Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

351–360 of 360 posts

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

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's exactly what every racist's apology looks like, including Roseanne Barr. Also the above is utter bullshit. She posted a link to one tweet where she was responding to someone disregarding hundreds upon hundreds of racists tweets that weren't direct responses to anyone. You realize this was going on for about 5 years?

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

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

So, when Sarah Jeong was using racial slurs for white people, was it in "verbatim transcript" or was she "enumerating racial terms"?

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

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throw away account. If News Corp is the standard we're holding news companies to, we have a serious issue. It's totally disorganized, has no idea what it's trying to achieve and more focused on political outcomes than it is building actual value for shareholders. There is zero leadership, and that leadership there is gets sent to unrelated (but related) companies like Fox. If it wasn't for a few golden gooses that Ne…

I think he's referring to cases like the Times of London, which went totally paywalled and became profitable in 2014 for the first time since 2001: https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/dec/02/tim... (gotta link to the Guardian for that story because, of course, the Times' own coverage is paywalled)

Yeah fair enough. Having said that, News UK is very much in a completely different landscape. They've for sure made progress in many other ways, but that's significantly in part due to the fact that they're actually much better run businesses (until recently, the last few years have been messy), and not suffering from the kind of competition that they suffer from in the North American market.

I have no personal plans to buy their stock, but I'm not giving investment advice.

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

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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?

So, when Sarah Jeong was using racial slurs for white people, was it in "verbatim transcript" or was she "enumerating racial terms"?

> was using racial slurs for white people

I've put some effort into trying to find these, and come up short. I was kinda hoping she'd said "honky" or something. Here's what I was able to find:

https://twitter.com/GarbageHuman_/status/1024894655253495808...

I am phenomenally interested to learn what the racial slurs for white people! Let's have them!

PS: I'm a white male. I've lived about half my life in two Black-majority countries and one Asian-majority country. I literally don't think I've ever had a racial slur used against me.

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

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH news has been replaced by social media, which is cheaper. I do not see this demise as a bad thing. Diversity is a goal better achieved by individuals, not by a big number of large newspapers. Also newspapers have been for a long time a business not particularly profitable on its sales, but on how its used to leverage other businesses. Failing Newspapers always find investors even if the biz is bad.

Social media? So just anyone with no credibility, oversight, quality control, resources, connections, or training? It’s great that individuals can funnel up stories that would otherwise be buried — but that’s no replacement for true journalism. Journalism hardly perfect, but does have a much, much higher bar.

Depends on the type of social media. I got more real news (supported by multiple corroborating facts and folks who experienced events) on the Syria Civil war from the reddit Syrian Civil war forum than the continuous propaganda published/broadcasted by the American MSM. Whenever folks published videos that were countervailing to the established narrative, Ex: modern NATO weapons in ISIS hands being used to shell civilians or the 'moderate' rebels keeping and chaining female slaves, it was just a matter of hours before the video was reported and taken down. I spent a fair amount of time verifying information. It truly opened my eyes to what 'narrative' based Journalism means. I no longer trust any of the MSM channels.

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

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OTOH news has been replaced by social media, which is cheaper. I do not see this demise as a bad thing. Diversity is a goal better achieved by individuals, not by a big number of large newspapers. Also newspapers have been for a long time a business not particularly profitable on its sales, but on how its used to leverage other businesses. Failing Newspapers always find investors even if the biz is bad.

Social media? So just anyone with no credibility, oversight, quality control, resources, connections, or training? It’s great that individuals can funnel up stories that would otherwise be buried — but that’s no replacement for true journalism. Journalism hardly perfect, but does have a much, much higher bar.

It has a higher bar, but its also way more expensive, and lots of people dont want to pay for it, so they much rather have a 10s vine with someone talking about it.

Not to mention that real journalists also have become a thing on social media, without having to respond to editors in a newspaper.

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

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media? So just anyone with no credibility, oversight, quality control, resources, connections, or training? It’s great that individuals can funnel up stories that would otherwise be buried — but that’s no replacement for true journalism. Journalism hardly perfect, but does have a much, much higher bar.

