Jim Bankoff, the fomer AOL exec responsible for buying Engadget for the Internet portal, has grabbed eight staffers who had recently left the huge tech site amid tensions, in order to start a new gadget property.

The site–which is still unnamed and will be run by outgoing Engadget Editor-in-Chief Josh Topolsky–will debut sometime in the fall. It is the first content expansion at the Washington, D.C. sports news site SB Nation, which is helmed by Bankoff.

“The technology we built is applicable beyond sports,” said Bankoff, in an interview with BoomTown tonight. “It was an opportunity to apply our model…into another content category where there was an overlap in demographics.”

That would be fanboys and, well, boys-who-will-be-boys.

UPDATE: In related news, sources said that AOL has zeroed in on Tim Stevens, Engadget’s automotive editor to replace the outgoing Topolsky. The New York-based company had already named Darren Murph as its new managing editor.

Now Stevens will be competing with Topolsky, as well as managing editor Nilay Patel, who will also lead the Engadget tech-exodus (techxodus?). The others include former Engadget staffers Paul Miller, Joanna Stern, Ross Miller, Chris Ziegler, Justin Glow and Dan Chilton.

Stern and Ziegler are still on Engadget’s editors site as current employees.

All of the above had left Engadget in a series of departures of late, all due to increasing unhappiness with AOL’s management and content strategy.

Paul Miller and Ross Miller, who are not related, both stated publicly that they did not like the editorial direction AOL was going in, especially a controversial content strategy document titled “The AOL Way.”

In his blog post, Topolsky threw another smackadoo at AOL, noting “SB Nation believes in real, independent journalism and the potential for new media to serve as an answer and antidote to big publishing houses and SEO spam–a point we couldn’t be more aligned on.”

New AOL content head Arianna Huffington has shifted toward a more journalistic path, but the talent bleed began before AOL’s $315 million purchase of the Huffington Post.

In a blog post, which is embedded below, Topolsky said the new SB Nation gadget site will be similar in pace and topic, but it will be broader than Engadget.

The move is an interesting one for SB Nation, which completed a $10.5 million Series C round, led by Khosla Ventures, in the fall.

It had already raised about $13 million in total venture funding from Accel Partners, Allen & Company and Comcast Interactive Capital, as well as from angel investors such as Ted Leonsis and others in Silicon Valley.

In related news, also restarting tomorrow will be a popular gadget podcast that Topolsky, Patel and Paul Miller had done for Engadget.

The New York Times’ David Carr mentioned the new site in the middle of a column earlier tonight.

Here is Topolsky’s blog post on the move, titled “This Is My Next Project”:

As you may have already heard (or read), there’s some activity going on in the world of Joshua Topolsky. Earlier this evening, David Carr published a piece in the New York Times about a new project that I’m embarking on…and I want to just say a few things about it.

Firstly: yes, this is happening. I’ve decided to join the team at SB Nation to build something brand new in the tech space. Now I know it might seem odd to some that I would be partnering with a sports publisher to build a technology news site, but that’s only half the story. This isn’t just about sports, or tech, or lone silos. What we will build together at SB Nation is a new media company–buoyed by the absolutely incredible work SB Nation has already done in publishing–and part of that new media company will be the as-yet-unnamed gadget and technology site that I’ll be working over the next few months to create. When we launch (hopefully in the fall), I will be editor-in-chief of a property that I hope will inform, entertain, and engage fans of technology in whole new ways.

I should say that I wouldn’t want to build something like this alone, and thankfully, I won’t have to. I’ll be joined by some very good friends at this new venture–people like Nilay Patel, for instance.

Of course, the natural question I’m sure a lot of people have is: why SB Nation? The easy answer is that the people at SB Nation share my vision of what publishing looks like in the year 2011. They think that the technology used to create and distribute news on the web (and mobile) is as important as the people who are responsible for the content itself. And that’s not just pillow talk–SB Nation is actively evolving its tools and processes to meet the growing and changing needs of its vast editorial teams and their audience communities. They’re building for the web as it is now. From the perspective of a journalist who also happens to be a huge nerd, that’s a match made in heaven. SBN isn’t just another media company pushing news out–it’s a testbed and lab for some of the newest and most interesting publishing tools I’ve ever seen. In short, I was blown away when I saw what kind of technology they’re using to get news on their front page and engage audiences, and even more blown away when I started talking to them about what could come next.

