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

331–340 of 360 posts

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

#331

Post by _dczq »

repolfx wrote: post #329
_dczq wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

==That's because Trump is a conservative== Based on what criteria? ==Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him?== Is the second part actually evidence of the first part or does it simply reinforce your prior belief? Can you name any candidate in history who was gifted more free screen-time or print-space by US media?

Hmm. Are you arguing Trump is not a conservative? He ran under a Republican banner and has many classically conservative policies. As for the latter paragraph, are you implying news outlets simply sell screen-time and print-space? How can the media "gift" coverage? Their job is to report what's happening and things said and done by a presidential candidate is clearly news. And yes of course the abundance of newspaper…

==and has many classically conservative policies.==

Please expand on this statement. From my perspective, I see someone who supports tariffs, closed borders, increased debt, increased spending, handouts for specific industries ("picking winners and losers"), vilification of law enforcement, and more. These all go directly against traditionally "conservative" principles.

==are you implying news outlets simply sell screen-time and print-space==

How do you think the media makes money as a business? They are called advertisements, typically one must pay for them. In Trump's case, they covered him non-stop free of charge, essentially gifting him free advertising.

==And yes of course the abundance of newspapers openly stating they wanted his opponent to win is evidence of being anti-Trump==

Endorsements are done by editorial boards, which are distinct from journalists. The TV journalists gave Trump air time by not only showing all of his rallies, but showing the empty podium before the rallies. Meanwhile the rallies of Hillary Clinton were not covered in the same breathless way. The Washington Post wrote an entire article about it and estimated it at $2 billion[1].

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/03/1...

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

#332

Post by lobotryas »

repolfx wrote: post #329
_dczq wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

==That's because Trump is a conservative== Based on what criteria? ==Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him?== Is the second part actually evidence of the first part or does it simply reinforce your prior belief? Can you name any candidate in history who was gifted more free screen-time or print-space by US media?

Hmm. Are you arguing Trump is not a conservative? He ran under a Republican banner and has many classically conservative policies. As for the latter paragraph, are you implying news outlets simply sell screen-time and print-space? How can the media "gift" coverage? Their job is to report what's happening and things said and done by a presidential candidate is clearly news. And yes of course the abundance of newspaper…

I would argue that Trump is an opportunist. For evidence: see his extensive dealings with the Clintons and Democrats in the 90s and early 2000s.

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

#333

Post by lobotryas »

matwood wrote: post #296
ameister14 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus, they went from close to 400 million on 3.6 billion revenue to 96 on 1.6 billion revenue, and it's a success? Really puts into perspective how tumultuous the last 15 years has been for even the biggest newspapers.

> and it's a success? Compared to going out of business in a changing landscape, absolutely it's a success. The music industry went through something similar. The book industry (textbooks in particular) are about to go through it also.

What do you mean in regards to textbooks? Online rentals, digital textbooks, or something else?

I ask only as someone (of many) who deeply resents textbook price gouging.

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

#334

Post by [deleted] »

bjourne wrote: post #330
repolfx wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because Trump is a conservative and conservatives have been losing trust in the media for a long time. https://news.gallup.com/poll/219824/democrats-confidence-mas... Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him? From what I recall they all went for Hillary, there was even one paper (the USA Today?) that had never endorsed a candidate befor…

Yes I need evidence. Especially since you claim it is obvious that "the Media" is anti-Trump it shouldn't be hard for you to bring forward that evidence. > Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him? No! You are not allowed to turn the tables on me. You are the one that should show that "the Media" is anti-Trump, I shouldn't have to prove that it isn't .

[deleted]

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

#335

Post by farboggle »

bjourne wrote: post #330
repolfx wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because Trump is a conservative and conservatives have been losing trust in the media for a long time. https://news.gallup.com/poll/219824/democrats-confidence-mas... Do you really need evidence US media is anti-Trump? Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him? From what I recall they all went for Hillary, there was even one paper (the USA Today?) that had never endorsed a candidate befor…

Yes I need evidence. Especially since you claim it is obvious that "the Media" is anti-Trump it shouldn't be hard for you to bring forward that evidence. > Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him? No! You are not allowed to turn the tables on me. You are the one that should show that "the Media" is anti-Trump, I shouldn't have to prove that it isn't .

