New York Times Study Calls for Rapid Change in Newsroom(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
New York Times Study Calls for Rapid Change in Newsroom
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/business/new-york-times-newsroom-report-2020.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
21 comments
News is now Global and readers are transient and not loyal.
Brave should take it's micropayments wallet model, but dumb it down and sign a business deal with all major news papers.
You pay $10 per month and get access to all of the news papers. Brave divides the royalties based on your reading habits.
Benefits:
* Easy for consumers to understand
* Easy for news orgs to understand
* Bitcoins and wallet hidden from mainstream
* Proves Brave wallet technology for wider adoption
Brave should take it's micropayments wallet model, but dumb it down and sign a business deal with all major news papers.
You pay $10 per month and get access to all of the news papers. Brave divides the royalties based on your reading habits.
Benefits:
* Easy for consumers to understand
* Easy for news orgs to understand
* Bitcoins and wallet hidden from mainstream
* Proves Brave wallet technology for wider adoption
Hi again Ozten! Another quick reply (but see my first reply nested below):
We are going to add "Patreon-style" pinned support options, also we'll make Patreon and YouTube account holder payable, not just domain owners. Still in beta, and your "dumb it down" advice is good. Onward!
We are going to add "Patreon-style" pinned support options, also we'll make Patreon and YouTube account holder payable, not just domain owners. Still in beta, and your "dumb it down" advice is good. Onward!
It's been tried with magazines, e.g. Texture. My library lets me read some magazines through Zinio. So forms of such services exist but they're pretty niche.
It's a good point. An all you can eat Comic reader is somewhat niche, but I wonder if news isn't a more mainstream market.
Currently, Brave's wallet tries to "boil the ocean", but a more focused vertical seems more tractable.
Currently, Brave's wallet tries to "boil the ocean", but a more focused vertical seems more tractable.
Hi Austin! We are in beta, and not ocean-boiling. Our plan does not require publishers to agree before they start getting revenue shares in escrow.
That's part of the plan, because it turns out to be hard to get agreements inked and signed. Even at larger scale (we're growing), getting pubs to agree is not easy or quick. As always when bringing up a new protocol, Metcalfe's Law is a pain. So we decouple and start sending money first. Money always helps.
We are talking to publishers from big to small, and we have verified ~120 publishers as domain owners, with 70 already having filed the W-9 or W-8BEN (if overseas) form.
That's part of the plan, because it turns out to be hard to get agreements inked and signed. Even at larger scale (we're growing), getting pubs to agree is not easy or quick. As always when bringing up a new protocol, Metcalfe's Law is a pain. So we decouple and start sending money first. Money always helps.
We are talking to publishers from big to small, and we have verified ~120 publishers as domain owners, with 70 already having filed the W-9 or W-8BEN (if overseas) form.
To be honest, I never appreciated the scale of the NYT until I read those revenue numbers. $500 million in digital media revenue is nothing to sneeze at.
I wonder if at some point in the future, there will be a reaction to this push for a subscription-based news model. Perhaps a website who's value proposition is that it only focuses on news, with no clickbait articles and titles.
I wonder if at some point in the future, there will be a reaction to this push for a subscription-based news model. Perhaps a website who's value proposition is that it only focuses on news, with no clickbait articles and titles.
There are a few subscription-based news models which run like this. Mediapart in France is one of the most prominent: hard news values, subscription-only, online.
I work at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, which is doing a lot of work in this area; the Digital News Project reports are interesting: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/page/digital-news-...
I've recently authored one of these reports looking specifically at digital-born news media in Europe, which is particularly focused on the diversity of non-advertising focused news business models.
I work at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, which is doing a lot of work in this area; the Digital News Project reports are interesting: http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/page/digital-news-...
I've recently authored one of these reports looking specifically at digital-born news media in Europe, which is particularly focused on the diversity of non-advertising focused news business models.
Has anyone found a way to finance serious news that is both sustainable and open. I fear the subscription model limits the best, 'real' news to the few who can and will pay for it, and keeps that news out of the online conversation.
EDIT: What about micropayments?
(See this comment for more on the subject
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13421905 )
EDIT: What about micropayments?
(See this comment for more on the subject
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13421905 )
Nobody's made micropayments work (yet?). For serious, sustainable and open [edit: and not ad-supported: some are trying to get that to work sustainably for serious news], there are two models out there:
The first is traditional public service broadcasting (such as the BBC, or the German ARD). As these are funded by a compulsory public levy, they don't need either advertising or subscriptions, and have no need to exclude using a paywall. This model adapts from television to Internet news very well.
The second is something donation-based. Some organisations are trying to fund reporting using either public donations (e.g. Krautreporter), foundation support (e.g. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism), or a mixture (e.g. Correctiv). It's difficult to scale, though.
The first is traditional public service broadcasting (such as the BBC, or the German ARD). As these are funded by a compulsory public levy, they don't need either advertising or subscriptions, and have no need to exclude using a paywall. This model adapts from television to Internet news very well.
The second is something donation-based. Some organisations are trying to fund reporting using either public donations (e.g. Krautreporter), foundation support (e.g. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism), or a mixture (e.g. Correctiv). It's difficult to scale, though.
> Nobody's made micropayments work (yet?).
Blendle [1]? I guess it depends on how you define 'work'.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle
Blendle [1]? I guess it depends on how you define 'work'.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendle
Seems like micropayments would be tough for a newspaper unless it could leverage a massive audience already with credit cards enabled (see iTunes, Amazon, etc). Otherwise the barrier to get customers to enter their payment information would be too high IMO. Seems like news browsing habits are still typically controlled through websites as opposed to apps (anecdotally - I don't have data on this), which also makes it difficult to drive enough users for a micropayments model to work.
> hard news values, subscription-only, online.
In Italy, the leftist newspaper il manifesto basically rebooted around this concept, although they still have a printed edition. They dramatically lowered costs (also shedding quite a bit of personnel) and now survive relatively well, but the numbers are far from replacement - they still sell 7 physical copies for each digital one, digital subscriptions are pretty stable, and their paper numbers are crashing in the same way as all other newspapers.
Digital models have higher margins but clearly they cannot reach the same amount of people as traditional models yet, and don't fully compensate the inevitable death of paper.
In Italy, the leftist newspaper il manifesto basically rebooted around this concept, although they still have a printed edition. They dramatically lowered costs (also shedding quite a bit of personnel) and now survive relatively well, but the numbers are far from replacement - they still sell 7 physical copies for each digital one, digital subscriptions are pretty stable, and their paper numbers are crashing in the same way as all other newspapers.
Digital models have higher margins but clearly they cannot reach the same amount of people as traditional models yet, and don't fully compensate the inevitable death of paper.
