I feel that NYTimes is the only news organization that has been able to transition to the Digital Era. Does anyone else know of any other old-school news organization that nicely transitioned to the Digital Era?
The Times (London) is doing ok financially recently. It was one of the few to have a hard to avoid pay wall
>The Times and The Sunday Times, reported an operating profit of £21m for the year ending June 2015, up from £1.7m in 2014. Previously, the company had suffered a run of losses covering every year since 2002.
I feel that NYTimes is the only news organization that has been able to transition to the Digital Era. Does anyone else know of any other old-school news organization that nicely transitioned to the Digital Era?
NPR ( http://www.npr.org/ ) seems to be doing ok - they have a good mix of online reporting, audio from radio reporting, special features for events such as the election, and a number of successful podcasts associated with their various shows.
Also, since it's radio (vs print or video), they can capture the driving to work market, which is gigantic in the United States (the US Census [1] has it at 85.8 million). The others would largely require your undivided attention.
I am disgusted with the NYT and media in general. I am a lifetime democrat, and in my opinion the news media has treated outside candidates like Trump and Sanders very unfairly. People should have information to make their own judgements, and not have the 'news' be a one hour infomercial for one candidate or another.
I am also unhappy with so many of my friends who only see one side of things, one side not respecting the opinion's of the other side. We need more civility and more respect for other people's opinions.
enough about all of THIS... Suffice it to say that the NY Times is a tool of entrenched power and serves as a pseudo-intellectual gatekeeper that is willing to publish stories based upon leaked information but is unwilling to stand-up and defend the sources of such information.
It's willing to be like NPR and appear to be thoughtful, but won't actually do anything to change the status quo.
With their International Herald Tribune arm it becomes all the more apparent that they are more-or-less a mouthpiece for the American executive branch: State Dept, CIA, DOD, etc. as well as the entrenched specific corporate agenda that's been masquerading as the public interest for over 60 years.
That they have no credibility with regards to altruistic token gestures doesn't even begin to describe why I could care less about their crappy content that they seem so self-impressed with as to think merits payment.
This is the Internet. I would think a publication like the NY Times could have figured out a way to transfer their same advertising-based print model to the net, what with minimal distro costs and all the rest of us doing so and what-not... very well. They shall remain the valued premise of a tiny market segment that is only shrinking. Good luck with that one.
The same NYT whose profit shrank by 95,7% in the last quarter because of the extremely biased reporting? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3897406/New-York-Tim... And the exactly same numbers by Reuters but with completely misleading headline as if everything was fine: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newyorktimes-results-idUSK... Funny how the NYT now makes about as much profit as I do as a contractor. Maybe…
You talk about bias, but then cite the daily fucking mail.
For people who aren't aware, most of the UK press is scum, and the daily mail is certainly among the scummier end of UK newspapers.
Oh you mean unlike the login-wall they've put up for every article in the past two weeks? That open access? Edit: I'm pretty mad that every NYT link I've been clicking for what has felt like two weeks has asked me to login. I was forced to finally make an account. Screw that. I'd pay if you gave me an option that made sense. I'm not going to drop $500+/year to subscribe to all the places I read from when I only read…
At the top of the HN page for the submission there is a [web] link. Right click it, and open in an incognito window. That will search the web for the article title, and will normally return the article as the first hit. Clicky that.
>Even our local paper gave us the chance to comment prior to publishing an article about the little company I am working at. Oh that is why you are defending the shitty aspect of journalism. There is a difference between handling all of the story and asking for a comment. Asking for a comment is a normal journalism practice and handling the whole story is the shitty nepotism. It is amazing you are defending this aspe…
Here is the thing. The email exchange with Politico actually proves to me that the Clinton campaign has a lot less influence over the press than people assume. Politico sent an article that is very critical of Clinton to her campaign. They were trying to push back. Then Politico published the article anyway. If the Clinton campaign had any influence over Politico they would've been able to stop the article. You have…
That's an interesting spin. Ignore the fact that Politico gave a candidate a "head's up" about a damaging piece and be happy that at least they still published it despite push back. It's less terrible than you thought it was!
I lost all trust in the NYT after Wikileaks revealed how they sabotaged Bernie Sanders and acted as a PR agency for the Clinton campaign. http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-propped... https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sand...
I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. This is just how journalism works: the reporter has to request/negotiate access to the source. The PR folks will obviously try to spin everything positively to the reporter; that's their job. Afterward, the reporter writes up a story as objectively as possible. When some part of the story happens to be…