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

341–350 of 360 posts

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

#341

Post by ggm »

adwn wrote: post #191
ggm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please. You said far left. You invited the response. The NYT is simply not left, or far left. To clarify can you self identify your position in this spectrum? You think you are middle-of-the-road and the NYT is far left journalism? Look, I really don't care. Go talk to people with a range of views but saying the NYT is left wing journalism just beggars belief. Have you ever read a left wing paper? Here's a hint: t…

I think your disagreement mainly stems from using different terminology: naturalgradient uses "left" as in "socially left/socially progressive", while you use "left" as in "economically left/socialism".

Plausible. On either choice, is the NYT a far left paper?

Btw, I don't think the accusation of its political leaning holds water, in saying plausible I mean I think you're right that the other person believes social justice headlines indicate left wing when to me, they just indicate normal middle of the road democrat positions.

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

#342

Post by sctb »

oriol18 wrote: post #220
Latty wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pa…

[flagged]

If you keep breaking the guidelines like this, we'll ban the account.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#343

Post by maxerickson »

anthonybsd wrote: post #298
maxerickson wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have incorrectly processed the information available to you and arrived at a wrong conclusion.

Would you be so kind to point me the error of my ways?

https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1025049961472253957

Not the statement an "avowed racist" makes.

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

#344

Post by darkerside »

ejstronge wrote: post #189
darkerside wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There have been no studies of large groups of people who have followed the currently popular versions of the Paleo diet for decades to assess their long-term health effects. You could say similar things about climate change. The science is, and always will be, out. That's the nature of science.

>> There have been no studies of large groups of people who have followed the currently popular versions of the Paleo diet for decades to assess their long-term health effects. > You could say similar things about climate change. The science is, and always will be, out. That's the nature of science. This is a false equivalency. Science requires experiments to support or refute hypotheses. The fact that new experiment…

Where did I assert any theory as being correct. Stop twisting my words. You're seeing an agenda where there isn't one.

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

#345

Post by alpb »

taurath wrote: post #40

I would pay another couple dollars a month to not have ads in the app (though I am thankful that they tend to not be hugely intrusive). Overall pretty happy with the service.

Agreed. I hate my NYT subscription exactly for this reason. But I’m tempted to keep it to support them. What a sad reading experience: they show the same ad 6 times in a short article.

NYT employees: please lobby internally for this. We can pay 2$ more for no ads. How much % of the ad traffic is subscription users anyway?

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

#346

Post by 628C6l0 »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #9

It's surprising to see how small they are. Only 3.8 million subscribers, and you have to imagine that some percentage of that barely reads their content. I wonder if there's public numbers estimating how many people in total read the New York Times, and how it compares to emerging forms of media and entertainment like YouTube. One criticism of New York Times that I've read online is that they won't allow you to cance…

It's also very hard to cancel even by calling. When I cancelled my subscription last year, it wasted twenty minutes of my time even though I was firm throughout. The retaining person at one point even insulted me when I didn't catch something he said and said excuse me could you say that again - his response was to start doing an exaggerated accent of what he assumes to be my race (based on the name).

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

#347

Post by 628C6l0 »

anarazel wrote: post #41
undreren wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One criticism of New York Times that I've read online is that they won't allow you to cancel your digital subscription through their website. They force you to call them. I'm not sure if that has changed recently, but that's a pretty questionable dark pattern. This is illegal in Europe. By law, it has to be at least as easy to cancel subscriptions, as it is to buy them. I love Europe. :)

>> One criticism of New York Times that I've read online is that they won't allow you to cancel your digital subscription through their website. They force you to call them. I'm not sure if that has changed recently, but that's a pretty questionable dark pattern. FWIW, I have a "cancel subscription" link in my profile.

Did you try to click on it? I had the same button last year when I cancelled. When I clicked, it took me to a page where I'm asked to call them?

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

#348

Post by peteretep »

anthonybsd wrote: post #206
peteretep wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting, I wasn't at all aware of her until a day or two ago. The first link I read about her was this: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-t... Which shows her "racist" tweets, and shows how they're only really racist if you strip away all context for them. It then shows how the alt-right use this as a tactic. I found that very interesting, and I also now find it interesting to see wh…

>Which shows her "racist" tweets, and shows how they're only really racist if you strip away all context for them. Can you think of a context in which it's OK for a white/asian person to use the "N-word"?

... many? Any meta discussion of the term; when providing a verbatim transcript of what someone said; when enumerating racial terms; historical context; etc etc.

What's your point, exactly?

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

#349

Post by nl »

paulgb wrote: post #184
nl wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your point about the Paleo diet. I just Googled, and apparently the "ignore how infant mortality affects life expectancy" is a talking point of pro-Paleo websites. This is a good point (although it seems to ignore the high mortality rate of women during childbirth), but seems pretty irrelevant to the rest of the article. Ignoring that, it seemed a reasonably well thought-out counterpoint to another…

I think the issue is that 40 years seems to be extrapolated from an average, but the distribution of human lifespans (especially in pre-modern times) is bi-modal so the average doesn't tell you much about how long they lived conditioned on reaching adulthood. I found mostly questionable-looking paleo-diet related results as well, but to their credit the chain of citations led back to peer-reviewed research such as th…

Sure, I agree it's a good point. But it does seem to be a fairly minor point in the whole article, and I really don't understand what the OP's point was.

Was it just they didn't like the criticism of paleo? Because honestly, to me publishing reasonably well thought out criticism of anything seems exactly what a good newspaper should do.

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

#350

Post by ataturk »

gonvaled wrote: post #102
unixhero wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch out. There may be dragons with that PayPal approach. Although ingenious, and I commend that, you have achieved to end the payments but you have not correctly ended the contract. You may still be liable for the subscription fees, although you're not paying. Probably best to call and terminate the contract the right way.

He has already called them and terminated the contract. They have just not processed the request. Not paying is a sensible path in this case I would say.

You can checkout but you can never leave.
Post reply on HN