with the website, but 25k sounds like a lot. Someone should tell Raimondo that the bigger question is if 25k is just a band aid or if it will make the site viable in the long term.

EDIT** If they really do ask for 70k every month they should sell the site to someone who supports the cause and is financially literate.

WaltM
05-10-2010, 09:33 PM
Not familiar with the website, but 25k sounds like a lot. Someone should tell Raimondo that the bigger question is if 25k is just a band aid or if it will make the site viable in the long term.

EDIT** If they really do ask for 70k every month they should sell the site to someone who supports the cause and is financially literate.

70K a QUARTER, not per month.

25K is just to prevent them from letting go of some people before Monday.

I've followed antiwar.com for many years, they've NEVER made any plans (much less promises) to improve their site or increase effeciency, nor have they ever shown what they do with money (you can only bet they paid their staff and it was worth it).

I am told by our accountant that, unless we bring in at least $25,000 over the weekend, we'll have to start making cutbacks by Monday morning, starting with letting go of a good part of our staff.


Who would that "good part" be?


That would leave us with a skeleton crew of perhaps TWO people to put out the most comprehensive and up-to-date Web site devoted to foreign affairs on the Internet - an impossible task.


really?



But the cutbacks won't end there. We'll have to stop paying our contributors, most of whom work for a pittance already. This will undoubtedly lose us a few of our columnists: these days, hardly anyone I know can afford to work for free. And you can't blame them, can you?

hardly anyone works for free? yes, I blame them, your readers and supporters certainly donate for free.

if these people who "can't work for free" can find a better job, I'd love to see them get it, then they'll see how fun it is donating your money to a website. (while they're working, they'll start to see how relevant and important the site is to them)

specsaregood
05-10-2010, 09:42 PM
For reference sake, freerepublic requests even more $$ quarterly and I don't think they even have any original content.

WaltM
05-10-2010, 09:43 PM
For reference sake, freerepublic requests even more $$ quarterly and I don't think they even have any original content.

good thing they don't need our money, they do fine with their mainstream republican donors and advertisers.

and I can DEFINITELY live without FR

silus
05-10-2010, 09:45 PM
I always thought advertising dollars paid for popular websites and their staff. Am I missing something here??

WaltM
05-10-2010, 09:49 PM
I always thought advertising dollars paid for popular websites and their staff. Am I missing something here??

no, you're not.

some sites either don't know how to use it, or don't get enough (and want more).

the "no advertisers will pay for our controversial content" excuse is BULLSHIT.

I've seen sites from porn to piracy, Alex Jones' site is certainly more "controversial" and has sponsors from all kinds of snake oil salesmen (unless somebody wants to admit here that Jones is a profiteer and joke). There's literally no site that can't be paid for by advertising.

I'm not talking about staff, rental for office, but just for web hosting, some tech support, usually any website can be maintained for under $1000, and advertising covers it comfortably.

so when anybody asks for more money, they're spending it somewhere else, and it's reasonable to ask WHAT THE HELL they're using it for.

BlackTerrel
05-11-2010, 02:38 AM
TuckerMax.com says he makes 10-20K a month PROFIT and he hasn't put anything new up in a year.

This is the nice thing about the internet - it is the great equalizer. If you put out a good product that people want to see you get eyeballs and revenue.

moonshineplease
05-29-2011, 10:33 PM
Just went to antiwar and a message popped up saying they are threatening to close down tomorrow due to insufficient funding.

Pericles
05-30-2011, 12:38 AM
Maybe it is time to give war a chance ala P. J. O'Rourke

cindy25
05-30-2011, 12:57 AM
what they are doing seems to be similar to Drudge or Huffington, on a smaller scale and limited to 1 issue; but 99% is just links. I don't understand why they need money all the time, and Huffington is floating in money (why is her website worth 100 million dollars?)

BlackTerrel
05-30-2011, 01:03 PM
Well either not enough people read the site or they are liars.

doodle
05-30-2011, 01:08 PM
If you put out a good product that people want to see you get eyeballs and revenue.

That is why ad revenues for FOX, CNN, MSNBC were pretty good when Iraq shock n awe and war were getting "great ratings", paraphrasing Geoege Carlin.

Athan
05-30-2011, 01:26 PM
That amount is ENOUGH to run a website. They need someone to take over the site.