Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

mobile.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–207 of 207 posts

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#201

Post by xherberta »

heartbreak wrote: post #88
xherberta wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone else annoyed by NPR's ads for itself? Do all NPR stations run these things, claiming, "We're the only news source you need," and "We'll tell you everything you need to know."?

I'm unsure which NPR promotions you're referring to, but yes, every news organization promotes itself. Local news stations, cable news stations, traditional media, etc. all do it. Why would you expect them to not self-promote?

Even sugar cereals have to self-promote as "a part of this nutritious breakfast."

Do you not feel patronized when one news outlet claims to be the ONLY one you need? Part of being a responsible citizen these days is seeking out a range of sources.

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#202

Post by xherberta »

Gaelan wrote: post #93
xherberta wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is anyone else annoyed by NPR's ads for itself? Do all NPR stations run these things, claiming, "We're the only news source you need," and "We'll tell you everything you need to know."?

Is this during pledge drives or just all the time?

These are short ads that run every day promoting drive time programming. I hope this is unique to my local station.

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#203

Post by lern_too_spel »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #198
lern_too_spel wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Iraq War part is fine. Here's the NYT's post-mortem on that. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-... It's the "that and" part that is not. There is no evidence that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign against Sanders. There isn't even a Challabi-like informant in the Sanders camp trying to make that claim.

There is no evidence that the NYT colluded with the Clinton campaign against Sanders I'm not a Sanders supporter but you don't need "evidence of collusion" to make that assertion. You just need to take a look at the NYT's own online archive. They waited until the last possible minute before they even began talking about Sanders -- or anyone else -- as a serious primary contender. Meanwhile, coverage of Clinton was al…

Of course, the NYT covered Clinton more. She was the Senator of the state the newspaper is located in, she won the popular vote in the 2008 primaries, and she had recently been Secretary of State. She was obviously the frontrunner.

The kind of coverage that the NYT gave Clinton wasn't more favorable than what it gave Sanders, on the other hand. The NYT broke the Clinton email story.

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#204

Post by grandalf »

burkaman wrote: post #193
grandalf wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HRC only very recently came to support same sex marriage, after it was a sure-fire winning issue. In the past she has called for a wall between the US and Mexico, she uses race baiting language to make white voters feel that she'll be tough on crime, and her remarks justifying neoconservative foreign policy are very disrespectful of the citizens (typically brown-skinned) of the nations the US attacks. HRC is strongly…

Most of these are not conservative, they are just things you don't like. Expanding foreign engagement and the military is the opposite of conservatism. Support from established business is a pretty weak argument, she wouldn't be getting nearly as much support if there were an actual conservative in the race. "race-baiting language" and being rich are not conservative positions. On the American political spectrum, she…

I intend the word "conservative" to describe self-identifying conservatives in US politics today, not to mean any specific dictionary definition. The word neoconservative is perhaps more accurate.

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#205

Post by Gaelan »

xherberta wrote: post #202
Gaelan wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this during pledge drives or just all the time?

These are short ads that run every day promoting drive time programming. I hope this is unique to my local station.

My NPR station only mentions how great they are during pledge drives, not normal programming. They do normal messages from sponsors of course.

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#206

Post by 24gttghh »

0xCMP wrote: post #184
24gttghh wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it funny that people complain about paying for their news, when large newspapers for the longest time weren't (and still are not) free...

For clarification: I'm not against paying, I just want a better way to pay. I'm just not willing to pay $15-20/month when I rarely read what they publish unless it shows up on Twitter or HN.

And that seems like a reasonable request. FWIW I don't pay for any news subscriptions either.

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#207

Post by Maarten88 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #35
Maarten88 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And tax advertising (or even all forms of communication, as there is 90% overlap) to pay for that.

How would you define "advertising" for purposes of this tax?

> How would you define "advertising" for purposes of this tax?

I would define it as all revenue from any for-profit publisher. This starting from the assumption that 99% of it is:

- reproduced from other sources without fact checking

- provided by PR firms and other interested parties

- actual advertisements or sponsored content

This powerfull spread of disinformation must imo be countered somehow, and I cannot think of any other way then let a democratically elected government tax all this and use the proceeds to fund a compensating force of actual journalists doing their job independently, for the benefit of society.

Post reply on HN