The NYT, LAT, and WaPo won't buy Twitter Blue; NYT, LAT, BuzzFeed, and Politico won't reimburse reporters for it, but Semafor and some other small outlets will

BuzzFeed isn't ponying up, but for other outlets, paying might make sense. — Pranav Dixit

BuzzFeed News 2023-03-31

Context & Ripple Effects

This lands one day after the New York Times said it wouldn't pay for verification or reimburse reporters who do, and extends the same line across the LA Times, Washington Post, Politico, and BuzzFeed itself. The refusal is the latest chapter in a decade-long reversal: back when Facebook paid outlets including the NYT and BuzzFeed to run Live Video, platforms funded publishers, whereas now publishers are declining to fund platforms.

First-order effects

Reporters at the NYT, LAT, BuzzFeed, and Politico either absorb the Blue subscription personally or work without the checkmark, while Semafor's reimbursement policy gives its bylines verified status their larger rivals' staff lack on the platform.
Twitter loses the institutional legitimacy signal of every major US newsroom badge at once, concentrating visible verification among small outlets that opted in.

Second-order effects

Verification splits into a size-based strategy rather than an industry norm: large publishers treat it as a platform dependency worth severing (consistent with the Times pulling stories from Apple News to protect direct reader relationships), while small outlets buy cheap differentiation they couldn't get any other way.
With big publishers refusing to pay, Twitter Blue's newsroom adoption depends on individual journalists, weakening the product's pitch to organizations and pushing the burden of proving its value onto subscribers.

Third-order effects

If the pattern holds, publisher-platform economics keep inverting: after outlets braced for shortfalls as Meta weighed ending news fees that averaged $20M+ annually for the NYT, the direction of payment now runs neither way — platforms stop paying publishers, and top publishers refuse to pay platforms.
Distribution relationships become explicitly optional and negotiated case by case, with outlet scale determining posture: incumbents protect owned-audience strategies, newcomers rent credibility where they can afford it.

The trend: The money flow between news publishers and social platforms is collapsing toward zero in both directions, leaving verification and distribution as per-outlet choices rather than industry defaults.

