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

New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 360 posts

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#161

Post by morsch »

naturalgradient wrote: post #93

The greatest marketing trick the NYT has ever pulled off is presenting themselves as the last bastion of objectivity in the trump era. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the most recent Sarah Jeong controversy and virtually all reporting on migration, feminism, campus politics etc shows this. Mind you this is from a European perspective where I see almost all reporting about politics here as copying off…

Mind you this is from a European perspective where I see almost all reporting about politics here as copying off talking points from the far left.

The largest newspaper, by circulation, in Germany is a right wing tabloid (Bild).

The largest newspaper, by circulation, in the UK is a right wing tabloid (The Sun).

The largest newspaper, by circulation, in Austria is a right wing tabloid (Kronen).

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#162

Post by oriol18 »

Latty wrote: post #147
naturalgradient wrote: post #93

The greatest marketing trick the NYT has ever pulled off is presenting themselves as the last bastion of objectivity in the trump era. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the most recent Sarah Jeong controversy and virtually all reporting on migration, feminism, campus politics etc shows this. Mind you this is from a European perspective where I see almost all reporting about politics here as copying off…

"Far left" is a pretty polarising way to describe them. I'm from the UK, which is a country which is firmly on the right of most of Europe, and policy in the US is extremely far right of here. The reporting I've seen from the New York Times is barely left, let alone "far left". The right seems to have moved so far out to the far right, and yet people act like the centre-point of the Repbulicans and Democrats is still…

"UK is on the right of most of Europe". That's a wrong premise in my opinion. While economic policy is definitely more liberal than the average, social left is pervasive in both main political parties, and there's a solid consensus around open borders, gender equality and other forms of egalitarianism.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#163

Post by naturalgradient »

unstableph wrote: post #160
naturalgradient wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not call the NYT a far left magazine. I said their reporting on EUROPEAN politics ("politics here") copies points from the far left (e.g. all mass migration is unquestionably good, parties against it must be right wing populists if not racists, etc). I think their reporting on campus politics, identity politics is also far left, but other than that their stance on Iraq war etc is more Hillary-left than traditio…

They are not far left, they are globalist. This is: far left when it comes to social issues in the US (feminism, uncontrolled immigration, etc) but also nuke all the Muslim countries and drag the US into an endless war.

This makes sense to me as a characterization, thank you, although I don't understand why people get so upset about these distinctions as if I had personally offended them. Where I am from dragging the US into wars is naturally seen critically across parties, so far left is just about the issues you mentioned.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#164

Post by scarface74 »

ericdykstra wrote: post #131
naturalgradient wrote: post #93

The greatest marketing trick the NYT has ever pulled off is presenting themselves as the last bastion of objectivity in the trump era. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the most recent Sarah Jeong controversy and virtually all reporting on migration, feminism, campus politics etc shows this. Mind you this is from a European perspective where I see almost all reporting about politics here as copying off…

Maybe in the past the NYT had earned their reputation as a trustworthy source, but they're certainly eroding that reputation at a blistering pace. They might survive as a partisan publisher, plenty do, but I always go into NYT articles expecting bias in reporting. It's not just the politics, either. I ran across this article from just a couple of days ago and couldn't believe it got past an editor: https://www.nytime…

What’s far left about criticizing yet another fad diet?

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#165

Post by Latty »

naturalgradient wrote: post #154
Latty wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Far left" is a pretty polarising way to describe them. I'm from the UK, which is a country which is firmly on the right of most of Europe, and policy in the US is extremely far right of here. The reporting I've seen from the New York Times is barely left, let alone "far left". The right seems to have moved so far out to the far right, and yet people act like the centre-point of the Repbulicans and Democrats is still…

I did not call the NYT a far left magazine. I said their reporting on EUROPEAN politics ("politics here") copies points from the far left (e.g. all mass migration is unquestionably good, parties against it must be right wing populists if not racists, etc). I think their reporting on campus politics, identity politics is also far left, but other than that their stance on Iraq war etc is more Hillary-left than traditio…

Maybe we have seen different articles from them - I admit I'm definitely not an avid reader - but I haven't seen what you are describing.

You claim they write articles saying "mass migration is unquestionably good" but even googling now, I can't find anything of the sort - just articles that try to point out the negative effects of migration are massively overstated and flat-out-lied about. Nowhere do I see them arguing that we want more migration or should have no controls, just that migrants are used as scapegoats and the issue is misrepresented a lot of the time by right-wing parties.

Your point just appears to be "they report on some stuff and I don't agree with them on it", therefore you they are intentionally causing a "culture war"?

Policy progresses - the idea that this is some new thing that has never happened before is flat-out wrong. I see the democrats very gradually shifting left, while I see the Republicans sprinting to the right. Blaming the gap, the "culture war" on the left seems disingenuous.

At some point, when the Republicans are actively calling for discriminating against and reducing the quality of life of friends and family: denying them healthcare, kicking them out of the army, etc... You can't expect people to just sit back and accept it. It hurts. Just saying "this is wrong and it's wrong to support it" really doesn't seem excessive.