But beyond the technology (and possibly more important than the technology), there’s another factor here that’s driving my decision. It’s that SB Nation believes in real, independent journalism and the potential for new media to serve as an answer and antidote to big publishing houses and SEO spam–a point we couldn’t be more aligned on. This is a group of people that not only think independent media works, but are reaping the rewards of new publishing done right. As the fastest growing online sports publisher, they’re seen as a source for credible and honest journalism, which is why industry stalwarts like Rob Neyer have recently joined their ranks (ranks which include hundreds of talented sports experts). This isn’t tabloid page grabbing or content farming–it’s news and insight by and for a passionate and informed group of people. And that’s exactly where I want to be.

So, what happens next? We get to work.

In the coming months I’m going to be laser focused on one thing: building the best tech site in the world–and I would love to hear what you guys think the next phase in technology and gadget news should look like. Ping me with ideas, gripes, or even better–come and work here! SB Nation is looking for new developers as we speak, and as we ramp up to launch, we’ll be bringing on lots of talent to work both on the front page and behind the scenes.

I couldn’t be more excited and enthusiastic about what we can build right now, and I can’t wait to share what we’re going to make with the rest of the world. The months ahead are going to be filled with lots of early mornings and sleepless nights, intense debates, triumphs, and trials–and I can’t wait.

One of the more interesting movies at the 11th Sundance Film Festival, which opens today in Park City, Utah, will be “Page One: A Year Inside the New York Times.”

The documentary is by Andrew Rossi, who spent a year following reporters and editors at the famed newspaper, even as the media landscape shifted dramatically due to the impact of digital technologies.

Here’s the program description from Sundance:

With the Internet surpassing print as our main news source, newspapers going bankrupt, and outlets focusing on content they claim audiences (or is it advertisers?) want, PAGE ONE chronicles the media industry’s transformation and assesses the high stakes for democracy if in-depth investigative reporting becomes extinct.

The film deftly makes a beeline for the eye of the storm or, depending on how you look at it, the inner sanctum of the media, gaining unprecedented access to the New York Times newsroom for a year. At the media desk, a dialectical play-within-a-play transpires as writers like salty David Carr track print journalism’s metamorphosis even as their own paper struggles to stay vital and solvent. Meanwhile, rigorous journalism–including vibrant cross-cubicle debate and collaboration, tenacious jockeying for on-record quotes, and skillful page-one pitching–is alive and well. The resources, intellectual capital, stamina, and self-awareness mobilized when it counts attest there are no shortcuts when analyzing and reporting complex truths.

What is probably most interesting is that many of the stories covered by the Times in the film are about the technological forces that have put it and other traditional media organizations through the digital ringer in recent years.

And, as someone who made the move away from a big mainstream newspaper to an online-only publication, I experienced some significant déjà vu watching clips in this interview with Rossi below, especially of the editor-centric tone of the newsroom and the franticness of reporters to get a story on the front page.

Which these days feels like such an odd and ancient way to think of journalism and which I also don’t miss for a second. (By the way, you can do “rigorous” journalism online too and without all the endless meetings.)

Check out Rossi (and that’s the very funny NYT media columnist David Carr in the photo below):

Instead, the magazine pushed users to read its app in just the horizontal “landscape” mode, and essentially disabled the vertical “portrait” mode.

At the time, Time Inc. editor Josh Quittner said the publisher was doing so because:

• Viewing the app horizontally was better for users;
• Producing just one version of the app saved money;
• And since Apple wasn’t cooperating with Sports Illustrated‘s effort to sell subscriptions to the app, it didn’t make sense to throw more resources at the project.

That was back in September, and since then Time Inc. (like just about every other big publisher) has yet to reach an agreement with Apple about how to handle subscriptions in iTunes. But in the meantime, Sports Illustrated has apparently thought things over, because readers can once again view the app in landscape and portrait modes. Behold!

I only noticed the change today, but it turns out it has been in place since the magazine’s October 18 issue. What gives? Or what gave?

A statement from a Sports Illustrated rep doesn’t shed much light: “We are constantly exploring the iPad’s numerous functionalities for innovative ways to present Sports Illustrated to consumers. Each issue delivers something unique either in its design, functionality or content.”

So in the absence of better information, I’ll make a couple of guesses that aren’t mutually exclusive:

• I think app users complained quite a bit about the change, because conventional wisdom is that people like access to both modes, and they particularly enjoy reading magazine apps in the vertical mode, because that’s the way they read the paper-and-ink versions.
• Someone at Time Inc., or its parent company Time Warner, rethought the notion of negotiating with Apple by making its product look less attractive.