The challenge there is to build up the infrastructure to do so. Real news gathering takes staff in offices around the world, relationships with residents and officials, etc. etc. Otherwise, all you end up being is an AP feed.
Traditional news-gathering certainly did, but that was in an age where every citizen didn't have an internet connected phone with a camera in their pocket. The current system is of course doomed...
However I think there's a gap here to do something radically different, global and paid for with subscriptions (from those who broadcast and companies who want aggregate data about fashion trends for example, or weather reports based on individuals reporting it).
However I think there's a gap here to do something radically different, global and paid for with subscriptions (from those who broadcast and companies who want aggregate data about fashion trends for example, or weather reports based on individuals reporting it).
News and investigative journalism are two different things. If you want some barely-discernable pictures of what the cops are up to in some neighborhood, the citizens with cameraphone model works fine. But there is more than just reporting single facts, sometimes you have to chain a bunch of information together to build a worthwhile story. I think that's what professional journalists are focusing on. When the NYT figured out that Trump wasn't paying any taxes, they didn't go find someone on Twitter that took a picture of him not paying any taxes. They had to dig through thousands of pages of boring legal documents to figure it out. That's a full-time job, not really something a lot of hobbyists are going to get into.
> But there is more than just reporting single facts ...
And facts are tricky things. They can be easily manipulated, either by the people in the 'photo' or by the person who took it.
And facts are tricky things. They can be easily manipulated, either by the people in the 'photo' or by the person who took it.
> but that was in an age where every citizen didn't have an internet connected phone with a camera in their pocket.
Is that why I see numerous people live blogging every city council meeting or random discussion forum on a possible new law?
Yeah, 20k people will post that they're at the inauguration and thought that X had an ugly dress or Y looked unhappy... but that's hardly useful.
Is that why I see numerous people live blogging every city council meeting or random discussion forum on a possible new law?
Yeah, 20k people will post that they're at the inauguration and thought that X had an ugly dress or Y looked unhappy... but that's hardly useful.
> but that was in an age where every citizen didn't have an internet connected phone with a camera in their pocket
If you want 10 shallow disconnected sources of information from the fringes then that works.
If you want someone who knows where to go, who to talk to, and how to actually build out a story then you still need journalists.
If you want 10 shallow disconnected sources of information from the fringes then that works.
If you want someone who knows where to go, who to talk to, and how to actually build out a story then you still need journalists.
Journalism, in spite of protestations to the contrary, has too often been a shallow gloss on half-understood ideas and a rushed frenzy to be first to print - to parachute in a correspondent to an unknown city/culture/subculture and expect them to understand it and not impose their prejudices on it while writing a story under time pressure is really expecting too much, and the results are often anything but insightful. The time pressure also regularly results in breathless stories without context and incomplete timelines with no closure and no revisiting the topic after the storm has passed. We can do better.
Context and commitment and a large amount of original data is important in understanding information and people on the ground provide that (even if sometimes their view is limited, sometimes amongst them you'd find the best person to write the story of x). There are of course big problems with this flood of information, but it is now there (instantly, from anywhere on the globe), and it wasn't before. That changes everything.
I do think there is value in having all that information, of course you still require a separate level of aggregation, analysis and perhaps narrative (Who will provide that? I think there is the opportunity), but the OP was talking about getting the data, that's now easy, the hard part is making sense of the firehose of data, which traditional journalism is ill-equipped to do given its emphasis on owning the story and speed to press.
There is value in constructing a narrative based on the facts but the old business models of a news factory which 'makes news' and gets it to the public first in order to sell advertising are irrevocably gone now, they just haven't realised they are obsolete yet, and are scrabbling around for ways to adapt their old news-gathering infrastructure to this new world.
Context and commitment and a large amount of original data is important in understanding information and people on the ground provide that (even if sometimes their view is limited, sometimes amongst them you'd find the best person to write the story of x). There are of course big problems with this flood of information, but it is now there (instantly, from anywhere on the globe), and it wasn't before. That changes everything.
I do think there is value in having all that information, of course you still require a separate level of aggregation, analysis and perhaps narrative (Who will provide that? I think there is the opportunity), but the OP was talking about getting the data, that's now easy, the hard part is making sense of the firehose of data, which traditional journalism is ill-equipped to do given its emphasis on owning the story and speed to press.
There is value in constructing a narrative based on the facts but the old business models of a news factory which 'makes news' and gets it to the public first in order to sell advertising are irrevocably gone now, they just haven't realised they are obsolete yet, and are scrabbling around for ways to adapt their old news-gathering infrastructure to this new world.
I'm a loyal NYT subscriber and I've suggested to them that I would be most willing to pay more for my subscription if they could please remove all ads. Did not get a response from them though.
I think the future is micro payments. I don't want to pay for a magazine, I want to pay for quality articles, wherever they come from.
No you don't. You think you want micropayment, but you don't.
The problem with the "pay for quality article regardless of where they come from" theory is that you don't know what "quality" is until you have already consumed it. But then again, if you've already consumed it, then you're too late to decide if it's worth reading or not.
This is why reputation is important in journalism. If you step back and think about it, your sense of "quality" depends 99% on what other people think. I'm not insulting you, this is how it works. People have better things to do than sitting around reading every single article to figure out if it's high quality or not, and that's why most people regardless of intelligence rely on reputation to judge quality.
That's why the successful model will be building a news organization with high reputation. That's what people actually want (so they don't have to waste time trying to decide what to trust or not) and that's what makes sense for the organizations financially. That's why the micropayment model will never replace the subscription model and increasingly so.
The problem with the "pay for quality article regardless of where they come from" theory is that you don't know what "quality" is until you have already consumed it. But then again, if you've already consumed it, then you're too late to decide if it's worth reading or not.
This is why reputation is important in journalism. If you step back and think about it, your sense of "quality" depends 99% on what other people think. I'm not insulting you, this is how it works. People have better things to do than sitting around reading every single article to figure out if it's high quality or not, and that's why most people regardless of intelligence rely on reputation to judge quality.
That's why the successful model will be building a news organization with high reputation. That's what people actually want (so they don't have to waste time trying to decide what to trust or not) and that's what makes sense for the organizations financially. That's why the micropayment model will never replace the subscription model and increasingly so.
Blendle gives you your money back if you don't like an article, no questions asked. It works quite well I'd say.
"News on spec" doesn't sounds like a great business model.
Maybe for you money is more valuable than time, and that's fine, but I was talking about time, not money.
They send you daily mails with the best articles and describe their content and why you should read them. Articles can be 'liked', and very popular ones go into a weekly (monthly/yearly) Best Of.
