121–127 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. There is a distinct Opinion Section with it's own editorial oversight. https://www.nytimes.com/section/opinion Just like every other high quality news source.
That doesn't refute what I said at all. Yes, they have an opinion section. They also inject a lot of opinion into articles that are nominally straight news.
They are distinct and completely governed by different editors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm essentially an Apple Fanboy but I've tried Apple News + a few times and I just don't like it. It spends too much time trying to suggest stories, bother me with news, there's ads I can't block, etc. so I just don't use it. Leave me alone! I don't want your suggestions. I don't want to discover new content or follow some trend. At least sequester those things off to some tab or setting or something.
I'm with you on those downsides, they all bother me too. The value add for me is that I get access to publications I'd have to pay separately for otherwise; e.g., WSJ, Wired, etc. My use case is primarily to open it and navigate to the content I want under the Subscriptions tab.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yes they cater to their subscribers but that's made them batshit crazy in their coverage Equating one of the premier news organizations in the world with Fox is quite interesting. NYTimes has been breaking news stories since the Civil War. They are the only organization that routinely breaks news against 'both sides' of the aisle. e.g. Clinton Email server and Trump business ties to name a couple The fact of the mat…
> They are the only organization that routinely breaks news against 'both sides' of the aisle. Both sides indeed. They report on news of national importance, such as a playground scuffle: A Black Virginia Girl Says White Classmates Cut Her Dreadlocks at a Playground - https://web.archive.org/web/20190927202007/https://www.nytim... Once it turns out the story was a hoax, they do their journalistic duty and remove any…
Although it's regrettable that Reuters' content will be harder to access, it's a positive trend for the news ecosystem to generate increasing revenue through a subscription-based business model rather than selling ads. The more money that comes from subscriptions, the more that news coverage will reflect the interests of subscribers rather than advertisers.
I see this as making a strong case for more put into entities like PBS, CPB, BBC etc and for Libraries paying for access for their citizens.
A few years ago I might have payed for Reuters news, but they sort of destroyed themselves this past few years perhaps because of financial incentives or mismanagement or simply the journalism zeitgeist. Maybe just another casualty of 2020.
Aljazeera English has almost the same content than Reuters (like literally, exact same articles words by words), has RSS feed, and also has interesting news and viewpoint about Africa, Asia and Middle East.
"audiences prepared to pay $34.99 per month for a deeper level of coverage" Holy crap...who is this audience? NYT is $4/month, WAPO is $4-6/month, etc. Edit: Ah, okay, intro pricing that shifts to ~$17/month after a year. Still, though, that's half of this proposed pricing.
NYT is $4/4 weeks (not per month) during its trial period. That plan jumps to ~$18/mo after that ($17 per 4 weeks => ~$18/mo). WaPo is similar. The audience appears to be people who subscribe to Bloomberg, which is in the same price bracket.