That said, it’s worth noting that Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes himself has been quite vocal, in a corporatespeak sort of way, about his company’s eagerness to work with tablet makers beyond Apple. (This mirrors what the magazine industry’s Next Issue Media joint venture is saying, too, by launching with Google’s Android platform first.)

Bewkes made noises about it during his company’s earnings call earlier this month. And he got more forceful about it–again, by his standards–yesterday during an onstage interview with the New York Times’ David Carr.

If somebody that makes a tablet–you can nominate who it is–wants to not have app support for what we’re going to put over the internet, they will degrade the capability of the tablet that you bought.

So if you’ve got a tablet that whoever gave it to you, they don’t want it work well, that will be their actions not ours…

You’re the customer, you bought the device. Are you going to tolerate a device, that doesn’t let its app support give you the full range of capability that is offered by the publisher or the network?

Because we’re going to be very public about what we offer, and it’s going to be all free, for anybody who buys the magazine. And if some tech company stands between you and that experience, they should answer to you.

In fact, it’s worth watching Bewkes deliver this speech in real time, and it’s a hoot to watch him onstage with Carr. If you’re in a rush, the magazine/tablet stuff kicks in around the 26-minute mark.

Research firm SNL Kagan says the U.S. pay-TV business lost 119,000 subscribers last quarter. That’s only the second time in history that this has happened, and the first time was the previous quarter.

And it’s important to note Kagan is talking about all pay-TV businesses, not just the cable guys. Or more accurately: The cable guys like Time Warner Cable and Comcast are losing more customers (741,000) than the satellite guys and telcos like Verizon are adding (621,000).

If you want to spin this positively for the pay-TV business, you can argue that the losses are slowing: In Q2, pay TV lost 216,000 subs.

And if you want to be a little less positive, you can argue, as the cable guys do, that if they are losing customers, it’s because the economy stinks.

Nonsense, says the cord-cutting crowd, who believes that people are starting to leave pay TV, in increasing numbers, for a combination of the Internet, rabbit ears and the likes of Netflix and Apple TV.

And Kagan is with the cord cutters here. From their release:
“It is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss the impact of over-the-top substitution on video subscriber performance, particularly after seeing declines during the period of the year that tends to produce the largest subscriber gains due to seasonal shifts back to television viewing and subscription packages.”

Or in English. People are cord-cutting. It’s happening now.

But here’s the thing: There’s a valid reason for the pay-TV guys to say they don’t see what Kagan is talking about. Because they don’t. Or at least they have numbers that say otherwise.

Here’s Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, who owns several very successful cable networks, speaking at an industry conference today. “The trend, as far as we can see it, continues up…it’s all good,” he told the New York Times’ David Carr. “They’re not cutting.”

And look at these numbers from cable powerhouse Viacom, whose CEO Philippe Dauman just dismissed cord-cutting talk as “much ado about nothing”. They show Viacom’s overall subscriber count, network by network, for the third quarter. And all of the domestic channels’ sub numbers, at least, have increased in the last year (click to enlarge):

So something, somewhere doesn’t add up.

“A lot of people have suggested that the iPad is a new and significant inflection point for the publishing industry. I think it’s a case of when you are a drowning man, everything looks like a lifesaver.”

–New York Times columnist David Carr

[FLOWPLAYER=http://charlierose.http.internapcdn.net/charlierose/digitalgrill_content/040210CRS.flv,380,300]

More iPad Coverage »

While a lot of the hype around the upcoming Apple iPad has thankfully died down, reaching its crescendo at the unveiling of the tablet device last month, the buzz of two kinds building now is perhaps worse.

The first meme has to do with a notion that the iPad is dead on arrival for a wide variety of reasons. No support for Flash video technology. No USB ports. An eye-tiring screen. Too pricey. Too much like a giant iPhone without the phone. No camera.

You get the idea.

What’s most interesting to me is that some people I talk to say the Apple (AAPL) device is just terrible to use, despite the fact that they have never even touched one.

When I note that I have, indeed, taken it for a very short spin and liked what I saw quickly, they always then ask me all about it as if I held the wisdom of the ages.

My stock answer: “Since you are not buying one, I will spare you the pain.”

While that’s annoying enough, perhaps worse are the ongoing paeans that the iPad will somehow be the savior of traditional publishers of all kinds, providing–finally!–the just-right medium to make their various and sundry media relevant in the digital age.

But, like Goldilocks, that’s just a fairy tale until the iPad is actually out in the wild and subject to consumer use when it begins to be rolled out in late March.