Its certainly not uncurated.
> The problem with the "pay for quality article regardless of where they come from" theory is that you don't know what "quality" is until you have already consumed it.
If you read my comment above, that's basically what I'm saying. You are delegating your quality judgment to Blendle, so you are not paying for quality articles "regardless of where they come from". You are paying for quality articles that Blendle sent you. You know it's worth your time to go through the list because you trust Blendle's reputation.
If you read my comment above, that's basically what I'm saying. You are delegating your quality judgment to Blendle, so you are not paying for quality articles "regardless of where they come from". You are paying for quality articles that Blendle sent you. You know it's worth your time to go through the list because you trust Blendle's reputation.
That was the hope going back well over a decade. But it never really played out. Clay Shirky's main argument against it was transaction costs. Not payment processing costs (although that was an issue at the time) but simple mental transaction costs. There's a big difference between free and even a penny or two. People get mired down in having to decide if they want to buy something or not.
I would love for some sort of tipping system to exist for Wall Street/NY Times, or something that allowed you to tip quickly and easily based off of something like Apple Pay or Amazon Payments.
I realize not everybody would take advantage, but I certainly think it's worthwhile to integrate to supplement revenue.
I realize not everybody would take advantage, but I certainly think it's worthwhile to integrate to supplement revenue.
It's been done several times. To a first approximation, nobody uses it.
You can theorize it might work, but has an enormous activation energy, but it's hard to move past that theorizing without a few dozen million dollars for marketing. Most things easier than that have been tried.
You can theorize it might work, but has an enormous activation energy, but it's hard to move past that theorizing without a few dozen million dollars for marketing. Most things easier than that have been tried.
I also think it would be interesting to see what publishers would do with the data on which articles actually generate money. I'm not sure I would want news organizations to only print what sells, as I would surmise that's partly how we ended up with less insightful news gaining popularity.
In this future, how do you determine quality articles before reading them?
I'm curious about what a micro payments world would be like, but I'm skeptical about their prospects in the near-future.
In general, I don't think people like being nickel & dimed, and that's basically what micro payments are. Subscriptions allow one to rationalize the price upfront, then consume without concern. This appeals to heavy consumers, consumers who overestimate their usage, as well as consumers who don't want to think about each purchase.
There would need to be a large enough category of people who would be willing to buy a few articles per month, but not want a subscription. And that would need to generate a large enough profit beyond paying for the micro payments implementation, support, etc.
In general, I don't think people like being nickel & dimed, and that's basically what micro payments are. Subscriptions allow one to rationalize the price upfront, then consume without concern. This appeals to heavy consumers, consumers who overestimate their usage, as well as consumers who don't want to think about each purchase.
There would need to be a large enough category of people who would be willing to buy a few articles per month, but not want a subscription. And that would need to generate a large enough profit beyond paying for the micro payments implementation, support, etc.
Pay per use sometimes works well and sometimes doesn't. I don't think I've ever seen an intellectually rigorous analysis of what factors may favor all-you-can-eat vs. pay-as-you-go. Pretty much all of us have examples from daily life that are more toward one end of the scale or another.
By and large, it seems that once you get to $1+ per unit cost, people are willing to put at least a modicum of thought into whether they want to buy/rent something. For a long period, people had no problem renting a film (or going to a theater) for $5 or so. There wasn't a lot of demand for unlimited passes. (Of course, now we have Netflix as well.)
I suspect it's the literal nickel and dime-ing that's the problem. It's too small a transaction to want to fuss with. Think if you had to go through some sort of transaction process every time you flipped on a light switch (which is pay-as-you-go but the financial transaction is largely opaque). And I strongly suspect that, at the end of the day, the dollar amounts involved just wouldn't be large enough to be interesting.
By and large, it seems that once you get to $1+ per unit cost, people are willing to put at least a modicum of thought into whether they want to buy/rent something. For a long period, people had no problem renting a film (or going to a theater) for $5 or so. There wasn't a lot of demand for unlimited passes. (Of course, now we have Netflix as well.)
I suspect it's the literal nickel and dime-ing that's the problem. It's too small a transaction to want to fuss with. Think if you had to go through some sort of transaction process every time you flipped on a light switch (which is pay-as-you-go but the financial transaction is largely opaque). And I strongly suspect that, at the end of the day, the dollar amounts involved just wouldn't be large enough to be interesting.
Have you watched Twitch by any chance? It's fascinating to see people tip players $2, $3 bucks as they play. Of course not everyone gets tipped and I'm sure the top 1% account for 99% of tips but still worth checking out if you're interested to see how a micro payment model can unfold.
Micro payments are an interesting idea, but they just have too many issues at the moment.
Like say, being awkward to set up with normal payment processors. Things like taxes and fees mean that genuinely 'cheap' articles (read, a couple of dollars or less) are prohibitively awkward or expensive to set up.
They also don't have popular appeal as a concept, since free competition is just too high. Yeah, some people will pay for 'quality'. But a lot of people will just find free alternatives regardless of how accurate or well written the content is. Or if they're like a lot of people now, they'll write off the sources charging for content as 'fake news' and 'propaganda'.
And it also doesn't really fix the clickbait issue. It makes it slightly less convenient for some people (since you can't trick the 1% of people that see through your shoddy reporting any more), but most people just want content based on their own biases. Even when the content is something they're paying for.
I mean, look at a print newspaper if you need proof of that. Over here in the UK, questionable quality tabloids and gossip rags like the Sun and the Daily Mail sell a whole lot better than the likes of the Telegraph or Guardian. If micro payments caught on as a concept, I suspect the same thing would happen there. People would buy poor quality articles that support their own views and don't challenge any of their beliefs.
Like say, being awkward to set up with normal payment processors. Things like taxes and fees mean that genuinely 'cheap' articles (read, a couple of dollars or less) are prohibitively awkward or expensive to set up.
They also don't have popular appeal as a concept, since free competition is just too high. Yeah, some people will pay for 'quality'. But a lot of people will just find free alternatives regardless of how accurate or well written the content is. Or if they're like a lot of people now, they'll write off the sources charging for content as 'fake news' and 'propaganda'.
And it also doesn't really fix the clickbait issue. It makes it slightly less convenient for some people (since you can't trick the 1% of people that see through your shoddy reporting any more), but most people just want content based on their own biases. Even when the content is something they're paying for.
I mean, look at a print newspaper if you need proof of that. Over here in the UK, questionable quality tabloids and gossip rags like the Sun and the Daily Mail sell a whole lot better than the likes of the Telegraph or Guardian. If micro payments caught on as a concept, I suspect the same thing would happen there. People would buy poor quality articles that support their own views and don't challenge any of their beliefs.