I think the newspaper endorsements line was meant to be evidence, but I'll flesh it out a little.

Of the 100 largest-circulation newspapers in the US, 57 endorsed Clinton while only 2 endorsed Trump. Of the top 50 papers, five gave no endorsement, three endorsed "not Trump", and one endorsed Johnson. The rest directly endorsed Clinton, with zero endorsing Trump. So: when traditional journalists and editors at major newspapers took explicit positions on the election, they almost all opposed Trump.

This is obviously a different question than "is the media conservative or liberal?", "is the non-editorial coverage at major news organizations generally anti-Trump?", or "are news organizations employing a partisan agenda in their decisions about how to cover Trump?

The first one of those questions is relatively easy to answer: according to an Indiana University survey of 1080 journalists in broadly 'traditional' roles, 7% identify as Republicans, compared to 28% who identify as Democrats. The number identifying as Republicans has also been falling faster than the number identifying as Democrats in equivalent prior surveys.

The second one is more open ended, but I think we can at least sketch the outlines of an answer.

Intuitively, I would propose that cable television leans left with one obvious exception, while local news and television stations are much more scattered - and less dependent on the views of their journalists, since they often have purchased content and partisan owners like Sinclair.

Factually, the Shorenstein Center at Harvard finds that in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, news coverage of Trump was 80% negative. They find that CNN and NBC were most negative, while even Fox was 52% negative.

The third is so open-ended that I can't imagine discussing it without agreeing on a bunch of specific standards for evidence and discussion, because it requires deciding where objective coverage of badness stops and partisanship starts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...

http://archive.news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-ame...

https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-fi...

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

#336

Post by farboggle »

lobotryas wrote: post #333
matwood wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and it's a success? Compared to going out of business in a changing landscape, absolutely it's a success. The music industry went through something similar. The book industry (textbooks in particular) are about to go through it also.

What do you mean in regards to textbooks? Online rentals, digital textbooks, or something else? I ask only as someone (of many) who deeply resents textbook price gouging.

I'm also curious about what might change.

Textbooks are obviously open to the same digitization and free-access issues as other media, but their sales model fundamentally different because it's one giant principal-agent problem.

In public schools, digitization won't touch textbook profits any time soon because they're bought in bulk, and because multi-year use keeps costs reasonable. Giving out digital copies isn't a major edge if you can get 5-10 years out of a book. As for college students, there's just very little incentive to care about costs. Example: for many of my classes, buying and reselling textbooks, renting them, and getting digital-only access mysteriously converged on the same price - just like you'd predict in a market with no real competition. So the only real question is whether sellers can control piracy or other covert cost reductions like buying international versions and older editions.

So far, they seem to be doing pretty well at it. Altering problems in foreign and new additions doesn't stop everyone, but it deters many students. Mandatory online courseware with in-book CD keys is a masterstroke, since it not only kills piracy but forces students to buy $100 books they might have forgone altogether - no more using library copies if you're hard up for money!

I've only seen two hints of change. One is outreach to agents (i.e. professors) on quality; there are now mix-and-match services that will sell combined chapters from a variety of books, which might someday drive more competition among writers and professor awareness of book choice. The second is the existence of student rebellion in specific majors (i.e. Computer Science) where students are very likely to have digital, pirated, or nonexistent textbooks, to the point where things like "open book exams" are considered outrageous.

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

#337

Post by ehsankia »

joekrill wrote: post #137
ehsankia wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I canceled mine last week exactly because of those dark patterns. They also show ads even if you have a subscription, which sounds very backward to me. I'd love to support them, but those practices don't belong in 2018. EDIT: Oh, looks like the cancellation didn't go through and they charged me for one more month, sweet. I might just go to my bank and tell them to block the source. Or even better, I may have found a…

> They also show ads even if you have a subscription, which sounds very backward to me. So are you also cancelling your cable subscription, any magazine subscriptions, physical newspaper subscriptions, no longer driving on toll roads with billboard...? I'm not saying it's right, or good, or valid--but the standard practice, for as long as I can remember, for most mediums, is to still show ads for things you pay for.…

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but I actually don't use any of the services you listed above. I've tried cable a few times at a friends house was honestly blown away at how people could stand it.

