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

141–150 of 360 posts

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

#141

Post by fingerlocks »

bumholio wrote: post #75

There seems to be a natural opportunity for ISPs in a certain country to pay to have all their customers unblocked by major publications relevant to that public - and have a certain fraction of the customer bill disbursed depending on online circulation. I would gladly pay 20% more to my ISP to have hassle free access to major online publications, knowing that revenue helps journalists produce quality news, and that…

I like this idea, but I wonder, would that be a net neutrality violation? Honest question, because I can easily imagine this being rephrased: “If you don’t pay for the extra news package, you cannot access NYT for free”.

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

#142

Post by garblegarble »

naturalgradient wrote: post #122
lumberjack wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a liberal (the philosophy) is equivalent to being neutral and objective according to all the mainstream media, which are all liberals.

A good read on this is (at least to me as an outsider to American politics): https://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberal...

I'm afraid I stopped reading that 1/3rd of the way through after 50 paragraphs just repeating "liberals [American democrats, they mean] are smug" in slightly different ways without really delving into detail. (disclaimer: I'm European)

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

#144

Post by jottr »

naturalgradient wrote: post #93

The greatest marketing trick the NYT has ever pulled off is presenting themselves as the last bastion of objectivity in the trump era. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the most recent Sarah Jeong controversy and virtually all reporting on migration, feminism, campus politics etc shows this. Mind you this is from a European perspective where I see almost all reporting about politics here as copying off…

Agree. Same view looking at it from India.

They aren't bridging any gaps or increasing understanding in society. They are playing the same game everyone else is playing in amplifying an us VS them narrative. Because that is what the underlying social media architecture of likes/clicks/views/upvotes produces in everyone.

There is no genius about this.

It's just their method to survive. Obv it benefits them temporarily but the costs are accruing to society.

Journalism cannot be built on top of likes/views/clicks/retweets/upvotes. Stuff that is built on top of that architecture conditions journalists and talking heads to pander. That architecture must change. There is no sane reason for these numbers to be shown to journalists and their readers in real time.

It's like watching E.B.Skinners behaviour experiments with rats.

Changing this architecture of real time counts used as behaviour conditioners can be changed only by the tech world.

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

#145

Post by nieksand »

rtpg wrote: post #109
naturalgradient wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Washington Post. The NYT is unapologetically taking a side in the culture war and on many issues (campus politics, feminism, title IX, migration..) will ever only let one side make their point. The Wapo in my observation has a much better mix of both sides.

This is not a proper representation of NYT's opinion board. Beyond the absolutely dishonest stuff of more recent hires to the op-ed board, they have multiple conservatives on the board repeatedly publishing their "actually the problem is the leftist college students" every couple of months. They also have a couple "mainstream liberals" publishing inoffensive (but rarely courageous) pieces that usually match what cent…

Looks like:

ban = 20%

limited = 50%

anything goes = 30%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

So 70-30 for at least some form of restrictions on abortion.

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

#146

Post by VSTN »

toyg wrote: post #127
naturalgradient wrote: post #93

The greatest marketing trick the NYT has ever pulled off is presenting themselves as the last bastion of objectivity in the trump era. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the most recent Sarah Jeong controversy and virtually all reporting on migration, feminism, campus politics etc shows this. Mind you this is from a European perspective where I see almost all reporting about politics here as copying off…

I don't know how old you are, but from a 40-yo perspective, the NYT being seen as "leftist" is a terrifying signal of how right-wing the mainstream political window has gone in the US. The traditional megaphone of the East-Coast moneyed, the newspaper that sold the Iraq War to the public with lie after lie, is now seen as a bastion of liberalism. The US is in a very dark place right now. Last time it happened, it too…

This is because there is a massive confusion of the political spectrum which is better divided as 4 parts rather than 2.

The NYT isn't left at all when it comes to its views on how the economy should be run. But on social issues it certainly is a left rag. In fact, in what kind of environment but the leftomost extremist side could one tolerate the presence of an employee like Sarah Jeong who said such nice things as "white people are only fit to live underground like groveling goblins"? Not only did they not fire her but they even came to her defense.

The NYT is the poster child of the new generation of leftists, whose core obsessions are not whether the proletariat earns enough to make a decent living but whether they can dye their hair blue and still find a job.

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

#147

Post by Latty »

naturalgradient wrote: post #93

The greatest marketing trick the NYT has ever pulled off is presenting themselves as the last bastion of objectivity in the trump era. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the most recent Sarah Jeong controversy and virtually all reporting on migration, feminism, campus politics etc shows this. Mind you this is from a European perspective where I see almost all reporting about politics here as copying off…

"Far left" is a pretty polarising way to describe them.

I'm from the UK, which is a country which is firmly on the right of most of Europe, and policy in the US is extremely far right of here. The reporting I've seen from the New York Times is barely left, let alone "far left".

The right seems to have moved so far out to the far right, and yet people act like the centre-point of the Repbulicans and Democrats is still somehow the neutral position.

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

#148

Post by olalonde »

peteretep wrote: post #112
ageek123 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you say more about why it's a good thing that they hired Sarah Jeong, who has a history of racist and sexist tweets?

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…

I found that article quite unconvincing (I am not alt-right nor American). A lot of her tweets were clearly racist even when taken in context (e.g. “dumbass f*ing white people").

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

#149

Post by rainonmoon »

zarkov99 wrote: post #123
radmuzom wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

even their incoherent stance on racism as illustrated in the Sarah Jeong debacle? I could live with a left bias but not their blatant hypocrisy.

Their stance is Jeong used to imitate the language of her harassers, has since learned that was wrong, and has apologised. We should all be seeking rehabilitation, not retribution, and although I personally don't think her tweets were particularly objectionable, her remorse should earn her a second chance.

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

#150

Post by hhjinks »

toyg wrote: post #127
naturalgradient wrote: post #93

The greatest marketing trick the NYT has ever pulled off is presenting themselves as the last bastion of objectivity in the trump era. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the most recent Sarah Jeong controversy and virtually all reporting on migration, feminism, campus politics etc shows this. Mind you this is from a European perspective where I see almost all reporting about politics here as copying off…

I don't know how old you are, but from a 40-yo perspective, the NYT being seen as "leftist" is a terrifying signal of how right-wing the mainstream political window has gone in the US. The traditional megaphone of the East-Coast moneyed, the newspaper that sold the Iraq War to the public with lie after lie, is now seen as a bastion of liberalism. The US is in a very dark place right now. Last time it happened, it too…

The complete and irreversible collapse of several important ecosystems is on the horizon...
Post reply on HN