Just for your interest, I worked for a company that believed micro-payments was the way to pay for content on the internet in the late 1990s. It was called Qpass. The idea was that you could buy some credits, and use your Qpass at any of the sites in the network to pay for specific articles. Qpass wasn't able to make that model work at the time.
Qpass ended up pivoting to helping wireless carriers with flexible billing solutions for digital content.
[1] http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Qpass-sold-for-275...
Qpass ended up pivoting to helping wireless carriers with flexible billing solutions for digital content.
[1] http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Qpass-sold-for-275...
Are there any other stories about micropayments? I keep hearing how micropayments are going to change the internet, but here we are years later and no such service seems to be getting notability.
Plenty of stories around it, but none of them seem to be gaining widespread adoption.
The Brave browser is trying to integrate micropayments into the browser. It blocks ads by default and pays websites directly out of a monthly amount that the user configures.
https://brave.com/publishers.html
Flattr tries to do a very similar thing even earlier, except you have to click the "Flattr" button on websites that you visit that you want to fund. But still works with the same model where you set yourself a monthly budget and the system pays content producers directly for you.
https://flattr.com/
The Brave browser is trying to integrate micropayments into the browser. It blocks ads by default and pays websites directly out of a monthly amount that the user configures.
https://brave.com/publishers.html
Flattr tries to do a very similar thing even earlier, except you have to click the "Flattr" button on websites that you visit that you want to fund. But still works with the same model where you set yourself a monthly budget and the system pays content producers directly for you.
https://flattr.com/
Patreon seems to be serving at least a subset of that need.
I recall Readability doing something like that a few years ago. You paid a fee to them, then when you bookmarked a page, some would go to the producer. There were many flaws, not the least of which was that they were effectively forcing an opt-in on the part of content creators, but now that "readability" views that strip ads and extraneous content are built into browsers, it seems like the system had some merit.
I don't think that works. As someone said, how do you know before hand if it is high quality? You're going to read reviews of an article before you buy it and read it. Furthermore, news organizations need some sort stable business in order to, you know, run a a high quality news organization.
Yeah, this absolutely feels like a case where content is driven by business model as much as the technology itself.
Going subscription-first and focusing on quality content makes sense if you're trying to differentiate yourself. The concern, of course, is that subscription baiting is just one step removed from click baiting. It certainly cuts out the worst offenders, but there will always be pressure for media companies to cater to their audience.
Going subscription-first and focusing on quality content makes sense if you're trying to differentiate yourself. The concern, of course, is that subscription baiting is just one step removed from click baiting. It certainly cuts out the worst offenders, but there will always be pressure for media companies to cater to their audience.
The NYT is just can't shake the negative influence of their printing legacy with respect to their strategy.
The article quotes them as saying "Our future is much more digital than print". Are you kidding me, they still have to say things like this?
Of course the $1B in non-digital revenue is important and needs a steady hand to maximize it's contribution.
However their digital strategies have been so simplistic, so old fashioned, they just can't seem to catch up to what they really need to do.
The article quotes them as saying "Our future is much more digital than print". Are you kidding me, they still have to say things like this?
Of course the $1B in non-digital revenue is important and needs a steady hand to maximize it's contribution.
However their digital strategies have been so simplistic, so old fashioned, they just can't seem to catch up to what they really need to do.
Can you describe what you mean by simplistic and old fashioned in more detail?
And what do they really need to do?
For starters, the leadership has very little experience in innovating with tech product or business models. http://nytco.com/executives.
Another example is they claim reader engagement is important yet have made almost no progress on this front. Most articles don't even allow community comments. Rather than complaining about the quality of internet comments, they could use their influence to embrace new techniques that raise the bar for discourse.
Their selling of subscriptions is a mess. First the cheapest sub is $200/yr. They need to segment further and offer something at the psychologically important barrier of $9.95/month. This new tier could be made compelling with cannibalizing higher tiers.
The sell screen is a mess: https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8RX3Y.h.... It's confusing, not clean, has unnecessary messaging, and looks like it's never been through iterations of A/B testing to maximize conversions.
There are many more opportunities for improvement that are also not being taken up on. I wish I could meet with them for a couple days of strategy consulting.
Another example is they claim reader engagement is important yet have made almost no progress on this front. Most articles don't even allow community comments. Rather than complaining about the quality of internet comments, they could use their influence to embrace new techniques that raise the bar for discourse.
Their selling of subscriptions is a mess. First the cheapest sub is $200/yr. They need to segment further and offer something at the psychologically important barrier of $9.95/month. This new tier could be made compelling with cannibalizing higher tiers.
The sell screen is a mess: https://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8RX3Y.h.... It's confusing, not clean, has unnecessary messaging, and looks like it's never been through iterations of A/B testing to maximize conversions.
There are many more opportunities for improvement that are also not being taken up on. I wish I could meet with them for a couple days of strategy consulting.
The most important area to focus on is accuracy. There's a huge prevailence of rumors masquerading as news. Plus, there's an entire political party who's base has lost faith in the mainstream media. If the NYT starts taking shortcuts, they will fall into a dangerous trap and will lose a lot of readers.
It's just the one party, is it?
*rumors masquerading as news on other sites, not NYT
You don't get much more "fake news" than Jayson Blair or Judith Miller.
But I still do appreciate their journalism. Unlike some journalism outfits they do seem to try to get it right.
But I still do appreciate their journalism. Unlike some journalism outfits they do seem to try to get it right.
The difference is between organizations that admit when they're wrong by issuing retractions, firing people, etc. and organizations that allow known falsehoods to linger without comment.
2 disgraced journalists from 13 years ago is hardly indicative of a problem with the NYT now.
Apparently much of the memo talks about how much editing a Times story undergoes, a process that certainly existed 13 years ago. If all these editors didn't catch Blair, what value are they adding?
Editors at newspapers may well ask hard questions about how well sourced an article is--as well as making lots of other changes to improve rigor and readability. But, as in the day-to-day operations of many professions, they tend to assume that the journalists aren't actively lying about things.
The op-ed and opinion pages of the NYT have their fair share of rumor & falsehoods
e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-ca...
exposed here http://www.redstate.com/mickeywhite2/2016/12/16/new-york-tim...
e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/opinion/liberal-zionism-i...
exposed here http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/220635/why-did-the-new-york-...
I won't make a big list, and it seems are subjects are somewhat partisan, my comment here is not. What I mean to say is that rumor is equally at home on the NYT website as anywhere else.
e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-ca...
exposed here http://www.redstate.com/mickeywhite2/2016/12/16/new-york-tim...
e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/opinion/liberal-zionism-i...
exposed here http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/220635/why-did-the-new-york-...
