upvote

points

by tptacek3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby breakyerself3 hours ago|
next
[-]
NYT is good for games and cooking. Their news editors are garbage.
reply
upvoteby profsummergig3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Also, it seems there are a lot of paid posts on NYT.

Recently, both NYT and WP had front page articles about a book by some billionaire's daughter whose husband cheated on her. They seemed like puff-PR posts.

reply
upvoteby epistasis2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This sort of nearly open corruption at NYT is worthy of a Trump operation, to be honest.

When Kanye West bought a full-page ad apologizing for his anti-semitisim upon release of a new album, he apparently also bought a full-on legitimate looking "news" article to go with it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/26/arts/music/ye-kanye-west-...

This is the same newspaper that has reporters bragging on Twitter that they shouldn't have to report on major economic news, like the broad effects of the Inflation Reduction Act, because they don't need to report on anything that would benefit Biden. Apparently Biden didn't pay off the right people at the NYTimes.

reply
upvoteby tptacek2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You get that the economics underlying these claims about buying articles don't make much sense, right? The whole point of the NYT is that the newsfeed isn't the core business.
reply
upvoteby epistasis1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The newsfeed doesn't need to be the core business for NYTimes to sell full-page advertisements, nor does it need to be the core business to sell stories on preferred topics.
reply
upvoteby tptacek1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sure. They could sell a lot of things that aren't core to their business. But why would they? Their next marginal dollar doesn't come from squeezing the news organization; in fact, the way things are trending, news is basically looking like it'll be a loss leader for them.
reply
upvoteby groundzeros201534 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
It’s either a crossword or a religion.
reply
upvoteby tptacek3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
When did you last subscribe?
reply
upvoteby testdelacc13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Not the other commenter, but I subscribed till November 2024. Am I allowed to say that they're garbage?
reply
upvoteby tptacek3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You can say whatever you'd like! It's just a useful data point. Current subscribers, former subscribers, and non-subscribers have different takes.
reply
upvoteby guelo2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I was a subscriber until last year. They produce outstanding journalism with the exception of their Zionist pro-war bias, which I was ok ignoring until my disgust with their genocide whitewashing became too much.
reply
upvoteby g8oz1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Same
reply
upvoteby ilamont3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> The Times is thriving because they've pivoted from being a newspaper to being a media business. The games vertical is the first thing people talk about, but cooking is arguably a better example. The verticals have dedicated users, their own go-to-markets, their own user retention loops.

NYT is taking a smart approach to other verticals, such as The Athletic and some of their podcasts (for tech, Hard Fork). I am hoping they can figure out business coverage eventually.

What surprises me is how almost no other "hard news" brand in the English-speaking world has attempted to follow even a lite version of the NYT approach. It's not like Bezos or the other billionaire owners of legacy media (Murdoch, Soon-Shiong, Henry, etc) didn't have the chops or the deep pockets to invest in a recipe database or a simple gaming portal. Even AARP figured out that simple games are a good way to engage with its users (https://www.aarp.org/games/).

reply
upvoteby dmix2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
After subscribing for a decade I canceled NYT last yr because I felt it was leaning more into social media bait (which I dont blame them for business reasons). That plus they kept blocking Firefox with an unpassable captcha even though I was logged in.

I now read WSJ largely for the same reasons "more focused, a little drier, easier to follow". I also find WSJ is much better at writing good headlines that draw you in, on a broad range of topics not just breaking Trump news 24/7 which is mostly what NTYimes notifies you with. WSJ also has an excellent Youtube channel, probably the best of the big 3. The only problem with WSJ is it costs twice as much.

reply
upvoteby tptacek2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I've been debating a WSJ subscription for years; it helps that they have a very strong paywall, so there's a big convenience factor.
reply
upvoteby dmix2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It is much easier to get by not paying for NYT by using stuff like https://periscope.corsfix.com/ for sure. But it is a big inconvenience. WSJ is much more aggressive with it.
reply