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

111–120 of 152 posts

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

#111

Post by kjaftaedi »

andrenotgiant wrote: post #51
greggturkington wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While the newspaper does run ads, NYT's ad revenue is in large part driven by their 'native advertising' business (T Brand Studio).

It's a fundamentally different approach to advertising compared to what Google and FB are doing.

I think the problem is more that it's harder to quantify a carefully crafted brand campaign, and easier for middle-managers to look at a chart of click-through return rates and make decisions based on that.

I see this as the ability to test and measure beating out a better method that is less quantifiable. Basically the same thinking that leaves us with policies like No Child Left Behind where education has shifted from learning to test taking yet people are still under the impression they are the same thing.

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

#112

Post by c06n »

seppin wrote: post #94
Stronico wrote: post #93

I read a print version of the NYT recently and the feeling I got was quite different than the web version - mostly in that what was being pushed on you was "news", not opinion. Almost all of it could be described as "These People Did This Thing In This Place". It was great actually, dispassionate and informative. The editorials were packed away somewhere in the back, not worth looking for. A very different experience…

I still don't understand why any news org has an opinion page. The two have nothing to do with one another.

It's in the article: Opinion at NYT produces 10% of the output, but 20% of the views. Emotions, especially negative ones, drive engagement.

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

#113

Post by alphager »

seppin wrote: post #94
Stronico wrote: post #93

I read a print version of the NYT recently and the feeling I got was quite different than the web version - mostly in that what was being pushed on you was "news", not opinion. Almost all of it could be described as "These People Did This Thing In This Place". It was great actually, dispassionate and informative. The editorials were packed away somewhere in the back, not worth looking for. A very different experience…

I still don't understand why any news org has an opinion page. The two have nothing to do with one another.

It's where values-based analysis can happen.

"Person X did Y on Z date" is a perfectly fine information properly residing in the news section. Writing about what the consequences of Y are very easily leaves the purely factual space once Ys consequences reach a certain complexity.

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

#114

Post by unethical_ban »

ajay-b wrote: post #86

I Was looking at a newspaper from the 1940s and the difference in content presented then, versus even now in large print newspapers, is astounding. There was so much more information conveyed back then, less opinions more information that people could use. It makes me think that our definition of news has gotten away from its original meaning

I would love to see an example, perhaps, if what you were looking at is digital. The way I see it, there is some inherent bias in even the newsroom, but I feel that the information I get from New York Times is accurate and substantial.

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

#115

Post by unethical_ban »

seppin wrote: post #94
Stronico wrote: post #93

I read a print version of the NYT recently and the feeling I got was quite different than the web version - mostly in that what was being pushed on you was "news", not opinion. Almost all of it could be described as "These People Did This Thing In This Place". It was great actually, dispassionate and informative. The editorials were packed away somewhere in the back, not worth looking for. A very different experience…

I still don't understand why any news org has an opinion page. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Consider the role of newspapers historically. It's not unreasonable to expect an institution of reporters of current events to have a section of opinion and analysis on the facts of the day.

That may seem antiquated now, with an unlimited amount of opinion readily available on social media or advocacy websites.

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

#116

Post by unethical_ban »

rayiner wrote: post #87

Tucker Carlson defended the NYT in 2009, saying the paper had a liberal slant but was careful about the facts. He urged conservative media to pay attention to accuracy. But sadly, after devastating revenue losses from 2010-2016, the NYT decided to become Fox News instead.

This proves that a broken clock, or broken man, can be correct upon occasion.

Tucker Carlson is a despicable human being, utterly without guile or integrity or good faith.

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

#117

Post by [deleted] »

shard wrote: post #101
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economic and political clashes are not reality. Like the great houses of Game of Thrones fighting a huge civil war, while an unstoppable army of wights readies invasion from the north. Perhaps one can throw around accusations of bias in economics and politics easily, but our own world squabbles in internecine insular conflict while Global Warming, Species Depletion, and other major threats loom. If your "side" denies…

What are the White Walkers and wights but another nation with a different economic system and political agenda?

[deleted]

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

#118

Post by tshaddox »

unethical_ban wrote: post #115
seppin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand why any news org has an opinion page. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Consider the role of newspapers historically. It's not unreasonable to expect an institution of reporters of current events to have a section of opinion and analysis on the facts of the day. That may seem antiquated now, with an unlimited amount of opinion readily available on social media or advocacy websites.

What newspapers did historically was mostly just possess the very expensive printers and delivery networks required to distribute media to large numbers of people, right? It would make sense for such organizations to distribute news, opinion, sports info, financial info, comics and other entertainment, etc.

It’s tempting to think that their real value was always the reporting itself, but then how do we explain why technologies like the internet (and even TV before that) have seemed to massively disrupt their business model?

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

#119

Post by creato »

tathougies wrote: post #55
dragonwriter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

> Apparently HN knows my ballot better than me!

Saying the moment you became a trump supporter was when trump abused the resources of the United States to extort a foreign country for personal political gain is not a good look.

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

#120

Post by Angostura »

unethical_ban wrote: post #116
rayiner wrote: post #87

Tucker Carlson defended the NYT in 2009, saying the paper had a liberal slant but was careful about the facts. He urged conservative media to pay attention to accuracy. But sadly, after devastating revenue losses from 2010-2016, the NYT decided to become Fox News instead.

This proves that a broken clock, or broken man, can be correct upon occasion. Tucker Carlson is a despicable human being, utterly without guile or integrity or good faith.

I think you'll find he has a modicum of guile.
Post reply on HN