I won't make a big list, and it seems are subjects are somewhat partisan, my comment here is not. What I mean to say is that rumor is equally at home on the NYT website as anywhere else.
I thought it was understood that Op-Eds were written by mostly external contributors with agendas and hence why they should be treated differently than regular articles by the readers.
They also printed this letter by Putin: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-cau...
Doesn't mean they endorse the letter and it's content.
And it seems like it would be wrong for them to be editing the content.
They also printed this letter by Putin: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-cau...
Doesn't mean they endorse the letter and it's content.
And it seems like it would be wrong for them to be editing the content.
Really? Equally?
I'd like to see your defense of the claim you're implying, which is that the New York Times publishes mere "rumor and falsehoods" with anything approaching the frequency of Breitbart, Fox News, or even CNN.
And while a news outlet surely should have some standards regarding the factual assertions made in the editorials they publish, a few highly debatable distortions is not the same thing as running an entire news outlet largely on misinformation masquerading as news.
I'd like to see your defense of the claim you're implying, which is that the New York Times publishes mere "rumor and falsehoods" with anything approaching the frequency of Breitbart, Fox News, or even CNN.
And while a news outlet surely should have some standards regarding the factual assertions made in the editorials they publish, a few highly debatable distortions is not the same thing as running an entire news outlet largely on misinformation masquerading as news.
NY Times is as liberal as Fox is conservative. Fox has conservative commentators, just as NY Times has liberal op-ed. Fox News news coverage has conservative slant, just as NY Times news coverage has liberal slant. Also, I have seen no evidence that Fox News news coverage trafficks in falsehood. Sure, Fox News commentators traffick in falsehood--as do Times commentators; just read Paul Krugman.
I read the Times every day but I have no illusion about its editorial slant; however it is starting to seem to me that many Fox News viewers know more about the Times than the Times readers know about Fox News because Times readers believe everything negative they have heard about Fox News without actually watching it.
I read the Times every day but I have no illusion about its editorial slant; however it is starting to seem to me that many Fox News viewers know more about the Times than the Times readers know about Fox News because Times readers believe everything negative they have heard about Fox News without actually watching it.
To say you have no examples is to simply stick your fingers in your ears. Many spring to mind, including "no-go zones" in Europe controlled by muslims, and their recent reporting on the amount of food stamps believed lost to fraud. They had to retract both stories on air.
Fox News viewers are consistently the least-well-informed of Americans in surveys. It would be difficult to dismiss that fact as simple coincidence.
Fox News viewers are consistently the least-well-informed of Americans in surveys. It would be difficult to dismiss that fact as simple coincidence.
That's confirmation bias in a nutshell. I read Paul Krugman for being mostly correct about things economic (and often political) for the past 17+ years. I can't say the same about FOX News commentators, which I watched regularly from 1999 through 2010 - most of the opinion shows were red meat nonsense or outright falsehoods. That said the news operation is fairly straight. This isn't dissimilar from the WSJ editorial pages, which is to me mostly plutocratic lunacy, even though they have a very solid news operation. The Times I view similarly, though I am finding WaPo to be more thorough the past few years.
I read Paul Krugman for being mostly correct about things economic (and often political) for the past 17+ years.
Except he's not. Krugman is no longer an economist, he's a commentator. And with that comes his slant. From the "Mises Wiki" [1]
The Economist cites critics of Krugman stating that "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument". In addition, a website (titled "Lying in Ponds") that tracks partisanship among public intellectuals rated Krugman second in the overall partisan slant of his columns, behind only Ann Coulter ... The Economist magazine supported the finding, noting the vast majority of Krugman's columns feature attacks on Republicans and almost none criticize Democrats, making him "a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left
As he moved from Nobel-winning economist to the political realm, he also left behind many of his economically sound ideas. For example [2]
Would cutting the minimum wage raise employment? - New York Times, Dec 16, 2009
[1] The site isn't working for me, so I can't get a link
[2] http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/06/paul_krugman...
Except he's not. Krugman is no longer an economist, he's a commentator. And with that comes his slant. From the "Mises Wiki" [1]
The Economist cites critics of Krugman stating that "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument". In addition, a website (titled "Lying in Ponds") that tracks partisanship among public intellectuals rated Krugman second in the overall partisan slant of his columns, behind only Ann Coulter ... The Economist magazine supported the finding, noting the vast majority of Krugman's columns feature attacks on Republicans and almost none criticize Democrats, making him "a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left
As he moved from Nobel-winning economist to the political realm, he also left behind many of his economically sound ideas. For example [2]
Would cutting the minimum wage raise employment? - New York Times, Dec 16, 2009
...the belief that lower wages would raise overall employment rests on a
fallacy of composition. In reality, reducing wages would at best do nothing
for employment; more likely it would actually be contractionary.
Training touted to close widening wage gap - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 8A - Feb 6, 1996 Stanford University economist Paul Krugman, however, said raising the
minimum wage and lowering barriers to union organization would carry a
trade-off --- increased unemployment.
...Deficits and interest rates - New York Times, Aug 14, 2009 It turns out that there's a strong correlation between budget deficits
and interest rates - namely, when deficits are high, interest rates are
low ... On reflection, it's obvious why...
A fiscal train wreck - New York Times, Mar 11, 2003 But we're looking at a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates
sky-high. A leading economist recently summed up one reason why:
"When the government reduces saving by running a budget deficit,
the interest rate rises."
[1] The site isn't working for me, so I can't get a link
[2] http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/06/paul_krugman...
OK. So Paul Krugman's positions have - maybe - changed on a handful of topics. Let's set aside the significant possibility that he is at least as likely to be right the second time on these topics than the first. But to get at GP's point, who would you say is Paul Krugman's closest competition at Fox News when it comes to economic expertise, and accurateness of his or her economic predictions? ...Neil Cavuto?
I'm not how we can arrive at an objective number. But it certainly happens with some frequency. See, for example, the one I posted just above:
Consider the recent misleading article about economists' feelings about market-based education. Scott Alexander points out what it seems to me can only be a deliberately-engineered effort to mislead:
By leaving it at “only a third of economists support vouchers”, the article implies that there is an economic consensus against the policy. Heck, it more than implies it – its title is “Free Market For Education: Economists Generally Don’t Buy It”. But its own source suggests that, of economists who have an opinion, a large majority are pro-voucher.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economist...
Consider the recent misleading article about economists' feelings about market-based education. Scott Alexander points out what it seems to me can only be a deliberately-engineered effort to mislead:
By leaving it at “only a third of economists support vouchers”, the article implies that there is an economic consensus against the policy. Heck, it more than implies it – its title is “Free Market For Education: Economists Generally Don’t Buy It”. But its own source suggests that, of economists who have an opinion, a large majority are pro-voucher.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economist...