Discussion

Vox Shirin Ghaffary on x
Elon Musk wants to fill your Twitter feed with paid accounts
@oliverdarcy Oliver Darcy on x
The Los Angeles Times also says it will not pay for Twitter Blue, noting “verification no longer establishes authority or credibility.” Here's an internal note from managing editor Sara Yasin that went out to staff. https://twitter.com/...
@howardtayler Howard Tayler on x
Quote-tweeting to turn up the volmue. There is no internal-to-Twitter verification method. The ONLY way to verify that a given Twitter account is yours is to link to it from something that CAN be verified as yours. https://twitter.com/...
@scalzi John Scalzi on x
The Twitter blue check no longer verifies identity, it just confirms you're spending money, so from a journalistic point of view it makes no sense to pay. Have the outlet post a list on its site of its reporter's accounts and have the accounts link to it. https://www.buzzfeednews…
@astrokatie Katie Mack on x
“verification no longer establishes authority or credibility, instead it will only mean that someone has paid for a Twitter Blue subscription” -LA Times Managing Editor, on why they won't bother purchasing a blue check https://twitter.com/...
@babumoshaaye Abhijit Dey on x
Once publications lose verification and fake, verified accounts start popping replacing our timelines, the media outlets will be forced to leave Twitter as a platform. https://twitter.com/...
@nash076 @nash076 on x
The NYT, the LA Times, Vox, Politico, WaPo, Buzzfeed ... the list goes on and on, but it looks as if no reputable media outlet will be paying the $1000 a month for Twitter “verification.” https://twitter.com/...
@jessespector Jesse Spector on x
I was once told that my articles did exceptionally well on Twitter, and that meant maybe 10% of my traffic was from here. It's a useless cesspool and I will miss it dearly. https://twitter.com/...
@bdherzinger Blake Herzinger on x
I am told this is what business acumen looks like - trying to charge people to produce the content and data your model requires, then having everyone but neckbeards refuse to pay you. Incredible stuff. https://twitter.com/...
@dimensionmedia David Bisset on x
I'm not a “Mastodon can fix everything wrong with Twitter” person but one could in theory have a server just for journals and reporters (not public) and they can be verified via that source. But won't get them showing up on Twitter over the organizations / frauds that DO pay. htt…
@stevanzetti Steven Monacelli on x
Twitter may not generate a ton of traffic but it sure does allow me to bully politicians in public so who is to say what the trade off really is https://twitter.com/...
@graceonfootball Grace Robertson on x
Can't believe Elon Musk's plan of constantly shitting on potential customers has downsides. https://twitter.com/...
@mattnavarra Matt Navarra on x
The Newsrooms Who Say They'll Pay For Twitter Blue Checkmarks For Their Journalists The New York Times: ❌ Washington Post: Undecided CNN: Undecided The Los Angeles Times: ❌ Semafor: ✅ The Daily Caller: Undecided Insider: ❌ BuzzFeed: ❌ HuffPost: ❌ https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ ...
@oliverdarcy Oliver Darcy on x
BuzzFeed a no on paying for staff's blue checks: “As an organization, we will not cover fees for individuals to keep their blue checkmarks moving forward. There are several reasons for this, but one outweighs them all: a blue checkmark no longer means the handle is ‘verified.’”
@roslyntalusan Roslyn on x
for those of you who feel pressured into buying twitter blue for business purposes*, please bear in mind that corporations are resisting this site owner's extortion scheme. *paying ~$8 to the man screwing your business over is not a good business decision. https://twitter.com/...
@sonnybunch Sonny Bunch on x
Elon: “Well, the journos will keep their checks because their bosses will pay for it.” Bosses: “lol no” https://twitter.com/...
@notabigjerk Lauren on x
twitter drives an enormous amount of discourse that mostly just stays on twitter. there's absolutely no financial justification for paying the amount twitter wants for institutional verification so i suspect they won't be the only ones who play wait and see https://twitter.com/..…
@markmobility Mark Elliott on x
It's all going south for Elon. NYT not paying for a blue checkmark for itself or its reporters. Same for LA Times, Buzzfeed and Politico. “verification no longer establishes authority or credibility.” All it establishes is you're paying Elon $8/month. https://twitter.com/...
@therealhoarse @therealhoarse on x
People on Twitter don't click out of the platform. I learned that firsthand when promoting music over COVID. A video posted here would get 50,000. That same video posted as a link to YouTube would get 150 clicks. https://twitter.com/...
@crawf34 Adrian on x
I mean it's not like someone with a fake opinion page account could tweet anything more absurd than the current one does https://twitter.com/...
@allisonlcarter Allison Carter on x
What many people — including the owner of this website — don't understand. Twitter is good for branding for news sites but a drop in the bucket for traffic and revenue. https://twitter.com/...
@dellcam Dell Cameron on x
Twitter does not generate traffic. I've been in countless meetings at multiple outlets where this fact has been repeated to me over and over. https://twitter.com/...
@lollardfish David M. Perry on x
The thing is: if Twitter was a useful site gain paying subscribers, there might be an argument for everyone from the New York Times to me and my 475 person Patreon or to pay for verification. But it's not. It was pre Elon, but he broke it. https://twitter.com/...
@scottnover Scott Nover on x
Twitter needs the New York Times WAY more than the New York Times needs Twitter. And it's not particularly close. https://twitter.com/...
@benjysarlin Benjy Sarlin on x
Would be tens of thousands per month for “real” branded verification ($1k per brand, $50 per affiliated account). If brands don't pay, this whole model falls apart pretty quickly revenue-wise. https://twitter.com/...
@normcharlatan Norm Charlatan on x
Assuming this policy sticks (which I'm not sure it will), I'm willing to bet they'll pay within 60 days once it's clear that a) the algorithm favors verified accounts and b) there's so much misinformation using misleading NYT usernames. https://twitter.com/...
@mikiebarb Michael Barbaro on x
Sniff, sniff. It was nice knowing you, Blue Check. https://twitter.com/...
@clemenswergin Clemens Wergin on x
Who pays for Twitter verification and who believes it means that an account is actually verfied is a moron https://twitter.com/...
@andybcampbell Andy Campbell on x
Even if this was a good deal for companies, and even if newsrooms got high traffic from twitter (we don't), there's zero incentive to pay for any feature announced by a CEO who rips up his own rule book each week. https://twitter.com/...
@tomgara Tom Gara on x
This take is both true and starting to feel a bit outdated given how relatively unimportant raw traffic has become for news businesses vs higher value stuff like engaged readers who subscribe etc https://twitter.com/...
@lxeagle17 Lakshya Jain on x
Twitter really doesn't drive a lot of traffic. Not sure how many news organizations are going to pay the astronomical fees for verification ($1K/mo per brand, and then $50/mo for each affiliate). Imagine a bill of >$10K a month for the minimal traffic you get from Twitter. https:…
@itsborys Christian Borys on x
Twitter blue is so stupid it's genuinely hard to believe anyone inside Twitter thinks this is going to result in anything but a complete disaster https://twitter.com/...
@stevelackmeyer @stevelackmeyer on x
I wonder at what point do the NYT, Washington Post, CNN, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, Gannett and other news organizations agree to pick a replacement social media platform... https://twitter.com/...
@senatorshoshana @senatorshoshana on x
Raises hand as someone who has worked at many orgs where we need traffic. Twitter can drive very high-quality traffic for sure! There's real ROI from it. But it doesn't generate high-volume traffic https://twitter.com/...
@dancow Dan Nguyen on x
The NYT gets a W here https://twitter.com/...
@maxwelltani Max Tani on x
LAT also won't reimburse: “Verification no longer establishes authority or credibility, instead it will only mean that someone has paid for a Twitter Blue subscription,” @sarayasin told staff. https://twitter.com/...
@sdkstl Staci D Kramer on x
LAT: >>"verification no longer establishes authority or credibility."<< https://twitter.com/...
@katienotopoulos Katie Notopoulos on x
I was curious about how news outlets were going to handle journalist losing their beloved blue checks. Would they pay? Allow people to expense it? Or just... no? Turns out it's a mixed bag! (BuzzFeed will not pay or allow us to expense) https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ ...
@mikeisaac @mikeisaac on x
this is a no-brainer imo forget any feelings one might have about mgmt or the company — the way they are handling bluechecks now is punitive rather than value-adding and there's no actual safeguard against impersonation whether you buy it or not, which is the major concern https:…
@onceupona Adrianna McIntyre on x
is this the business school case I was promised https://twitter.com/...
@_danilo @_danilo on x
one of the great oaks of media says: “we will not be extorted” https://twitter.com/...

Chronicles