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

221–230 of 360 posts

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

#221

Post by leereeves »

rainonmoon wrote: post #151
VSTN wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Arguably, the kind of environment in which one elects a President who generalises an entire nationality as criminals and rapists except for "a few, [who] I assume, are good people." If you want to find how low the bar has fallen, understand that one side of the political divide lowered it long before Jeong got there. Your final assertion is not worth addressing.

Sarah Jeong's anti-white, anti-male, anti-cop tweets date back to 2013, long before the election.

https://archive.fo/7m0Tz

I don't agree with you that "they did it first" is a valid defense for this behavior, but if it were, it would be a defense for Trump, not for Jeong.

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

#222

Post by [deleted] »

hhjinks wrote: post #157
eksemplar wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a legitimate topic for discussion though? If you can become president after calling Mexicans criminal rapists, I think you should be allowed to be a journalist after those tweets, especially when you’ve expressed regret and remorse for posting them. People really should uninstall twitter though. I mean, I’ve never written things that were racist, but I’m really happy there isn’t a permanent record of everything…

Trump shouldn't have been President, and Jeong shouldn't have been hired. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[deleted]

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

#223

Post by PakG1 »

nothis wrote: post #182
Dwolb wrote: post #76

That’s just insane. This is a great accomplishment for NYT but I’m worried about what it means for the rest of the industry. NYT switching its business model has to be one of the most public and well-executed digital transformations of an old company ever. If NYT is the best at this and can only turn 24M a quarter, almost everyone else must be absolutely bleeding. This would confirm most of the newspapers out there a…

There's just too many vital services that can't function with just ad financing. It's so obvious, that I have a slight hope we'll see new business models to accommodate for that. The problem is that I don't read a hundred articles a month by the NYT, I read maybe 5. And then 5 others on 30 different sites, each. What I can imagine is a "digital pass" kinda thing that lets you access a massive amount of content for a…

I imagine it would be difficult to get such members of a group to agree on the value they bring to the table. NYT probably thinks they'd deserve more than the LAT, and certainly way more than USA Today. Can't imagine these groups cooperating. It's winner takes all and then some niches for Breitbart and the like.

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

#225

Post by jdhn »

untog wrote: post #209
VSTN wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Jeong controversy blow my mind. Do you really think that she was being serious when she said "white people are only fit to live underground like groveling goblins"? No part of you thinks she was joking? Not even as you read the words "groveling goblins"? In reality, she was making a (bad) joke criticising another media figure's perspective that everything is open to debate: https://www.twitter.com/awprokop/status…

>Do you really think that she was being serious when she said "white people are only fit to live underground like groveling goblins"?

Yes. The fact that she has many other tweets that disparage white people shows that that wasn't just a one off.

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

#226

Post by orf »

chii wrote: post #216
nothis wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's just too many vital services that can't function with just ad financing. It's so obvious, that I have a slight hope we'll see new business models to accommodate for that. The problem is that I don't read a hundred articles a month by the NYT, I read maybe 5. And then 5 others on 30 different sites, each. What I can imagine is a "digital pass" kinda thing that lets you access a massive amount of content for a…

> What I can imagine is a "digital pass" this makes me think that journalism should be funded out of a commons fund - like how the BBC is funded publically via taxes.

The BBC isn't directly funded by taxes in the usual sense (and therefore the government, which is a tricky situation to be in). It's funded by the collection of a license required when you have a TV, and it's collected by the BBC itself (in reality outsourced).

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

#227

Post by akavel »

nothis wrote: post #182
Dwolb wrote: post #76

That’s just insane. This is a great accomplishment for NYT but I’m worried about what it means for the rest of the industry. NYT switching its business model has to be one of the most public and well-executed digital transformations of an old company ever. If NYT is the best at this and can only turn 24M a quarter, almost everyone else must be absolutely bleeding. This would confirm most of the newspapers out there a…

There's just too many vital services that can't function with just ad financing. It's so obvious, that I have a slight hope we'll see new business models to accommodate for that. The problem is that I don't read a hundred articles a month by the NYT, I read maybe 5. And then 5 others on 30 different sites, each. What I can imagine is a "digital pass" kinda thing that lets you access a massive amount of content for a…

Somewhat related, though not a flat price: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle

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

#228

Post by Latty »

zarkov99 wrote: post #219
Latty wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook. James Gunn is the other obvious example. Yes, these people posted things that were bad ideas. They also apologised, made it clear they were not serious about what was said, and moved past it. To claim it makes their entire coverage of racism incoherent is... misleading at best. Imitating the masses of people trolling you as a joke may be a bad…

Come on, even if what you said wasn't absurd,i.e you can be racist if someone attacks you on Twitter, the NYT fired people for much, much less than the disgusting vitriol the woman posted for years.

> i.e you can be racist if someone attacks you on Twitter

That is not what I said. I said she admitted what she said was wrong, publicly renounced the tweets, and stopped doing it. That is literally the opposite of what you are claiming I said.

Yes, it also matters that her intent at the time was not a belief that white people are inferior but to mimic the style of people abusing her to point out the absurdity. Was it the wrong course of action? Yes, but not all wrong things are equal. As I just said, the fact she has apologised, not repeated the action, and renounced what she did matters.

> the NYT fired people for much, much less than the disgusting vitriol the woman posted for years

Then give those examples, they don't change the facts of this case.

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

#229

Post by tjoff »

orf wrote: post #226
chii wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I can imagine is a "digital pass" this makes me think that journalism should be funded out of a commons fund - like how the BBC is funded publically via taxes.

The BBC isn't directly funded by taxes in the usual sense (and therefore the government, which is a tricky situation to be in). It's funded by the collection of a license required when you have a TV, and it's collected by the BBC itself (in reality outsourced).

Though in the end there is absolutely no difference.

In Sweden we are abandoning that concept because it is an unfair system and lots of people have switched to the internet for the same content (and don't even have a TV).

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

#230

Post by unixhero »

gonvaled wrote: post #102
unixhero wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch out. There may be dragons with that PayPal approach. Although ingenious, and I commend that, you have achieved to end the payments but you have not correctly ended the contract. You may still be liable for the subscription fees, although you're not paying. Probably best to call and terminate the contract the right way.

He has already called them and terminated the contract. They have just not processed the request. Not paying is a sensible path in this case I would say.

So, no dragons then. Lol.
Post reply on HN