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

Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 152 posts

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#51

Post by andrenotgiant »

greggturkington wrote: post #35
damnencryption wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-ne... It doesn't have more revenue than it did a decade and half ago.

That's mostly losses related to ad revenue. Subscription revenue has increased steadily over the last decade. https://investors.nytco.com/news-and-events/press-releases/n...

That hasn't come close to replacing lost ad revenue.

In 2000, total revenue was $3B+ [1]

In 2019, total revenue was $1.8B [2]

[1] https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2020/06/2000_Annual_Report.... [2] https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2020/04/Final-2019-Annual-R...

Helps explain why they dislike Google/FB so much.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#53

Post by skinnymuch »

dragonwriter wrote: post #14
skinnymuch wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they didn’t. They are left leaning only in specific neo liberal ways.

> They are left leaning only in specific neo liberal ways. They are only left-leaning in specific center-right ways? Neoliberalism isn't a left ideology.

In America it is.

And yes exactly what you wrote in your second paragraph.

You can be pedantic all you want. But 90%+ of America’s won’t follow what you’re saying if you’re saying at best NYT is center right.

You also likely won’t be able to have the conversation without seeming smug (or insert other related adjectives) either. Likely hurting any discussion you have.

At which point, any pt of discussion is defeated.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

skinnymuch wrote: post #53
dragonwriter wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are left leaning only in specific neo liberal ways. They are only left-leaning in specific center-right ways? Neoliberalism isn't a left ideology.

In America it is. And yes exactly what you wrote in your second paragraph. You can be pedantic all you want. But 90%+ of America’s won’t follow what you’re saying if you’re saying at best NYT is center right. You also likely won’t be able to have the conversation without seeming smug (or insert other related adjectives) either. Likely hurting any discussion you have. At which point, any pt of discussion is defeated.

> In America it is.

Neoliberalism isn't a left view in America, either. While it's true that only since Trump it's been somewhat displaced by vague mix of kleptocracy and protectionism as the economic policy of the dominant faction of the Republican Party, it remains widely shared between both parties, there's nothing left, even in American terms, about neoliberalism.

> But 90% of people in America will have no clue what you mean when you say things like that.

If I rephrased neoliberalism as “corporate capitalism”, they'd understand it perfectly.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#55

Post by tathougies »

dragonwriter wrote: post #49
tathougies wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice dodge of the question! I cited specific examples of ludicrous things he's said that have come true, and you cite small lies he's told. I can do the same for any politician you name, that doesn't mean they never say something worth listening to. Like I said though... Keep going. People like you have converted me from a never Trumper to a Trump supporter. And people like you have converted my aunt, a former Obama-…

> You've converted me from a never Trumper to a Trump supporter. You've been echoing Trump talking points and explicitly defending Trump here for months. That's the kind of dishonest rhetorical trick that works better when the history isn't readily visible.

I did not vote for Trump in 2016. Yes, for the past few months I have become a Trump supporter, ever since the fake impeachment attempt, I have supported the president. Supporting Trump for a few months after not supporting him for years is hardly some great evidence that I'm lying.

EDIT: Oh look downvotes at me explaining my very plausible change of heart on trump. Apparently HN knows my ballot better than me!

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#56

Post by _fq4v »

tarlinian wrote: post #46
_fq4v wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, sure, Trump misrepresented that maybe -- although his tax returns are typical of someone with lots of depreciable real estate, and don't have much evidence of fraud. But let's talk about other so-called trump 'lies'. What about the continued doubts by the NYT that there would soon be news about a working coronavirus vaccine at the end of October, early November? What about the Steele Dossier that is now known t…

The implication of working coronavirus vaccine by end of October was that it would be available for use (you can find quotes from the Trump administration saying they were working on distribution of hundreds of millions of doses by the end of the month), not that there would be a preliminary report from a still ongoing trial indicating that the vaccine works. The Steele dossier includes information from Russian sourc…

> The implication of working coronavirus vaccine by end of October was that it would be available for use (you can find quotes from the Trump administration saying they were working on distribution of hundreds of millions of doses by the end of the month), not that there would be a preliminary report from a still ongoing trial indicating that the vaccine works.