This is another case of bizarre false equivalency. On the one hand, I can see why you would quibble with the New York Times' wording here. B y saying that only a third agree, they imply (though weakly, I think, that two thirds disagree). But is this really in the same league as, e.g.,: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/03/dortmund-mob-atta...
I might be with you if your claim was just that the New York Times sometimes exhibits a liberal slant. And your citation would provide a perfectly defensible case in point. But to defend the claim that the New York Times is in the same league as Breitbart? Absurd.
I might be with you if your claim was just that the New York Times sometimes exhibits a liberal slant. And your citation would provide a perfectly defensible case in point. But to defend the claim that the New York Times is in the same league as Breitbart? Absurd.
Have you any suggestions about how we might quantify this for a meaningful comparison? I don't.
Well, I guess it's obvious how one could do this. Read everything that both have published in the last 18 months, and rate each on a scale from "completely true" to "makes a few misleading claims about relatively unimportant issues" to "makes a few misleading claims about important issues," to "blatantly reports misinformation about events in the world that never occurred, but would be significant if they had, in a way likely calculated to inflame the passions of its readers." (And possibly some intermediate scores to differentiate between falsehoods published as hard news, and falsehoods that are discussed within editorials.)
But I don't have the time to do that. And frankly, I don't have to in order to make a "meaningful comparison." I read the New York Times (and a few other outlets) every day, so I have a good sense of how much nonsense they publish. (I admit that I probably don't detect all of it, but I also don't read it completely uncritically.) And while I don't read/watch Fox News or Breitbart regularly, I look at them from time to time. One doesn't need to resort to quantification to see the difference.
If it were a close question it might be necessary to have a more robust methodology. But it isn't. Fox News, and especially Bretibart, are clearly much much worse.
But I don't have the time to do that. And frankly, I don't have to in order to make a "meaningful comparison." I read the New York Times (and a few other outlets) every day, so I have a good sense of how much nonsense they publish. (I admit that I probably don't detect all of it, but I also don't read it completely uncritically.) And while I don't read/watch Fox News or Breitbart regularly, I look at them from time to time. One doesn't need to resort to quantification to see the difference.
If it were a close question it might be necessary to have a more robust methodology. But it isn't. Fox News, and especially Bretibart, are clearly much much worse.
In terms of accuracy, you'd walk away from 2016 far less confused about the world reading Breitbart than the NYT.
I made a fantastic return betting against The Upshot.
I made a fantastic return betting against The Upshot.
> In terms of accuracy, you'd walk away from 2016 far less confused about the world reading Breitbart than the NYT.
No, you'd walk away much more angry about all kinds of things, including Hillary's satanic rituals and pizza parlour pedophile ring, but still be very confused.
Baring one thing. Who your next president is. And who says that's not due to a lot of very confused people?
No, you'd walk away much more angry about all kinds of things, including Hillary's satanic rituals and pizza parlour pedophile ring, but still be very confused.
Baring one thing. Who your next president is. And who says that's not due to a lot of very confused people?
Serious question: Do you read Breitbart, do you know this to be true? I mean, I think it's fairly safe to assume it's a bit of a rag, but wondering if that actually goes beyond the typical conservative "slant" and well into knowingly presenting fake news as fact as you seem to be saying.
Oh yes, I read, and I read what Bannon himself says is the most important part, which are the comments and both go into the pile as, at best, disgusting and ignorant racist drivel and more accurately as smug inane rantings.
Would you have any examples of that? Sorry I don't know much about Breitbart. "Racism" has kind of lost its meaning nowadays.
I'm not sure how that's the case. With Breitbart you will end up with a view that, ironically given the parent here, holds there are vast Zionist conspiracies at work on our world. If you mean the election outcome, I'm not sure it was so much a "true prediction" as much as something like a stopped watch being right.
What do you think that first "exposed" article concludes? I don't think there is any doubt as to the fact that Christopher Suprun was an electoral college elector from the state of Texas, and that he did not cast his vote for Trump.
That's what I got out of it too. I don't think the important issue was whether he was a hero on that day but whether he was, in fact, a faithless elector that viewed electing a belligerent vulgarian as president to be a rather negative thing.
Furthermore, what about Trumps oft repeated claims of "losing so many friends on 9/11" and after pressed, decided to not ever mention it again. Perhaps not stolen valor but stolen sympathy nonetheless.
Furthermore, what about Trumps oft repeated claims of "losing so many friends on 9/11" and after pressed, decided to not ever mention it again. Perhaps not stolen valor but stolen sympathy nonetheless.
I'm not trying to stoke the partisan fires, I'm saying that saying "NYT doesn't publish rumours" is demonstratably false.
I acknowledge they are op-ed and opinion pieces.
I don't have the wherewithall to do massive in-depth research on the subject.
I acknowledge they are op-ed and opinion pieces.
I don't have the wherewithall to do massive in-depth research on the subject.
Their supposedly-factual section has its share as well. Consider the recent misleading article about economists' feelings about market-based education. Scott Alexander points out what it seems to me can only be a deliberately-engineered effort to mislead:
By leaving it at “only a third of economists support vouchers”, the article implies that there is an economic consensus against the policy. Heck, it more than implies it – its title is “Free Market For Education: Economists Generally Don’t Buy It”. But its own source suggests that, of economists who have an opinion, a large majority are pro-voucher.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economist...
By leaving it at “only a third of economists support vouchers”, the article implies that there is an economic consensus against the policy. Heck, it more than implies it – its title is “Free Market For Education: Economists Generally Don’t Buy It”. But its own source suggests that, of economists who have an opinion, a large majority are pro-voucher.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/12/30/contra-nyt-on-economist...
Those are both opinion pieces, not NYT journalism proper.
But that party's base has lost faith in the media precisely because it reported accurately and did not set forth a bunch of propaganda about a return to the utopia of 1950s.
What do you even mean? NYT has a price sheet for sponsered content/native ads. If you have the funds, you can put any "fake news" you want in the NYT. Much more up front about it than back in the day.
All "news" is fake to some degree or another, it is a fantasy to think otherwise.
All "news" is fake to some degree or another, it is a fantasy to think otherwise.
What a load of garbage. If you're talking about what I think you are, you're mentioning those half/full page ads that are marked "advertisement" and have slightly different fonts than the normal news. It's hardly a conspiracy theory to allow Trump to buy reporters.
I remember thinking it was odd that for the last year or so I've been getting bombarded with mail and advertising from ZipRecruiter...and then magically they have a major quote in a NYT piece pre-election around the state of the job market.