Depends on the type of social media. I got more real news (supported by multiple corroborating facts and folks who experienced events) on the Syria Civil war from the reddit Syrian Civil war forum than the continuous propaganda published/broadcasted by the American MSM. Whenever folks published videos that were countervailing to the established narrative, Ex: modern NATO weapons in ISIS hands being used to shell civi…

And how do you know the sources of any of such videos? That they themselves aren’t propaganda being put out by another state actor?

That’s the role of journalists.. to find such videos and verify them. To put people on the ground in Syria, fact finding and interviewing.

It’s not like America is the only country with free as in speech journalism online — go read other papers if you believe the American ones are so distorted. My guess is you won’t find basic facts so challenged.

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

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the type of social media. I got more real news (supported by multiple corroborating facts and folks who experienced events) on the Syria Civil war from the reddit Syrian Civil war forum than the continuous propaganda published/broadcasted by the American MSM. Whenever folks published videos that were countervailing to the established narrative, Ex: modern NATO weapons in ISIS hands being used to shell civi…

And how do you know the sources of any of such videos? That they themselves aren’t propaganda being put out by another state actor? That’s the role of journalists.. to find such videos and verify them. To put people on the ground in Syria, fact finding and interviewing. It’s not like America is the only country with free as in speech journalism online — go read other papers if you believe the American ones are so dis…

HN is really the wrong place for this discussion. My apologies. I have followed the civil war closely for nearly six years and in that time my opinion changed from one end of the spectrum (supporting the US against the tyrant Assad) to the very other end - realising the US was the primary cause of the war lasting so long and causing so many deaths by arming all and sundry against Assad.

I have talked via chat to folks in Aleppo when they were getting shelled indiscriminately by rebels (whenever they intermittently had power/signal). I have spoken with English speaking Kurds. No-one liked Assad, but he is a secular leader and the best of a whole bunch of terrible options.

Anyways, you don't have to take my word for it. Some very few media outlets like the UK's telegraph/independent went against the grain and confirmed several such stories independently. When the Battle of Aleppo was reaching its heights, Syrian civilians were being shelled by NATO weapons. All such claims were dismissed by the Obama administration at the time. Now they are slowly getting revealed:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-war-bosnia-saudi-...

Amnesty International came up with several reports of the 'moderate' rebels committing severe crimes. Some of these reports were quite heavily sanitised.

There was no celebration of non-Islamic festivals allowed until Dec 2016. Only after the Syrian Army won back Aleppo did Christians get back their voice. The heavy, spontaneous door-to-door celebrations on the street were never reported. All videos showing such celebrations were taken down in a few hours from youtube.

What I find amusing is nearly all of your vaunted, reputed American journalists took most of their stories word for word from the Syrian observatory for Human rights run by one guy in Coventry, UK and heavily funded by the government. On the ground Syrians weren't considered reliable sources for the Western propaganda machine. Most journalists were too afraid to go into 'moderate rebel' held territory. And any Western journalist reporting from Assad territory was considered suspect and mostly ignored.

The Syrian War was an expensive gambit sponsored by Western governments (with Saudi Arabian support) for regime change that failed in all its objectives, causing over a million deaths and destroyed the Syrian quality of life. I have nothing but utter contempt for the journalists who kept pushing propaganda and are still calling for war.

Meanwhile, UK/US/German weapons are being merrily dropped in Yemen and hundreds of Yemeni adults and children dying, but you don't hear a peep in the MSM, do you ?

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

#359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1025049961472253957 Not the statement an "avowed racist" makes.

That's exactly what every racist's apology looks like, including Roseanne Barr. Also the above is utter bullshit. She posted a link to one tweet where she was responding to someone disregarding hundreds upon hundreds of racists tweets that weren't direct responses to anyone. You realize this was going on for about 5 years?

I refer you back to the initial reply.

Or has Jeong started ramblin' about the Ambien?

https://www.fastcompany.com/40578985/the-spectacular-emptine...

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

#360

I love their 'The Daily' podcast. They pick one topic everyday and dive deep over 30 mins. Overall a happy NYT subscribed for last 6 months. I paid 110$ for 1 year membership and got a free Google home device. Great deal!

That's on my daily rotation too; but I still don't sub to NYT.

After seeing the low NYT subscriber #'s in this thread, it's amazing to me how much reach 'new media' creators have. There are hundreds of YouTubers that get more eyeballs daily. Crazy.

Post reply on HN