Trump said there would be news of a vaccine. Obviously, it won't be available by November. If you listened to Trump or Pence, you'd know that the US arranged for a working vaccine to be delivered by December or January, not November.

> The question was whether it led to improper behavior on the part of Joe Biden. That email proves nothing. It's entirely plausible that Hunter Biden got this guy an invite to some social function where shook hands with the Vice President.

And indeed, that would actually make Joe Biden's claim that he had no involvement with his son's business dealings a lie. Biden could have been honest and said, I met a few of my son's friends but we never discussed business. However, he didn't. He unequivocally stated that he had absolutely no knowledge of his son's business dealings and had no interaction with anyone from Burisima. That is a lie.

> The prosecutor was fired for not investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden.

Then why did the new prosecutor immediately drop charges and investigations against Burisima? if this was the reason he was fired and replaced, shouldn't the new prosecutor then take up the charges?

Sorry for the late reply. Hacker News has partially shadow banned me for not toeing the party line.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#57

Post by Ericson2314 »

selimthegrim wrote: post #40
Ericson2314 wrote: post #36

Oh the circumlocutions of woke centrists... NYT's slant is currently ammo for "class reductionists"[1], but if they were to enage in some of the dirtbag left stuff of the sort that Putin likes to sponsor, they could make the MSNBC Moms uncomfortable from both sides of the political spectrum (!), and antipodal-ly restore some bipartisan credibility. [1]: https://www.salon.com/2020/07/25/how-calling-someone-a-class...…

Wait Putin sponsors Chapo Trap House? Does that mean I can’t play Disco Elysium guilt-free anymore?

No Putin doesn't. But much of the facebook astroturfing was vaguely similar. Just cause it's agitprop doesn't mean it's wrong :D.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#58

Post by onecommentman »

marcusverus wrote: post #23
bonecandy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm I don't really see any evidence of this

You must have missed the few instances when the NYT ran a rare Trump headline that could be regarded as positive, then promptly edited it to include leftward spin under the guise of 'adding context'. Here's the NYT's own reporting on one such instance: "A print headline on Tuesday’s front page for an article about President Trump’s statement addressing last weekend’s mass shootings has added to a continuing debate ov…

This editorial stance is a historical bias the NYT has had since at least the 1960s. You always had to read past it, if you chose to read at all. Some very good content wrapped in editorial offal. Made for a few good laughs if you were in on it.

It came out harder (to the point of abuse) on Trump because Trump is from NYC (big plus), major player in revitalization of Manhattan (big plus), big in pop media industry (umm, sort of plus) but was everything the UWS wasn’t (how dare that Republican Queens lowlife). If there ever was a use case for the word “intersectionality”, it would be the NYT view of Donald. And the NYT didn’t navigate those choppy seas well.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#59

Post by mncharity »

Another perspective:

> As a “big S” Socialist [...] I often find myself explaining my preference for the pink paper of liberal capitalism over the Gray Lady of cultural liberalism. The answer is simple: by literally any measure, the Financial Times is just a better paper. It covers the world as it is—a global battle not of ideas or values, but of economic and political interests. [1]

[1] Why the Left Can’t Stand The New York Times https://www.cjr.org/special_report/why-the-left-cant-stand-t...

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#60

Post by onecommentman »

skinnymuch wrote: post #53
dragonwriter wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are left leaning only in specific neo liberal ways. They are only left-leaning in specific center-right ways? Neoliberalism isn't a left ideology.

In America it is. And yes exactly what you wrote in your second paragraph. You can be pedantic all you want. But 90%+ of America’s won’t follow what you’re saying if you’re saying at best NYT is center right. You also likely won’t be able to have the conversation without seeming smug (or insert other related adjectives) either. Likely hurting any discussion you have. At which point, any pt of discussion is defeated.

It is, however, a classic rhetorical technique. If you call a moderate liberal a conservative, then it “normalizes” more extreme left-wing views. The same works left to right. In the parlance of Classical Greek rhetoric, it is called a “douchebag maneuver”.

We can all agree that “Shining Path” Maoist rebels view the NYT as to the right of center...

Post reply on HN