This is a trend I've noticed: because everything is on a scale then people just feel justified to basically pick whatever they want. Because its impossible to say anything with certainty, everything can be given equal consideration?
You can allow for nuance and uncertainty without using faith-based logic for news, science does a pretty good job of it and gives a good framework for best-guess judgements.
Just because everything is "fake" to some extent doesn't excuse lazy, confirmation-biased opinions.
You can allow for nuance and uncertainty without using faith-based logic for news, science does a pretty good job of it and gives a good framework for best-guess judgements.
Just because everything is "fake" to some extent doesn't excuse lazy, confirmation-biased opinions.
What do you mean all news is fake to so degree? That just sounds like Thiel's contrarianism or just an attempt at being provocative, or is it some sort epistemological claim?
> The report, Mr. Leonhardt said, was written for The Times newsroom, but it could end up providing guidance for other news organizations facing similar challenges. The company is also releasing the report publicly.
This is so non business like (and the way things seem to be in today's day and age). You take your hard work and give it away for free to your competition. Now you could argue that if others do the same it's good for you in some way (more people who buy print papers means more business for all print papers) but for some reason I don't think that's the case.
Remembering all of the free publicity that newspapers gave the Internet back in the mid 90's and further down. Not realizing exactly how that would impact their business model and not seeing it as a threat in any way.
This is so non business like (and the way things seem to be in today's day and age). You take your hard work and give it away for free to your competition. Now you could argue that if others do the same it's good for you in some way (more people who buy print papers means more business for all print papers) but for some reason I don't think that's the case.
Remembering all of the free publicity that newspapers gave the Internet back in the mid 90's and further down. Not realizing exactly how that would impact their business model and not seeing it as a threat in any way.
Would poorer people have access to non-fake news? Or would they be force to read/consume fake-but-free news?
The larger problem is that many people can't differentiate between the two, and will be drawn to fake news if the message appeals to them (confirmation bias).
Agree with you observation.
I think this just makes things even worse.
Real news cost $ to produce. If publishers charge for access to real news, then what we are left with by default is the fake "news" that is so cheap to produce that it can be ad supported (or serves some other end that makes it worthwhile).
I think this just makes things even worse.
Real news cost $ to produce. If publishers charge for access to real news, then what we are left with by default is the fake "news" that is so cheap to produce that it can be ad supported (or serves some other end that makes it worthwhile).
> Would poorer people have access to non-fake news? Or would they be force to read/consume fake-but-free news?
A critical problem. The focus needs to be on providing 'real' news more than dealing with the fake stuff. Also consider:
1) Probably the vast majority of people online and who will be online, including in many poor countries, cannot afford a NY Times subscription. People who through the miracle of the Internet would now have access to objective, top-notch news coverage will now be shut out.
2) Parties who want to spread propaganda are the ones who would be willing to finance free publications.
3) Will the NY Times be part of the online conversation if only a small subset of the online population can read it?
I don't know a better way for them to fund themselves, but it's a serious blow to the public and their knowledge of the world.
A critical problem. The focus needs to be on providing 'real' news more than dealing with the fake stuff. Also consider:
1) Probably the vast majority of people online and who will be online, including in many poor countries, cannot afford a NY Times subscription. People who through the miracle of the Internet would now have access to objective, top-notch news coverage will now be shut out.
2) Parties who want to spread propaganda are the ones who would be willing to finance free publications.
3) Will the NY Times be part of the online conversation if only a small subset of the online population can read it?
I don't know a better way for them to fund themselves, but it's a serious blow to the public and their knowledge of the world.
This strikes me as a return to the world as it was. The world of "free content" is a relatively new one, 20 years or so? Before that, you paid for a paper if you wanted one. Of course, before that you didn't have "free fake" news available so readily.
Just a brainstorm, but perhaps this is a problem Facebook as the power to address? They want to get into providing content, and they have the resources.
And not to toot my own horn here, but I work for a mid-sized library (metro of about 200,000) and we subscribe to every regional newspaper. If someone wants to be better informed, the resources exist.
Just a brainstorm, but perhaps this is a problem Facebook as the power to address? They want to get into providing content, and they have the resources.
And not to toot my own horn here, but I work for a mid-sized library (metro of about 200,000) and we subscribe to every regional newspaper. If someone wants to be better informed, the resources exist.
> not to toot my own horn here, but I work for a mid-sized library (metro of about 200,000) and we subscribe to every regional newspaper. If someone wants to be better informed, the resources exist.
Since you decided to toot, you open yourself to questions: Can local citizens read those newspapers online? Traveling to a building and reading yesterday's news on paper is not realistic and at this point it's an anachronism.
Since you decided to toot, you open yourself to questions: Can local citizens read those newspapers online? Traveling to a building and reading yesterday's news on paper is not realistic and at this point it's an anachronism.
Understandable, but I guess I was framing it in terms of "the way it used to be". Picking up a paper and reading yesterday's news was the method of delivery for years. If the shift is to put the best news behind a paywall, it seems preferable to read "real" news on paper than fake news.
But to answer your direct question, no, they cannot. Our local paper is fairly stubborn about its monitization (refusing to digitize back issues in major library databases such as Proquest), so I'm not optimistic.
But to answer your direct question, no, they cannot. Our local paper is fairly stubborn about its monitization (refusing to digitize back issues in major library databases such as Proquest), so I'm not optimistic.
My take away from this article is that they acknowledge that a lot of trouble lies ahead. Ironically, they don't have the courage to state their current state in a more factual manner. Instead they offer some vague statements and occasionally some outdated PR-speak
> “The world is changing really rapidly,” David Leonhardt, a columnist who led the group’s work, said in an interview. “We have to keep up, and even get ahead of it.”
> In a note to the newsroom, Mr. Baquet and Joe Kahn, The Times’s managing editor, endorsed the group’s recommendations, saying they outlined an “opportunity we have to produce an even more vital, more authoritative, more indispensable[0]’’ news report.
Wouldn't it be a great ad for their product if they were demonstrating that it is possible for the Times to even report about themselves in a blunt, factual manner? While some admissions are there the overall article is quite humble-bragish.
[0] more indispensable - what does that even mean?
> “The world is changing really rapidly,” David Leonhardt, a columnist who led the group’s work, said in an interview. “We have to keep up, and even get ahead of it.”
> In a note to the newsroom, Mr. Baquet and Joe Kahn, The Times’s managing editor, endorsed the group’s recommendations, saying they outlined an “opportunity we have to produce an even more vital, more authoritative, more indispensable[0]’’ news report.