Saying it's a "culture war" and that they need to stop calling people out on supporting this policy sure sounds like an attempt to shut people up, rather than saying why the policy is actually good.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#166

Post by unstableph »

naturalgradient wrote: post #163
unstableph wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not far left, they are globalist. This is: far left when it comes to social issues in the US (feminism, uncontrolled immigration, etc) but also nuke all the Muslim countries and drag the US into an endless war.

This makes sense to me as a characterization, thank you, although I don't understand why people get so upset about these distinctions as if I had personally offended them. Where I am from dragging the US into wars is naturally seen critically across parties, so far left is just about the issues you mentioned.

[flagged]

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#167

Post by Latty »

unstableph wrote: post #160
naturalgradient wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not call the NYT a far left magazine. I said their reporting on EUROPEAN politics ("politics here") copies points from the far left (e.g. all mass migration is unquestionably good, parties against it must be right wing populists if not racists, etc). I think their reporting on campus politics, identity politics is also far left, but other than that their stance on Iraq war etc is more Hillary-left than traditio…

They are not far left, they are globalist. This is: far left when it comes to social issues in the US (feminism, uncontrolled immigration, etc) but also nuke all the Muslim countries and drag the US into an endless war.

"Uncontrolled immigration" isn't something they are arguing for, and feminism is a "far-left" viewpoint now?

This "far-left" talk just seems fabricated to create a "both sides" narrative with the alt-right.

The idea that immigrants are people who deserve respect and opportunity, and the idea that women deserve equality are not "far-left", they are cornerstones of the underlying values of the left - that people are people and deserve rights and opportunity, regardless of factors out of their control.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#168

Post by r3bl »

joekrill wrote: post #137
ehsankia wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I canceled mine last week exactly because of those dark patterns. They also show ads even if you have a subscription, which sounds very backward to me. I'd love to support them, but those practices don't belong in 2018. EDIT: Oh, looks like the cancellation didn't go through and they charged me for one more month, sweet. I might just go to my bank and tell them to block the source. Or even better, I may have found a…

> They also show ads even if you have a subscription, which sounds very backward to me. So are you also cancelling your cable subscription, any magazine subscriptions, physical newspaper subscriptions, no longer driving on toll roads with billboard...? I'm not saying it's right, or good, or valid--but the standard practice, for as long as I can remember, for most mediums, is to still show ads for things you pay for.…

Because you can open a private/incognito/porn tab and view the same article without actually paying for it, and a premium should offer you something worth a constant amount of money draining from your account.

Paying 15 euros per month to get a daily crossword + cooking section (or 9 euros per month to not get them) is something not a lot of people are interested in.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#169

Post by Latty »

oriol18 wrote: post #162
Latty wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Far left" is a pretty polarising way to describe them. I'm from the UK, which is a country which is firmly on the right of most of Europe, and policy in the US is extremely far right of here. The reporting I've seen from the New York Times is barely left, let alone "far left". The right seems to have moved so far out to the far right, and yet people act like the centre-point of the Repbulicans and Democrats is still…

"UK is on the right of most of Europe". That's a wrong premise in my opinion. While economic policy is definitely more liberal than the average, social left is pervasive in both main political parties, and there's a solid consensus around open borders, gender equality and other forms of egalitarianism.

Uh... you really haven't been paying attention if you think there is a "solid consensus" on open borders in the UK. We have never had "open borders", and Brexit is going to mean reduced immigration.

Economic policy is a part of people's lives - public spending is a big issue (e.g: healthcare spending), and we are very far from left in that regard. We aren't terrible for social policy, no, but we aren't leading the pack either.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#170

Post by wyclif »

Latty wrote: post #153
zarkov99 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

even their incoherent stance on racism as illustrated in the Sarah Jeong debacle? I could live with a left bias but not their blatant hypocrisy.

Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook. James Gunn is the other obvious example. Yes, these people posted things that were bad ideas. They also apologised, made it clear they were not serious about what was said, and moved past it. To claim it makes their entire coverage of racism incoherent is... misleading at best. Imitating the masses of people trolling you as a joke may be a bad…

Oh, please. "Weaponizing old tweets", writings, or politics is not a phenomenon particular to the alt-right. Examples abound:

Kevin Williamson, formerly of the National Review, was recently fired by The Atlantic for old tweets.

James Damore, a Google engineer, was fired for making controversial statements about gender science that feminists at the company didn't like.

Brendan Eich, a software developer who created JavaScript and was a co-founder of Mozilla, was forced to resign as the CEO of that company after making a political donation.

And there are many more instances of "repressive tolerance" in Big Tech, which Herbert Marcuse and others have described as a tolerance for 'all viewpoints' which actually contributes to social oppression in our culture.

The weaponizing of alternate viewpoints in the interests of "social justice" isn't owned by any one political faction, it's deployed nowadays by all of them, and it leads to a corrosive and toxic public discourse and environment.

Post reply on HN