The New York Times has been thriving. They're profitable and their stock is near all-time highs. If the internet killed WaPo, why didn't it kill NYTimes?
replyThere is more to the New York Times Company than meets the eye [0].
reply0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_Ne...
That's the parent's point...
replyAs the sibling said, papers used to make money via ads and classifieds. NYTimes pivoted to games. This gives people a reason to go to NYT every day and gives them upsell opportunities to full subscriptions. WaPo and others don't have the alternate revenue source.
replyInternational prestige and internet-centered strategy (online games, lifestyle...).
replyThis is an ignorant take. The New York Times made a profit last year of $550 million. Clearly the problem isn't the internet -- nor should it be for a paper bought by JEFF BEZOS, the man arguably who did more to revolutionize selling stuff on the internet than any other individual.
replyAnother metric: Subscribers to the Times last year went up, while subscribers to the Post went down. It's clearly not just about the internet, or about partisan politics. (as the Post at least used to be about as liberal as the Times)
The post getting less liberal and more conservative seemed to harm its reputation in many circles, like CBS is getting now
replyThe Good Billionaire? He buys journals to call other billionaires "evil".
replyThe Bad Billionaire? He buys journals to run them to the ground. Learn the difference!