Because even if the iPad proves to be as good at displaying magazine and rich advertising as seems possible (see the pretty video of Wired magazine on the iPad above), it’s not going to be clear whether it’s a success until regular people are using it on the same scale as its sister devices, the iPod and the iPhone.

In addition, it seems as if media companies–in their quest to somehow escape the powerful clutches of search giant Google (GOOG) or Kindle-bearing Amazon (AMZN)–are rushing into Apple’s arms without making the obvious connection more strongly.

Which is to keep remembering that Apple and the music industry have fought viciously over pricing and control ever since the iPod and its progeny took over the market for all nonpirated sales of music.

With their hands on none of the key technology and innovation levers online–not devices, not search, not social networking or e-commerce relationships–media giants continue to be without even a pair sticks to rub together to make digital fire.

They tout their premium content, of course, as being critical to the Apple iPad’s success, but it’s not at all clear it will turn out that way.

That’s why I cringed when I read the last lines from a piece by media writer David Carr of the New York Times, even before the iPad launch, titled, “A Savior in the Form of a Tablet”:

“I haven’t been this excited about buying something since I was 8 years old and sent away for the tiny seahorses I saw advertised in the back of a comic book. Come to think of it, the purchase didn’t really meet my expectations, but with the whole new year thing, a boy can dream, right?”

I suppose he can, but digital dreams–like those seahorses–can sure die fast.

[FLOWPLAYER=http://charlierose.http.internapcdn.net/charlierose/digitalgrill_content/020410_2.flv,380,300]

The not-so-sexy video clips, which Gawker published last month, involve “Grey’s Anatomy” star Eric Dane; his wife, Rebecca Gayheart; and former beauty queen Kari Ann Peniche. How did Gawker get their hands on them?

“Well, obviously we paid our contributor (and from the traffic, you can suppose quite handsomely!),” Denton told the the New York Times’s David Carr this morning.

I followed up with Denton, via IM, and he wasn’t much more forthcoming than that. But he did confirm that his blog network gave the money to Mark Ebner, who describes himself as an “award winning investigative journalist” who “has repeatedly positioned himself in harm’s way.” Ebner also runs the gossip site, Hollywood Interrupted.

Denton wouldn’t say how much he paid Ebner for the video, and I haven’t been able to reach Ebner himself. But I have a hunch that Ebner hasn’t received as much as, say, a Condé Nast freelancer can get for a feature piece.

The math: In the old days (last year) Denton was paying $7.50 for every 1,000 views, but he has likely reduced that rate as Gawker’s traffic has grown. Even if he kept that rate the same, Ebner would be getting $22,500 for the three million views the clip has generated to date. That’s nice money, but not life-changing.

But Denton is paying above and beyond that for the clip: Rather than posting it on the likes of Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, which likely would have taken down the video by now, he’s serving up the clip himself. Which means he’s paying every time someone views it. And now, he has legal bills, too.

What’s Denton in for, so far? He won’t say. But here’s the half-serious quip he used to conclude our IM chat: “Hey, this news business is expensive!”

Portfolio’s ad pages were down more than 60 percent in the first quarter of 2009. If you account for the magazine’s decreased frequency–it published two issues in the first free months of the year, down down from three last year–that works out to be a 40 percent drop. Here’s how its peers performed during the same period, via the Magazine Publishers of America:

McGraw-Hill’s (MHP) BusinessWeek: Down 39.8 percent

Time Warner’s (TWX) Fortune: Down 26.3 percent

Privately held Forbes: Down 15 percent

Bear in mind that the revenue numbers for each title are likely down much more dramatically. That’s because the two categories of advertisers that the business magazines have depended on to fill their pages–financial services and autos–have all received extra-vicious beatings from the economy since last summer. So the publishers are particularly vulnerable to rate card pressure. And I’m told that luxury and travel advertisers, which had stayed relatively strong through the end of 2008, fell off dramatically this year. So that can’t be good.

My contribution to the aforementioned bone-picking: Like everyone else who wrote about Portfolio yesterday, I mentioned that the magazine and Web site had reportedly been launched with a budget of $100 million or more. But let’s be clear–that’s $100 million (or more), to be spent over a five-year period.

Portfolio was around for two years, and was gestating for a year before that, and a bunch of the budget was likely spent up front. So Condé Nast likely did burn through a very large pile of cash–the New York Times’s David Carr reports that the magazine spent $30,000 last fall to “procure the services of a real elephant to menace a model at a photo shoot.” And I’d love to know what the total actually was (for the record, I asked, and no one will tell me). But it’s a stretch to think Condé Nast actually burned through nine figures on this one.