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

#338

Post by bjourne »

farboggle wrote: post #335
bjourne wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I need evidence. Especially since you claim it is obvious that "the Media" is anti-Trump it shouldn't be hard for you to bring forward that evidence. > Can you name any large, well known newspapers that endorsed him? No! You are not allowed to turn the tables on me. You are the one that should show that "the Media" is anti-Trump, I shouldn't have to prove that it isn't .

I think the newspaper endorsements line was meant to be evidence, but I'll flesh it out a little. Of the 100 largest-circulation newspapers in the US, 57 endorsed Clinton while only 2 endorsed Trump. Of the top 50 papers, five gave no endorsement, three endorsed "not Trump", and one endorsed Johnson. The rest directly endorsed Clinton, with zero endorsing Trump. So: when traditional journalists and editors at major n…

From a cursory glance, about half of all American newspapers endorsed Obama in 2012 and the other half endorsed Romney. Were half of all newspapers anti-Obama?

> 7% identify as Republicans, compared to 28% who identify as Democrats

The problem with these kind of stats is that they never reveal what kind of journalists we are talking about. It's irrelevant (to the question of bias in media) whether journalists reviewing books and movies likes Republicans or Democrats. Only journalists reporting on political and economical topics biases matters.

The negative reporting from the 100 first days I believe is at least partially because there were a lot of turmoil that were hard to spin in a positive light. The Russia collusion investigation, Muslim travel ban, repeal of Obamacare and so on. The reporting about the tax cuts have probably been more positive.

But I don't doubt that most journalists dislike Trump and that probably affects their reporting about him. Given his antics which involves calling them all liars and banning journalists from newspapers he particularly hates, I don't find that strange at all. Given that Trump is an "anti-Media" president I think the reporting about him has been very fair.

If you now think I'm moving the goal post, let me define "anti-$President." If you can show that media's reporting about Trump is just as slanted as Fox News' reporting was about Obama, then I would concede that media is anti-Trump.

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

#339

Post by Nitramp »

xaranke wrote: post #116
mjcl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t seem to ... that link worked from here in Fremont.

Yeah, I seem to have gotten access from Seattle. Sweet!

Uh, you realize that abusing that probably means they'll have to cancel the public service at some point, right?

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

#340

Post by dataflow »

jsutton wrote: post #314
repolfx wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of 50 professional reporters confirmed writing about an event, we’ll have 5 That's pretty what we already have actually. The amount of original reporting done on a major news story is far, far lower than the number of newspapers out there. This study from 2010 is useful: http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/the-googlechina-hacking-cas... Out of the 121 distinct versions of last week’s story about tracing Google’s…

> they've more or less openly abandoned any pretence of political neutrality There's an enormous federal investigation into the political operatives of only one party. The counts of corruption are far higher for one party. When news comes out about indictments and criminal trials of those in only one party, it's not because the media outlet has abandoned neutrality.

It is true that when there is more news about one party then there needs to be more reporting on that party, but I'm not sure it really negates what the parent was saying. I do get the feeling there are outlets that have become either biased in their reporting. (Of course, I also see ones that haven't.) As an example, check out this segment [1] that I was watching from CNN just yesterday. The anchor is trying very, very hard to persuade the viewer of what they assess to be a fact, not that differently from how Fox News sometimes seems to. It does not seem like the kind of unbiased, professional, arm's-length fact-reporting that I seem to (hopefully correctly?) remember being the norm. On top of that, it doesn't help that their words are more casual/informal than what I remember to be usual news reporting. (e.g.: look at the word choice, intonation, and body language where she says: "Right..?? He said it was 'cause of Russia to /NBC news/, and another time he said it was 'cause the deputy attorney general told him to /do/ it... this is a president who changes his story"... it does not make the storytelling come across as unbiased.)

This is not to say I don't understand why they're infuriated with Trump (I likely would be too), or that I somehow think they're spreading fake news, or anything like that. But the thing is, some outlets (like CNN, but it's not the only one) do at least appear to have become less neutral and more hostile to Trump (even if justifiably so). It's by no means anything close to all of them, but the effect unfortunately does seem apparent for some of them, and it does almost seem like they don't really notice or mind it.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/08/donald-trump-...

Post reply on HN