Wouldn't it be a great ad for their product if they were demonstrating that it is possible for the Times to even report about themselves in a blunt, factual manner? While some admissions are there the overall article is quite humble-bragish.
[0] more indispensable - what does that even mean?
The Times is one of the most successful papers at weathering the digital transition. As more people get their news online it's the handful of mega-papers that profit at the expense of local and regional ones.
If you want to read gloom-and-doom about the newspaper industry there is plenty of that too.
If you want to read gloom-and-doom about the newspaper industry there is plenty of that too.
The internal report itself is interesting for a few reasons:
https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/
1) The graphic on top doesn't show a laptop or desktop.
2) " On a per-dollar basis, our freelance-written journalism attracts a larger audience on average than our staff-written journalism."
Wow. Hopefully, they have automated internal metrics to track this.
3) " Today, department heads and other coverage leaders must organize much of their day around print rhythms even as they find themselves gravitating toward digital journalism. The current setup is holding back our ability to make further digital changes, and it is also starting to rob the print newspaper of the attention it needs to become even better."
Until the focus is changed to digital first, I am unsure how much more they can grow.
I still marvel at how it is cheaper for me to get a NY Times Sunday paper delivery with digital access halfway across the country than it is for me to get just the digital access. lol
https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/
1) The graphic on top doesn't show a laptop or desktop.
2) " On a per-dollar basis, our freelance-written journalism attracts a larger audience on average than our staff-written journalism."
Wow. Hopefully, they have automated internal metrics to track this.
3) " Today, department heads and other coverage leaders must organize much of their day around print rhythms even as they find themselves gravitating toward digital journalism. The current setup is holding back our ability to make further digital changes, and it is also starting to rob the print newspaper of the attention it needs to become even better."
Until the focus is changed to digital first, I am unsure how much more they can grow.
I still marvel at how it is cheaper for me to get a NY Times Sunday paper delivery with digital access halfway across the country than it is for me to get just the digital access. lol
On point 1, editors at the NYT have previously said publicly that mobile is how they envision readers will primarily consume stories. (I heard this from their Inside The Times podcasts.) It may have been been executive editor Dean Baquet who said this. I believe they said that their internal metrics show mobile already is how most people consume their stories.
You can see this reflected in some new design decisions. On the front page, some stories have a bulleted list of points rather than multiple paragraphs for the teaser. And at the top of some stories, they have a bulleted list of main points
You can see this reflected in some new design decisions. On the front page, some stories have a bulleted list of points rather than multiple paragraphs for the teaser. And at the top of some stories, they have a bulleted list of main points
Re: 2, Does the freelance-written material attract more readers, cost less, or both? The statements in the report are ambiguous.
If you drop all staff writers, what's your differentiator (I guess, maybe in editorial)? Assuming what they're saying is true, could staff writers be a loss-leader to keep that brand and core audience used to reach the wider readers?
This is anecdotal, but just today I cancelled my print subscription to the NYTimes because they kept messing up the delivery (not showing up, going to the wrong house)... and every time I contacted their customer service reps (who were obviously outsourced) they had absolutely no power to do anything about it.
I wonder how much the simple things like "taking care of your customers" factors into their business struggles. (Probably "not much", but just seemed strange to me that they'd drop the ball like that for honest-to-goodness paying customers).
I wonder how much the simple things like "taking care of your customers" factors into their business struggles. (Probably "not much", but just seemed strange to me that they'd drop the ball like that for honest-to-goodness paying customers).
Hardly makes the Times unique though; how many businesses don't operate that way now?
>but just seemed so strange to me that they'd drop the ball so much on the kind of customer they should be very much desiring
Don't get me wrong, I'd have done the same, but:
What makes you think you're such a desirable customer? What sort of effort did you put into solving the problem? I can easily imagine a scenario where the delivery guy is so far removed form the news business (doesn't care a wink), that it would be night impossible to ensure the paper "gets there" without incurring costs beyond your subscription fee and satisfaction. This is reality.
Don't get me wrong, I'd have done the same, but:
What makes you think you're such a desirable customer? What sort of effort did you put into solving the problem? I can easily imagine a scenario where the delivery guy is so far removed form the news business (doesn't care a wink), that it would be night impossible to ensure the paper "gets there" without incurring costs beyond your subscription fee and satisfaction. This is reality.
I was a desirable customer because I was paying for their most expensive offering (delivery of the print paper, as opposed to just digital access).
And I'm baffled by the rest of your response... What sort of effort am I supposed to put into solving their logistics problem?? Other than repeatedly telling their customer service people about the issue, how or why would I investigate any further?
(Honestly I would have loved to get in touch with the actual delivery company in my area to ask them if they have the wrong address or can't find the house or something... but this is one of the many ways in which the customer service reps could not help me because they either didn't know or wouldn't tell me who the delivery company was!)
I think perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote or think I'm actually a delivery person?
And I'm baffled by the rest of your response... What sort of effort am I supposed to put into solving their logistics problem?? Other than repeatedly telling their customer service people about the issue, how or why would I investigate any further?
(Honestly I would have loved to get in touch with the actual delivery company in my area to ask them if they have the wrong address or can't find the house or something... but this is one of the many ways in which the customer service reps could not help me because they either didn't know or wouldn't tell me who the delivery company was!)
I think perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote or think I'm actually a delivery person?
RE: delivery: You get what the company pays for. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/01/09/delivering-pape...
> “I have found myself so exhausted, literally sitting in someone’s driveway, door open, and I’ll wake up and say, ‘Where the hell am I?’” he said. “I fell asleep right in my car. It might be 30 seconds and it might be 10 minutes.”
> “I have found myself so exhausted, literally sitting in someone’s driveway, door open, and I’ll wake up and say, ‘Where the hell am I?’” he said. “I fell asleep right in my car. It might be 30 seconds and it might be 10 minutes.”
>The report coincides with a series of broader changes at The Times, including a reimagining of the print newspaper; an aggressive international expansion; a heightened emphasis on graphics, video, virtual reality and podcasts; the $30-million purchase...
God, please no. Don't invest heavily in VR for news reporting. I agree with reducing multiple layers of copy editing for a digitally focused company, but VR is a misdirection of funds to get the facts straight. Or, maybe that was just a buzzword that didn't get edited out of the final press release.
God, please no. Don't invest heavily in VR for news reporting. I agree with reducing multiple layers of copy editing for a digitally focused company, but VR is a misdirection of funds to get the facts straight. Or, maybe that was just a buzzword that didn't get edited out of the final press release.
The Times has done a number of features that were heavy on audio-visual elements and were very well received, so it's not surprising that they'd be interested in VR.
Here's an example: http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-s...
Here's an example: http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/10/27/south-china-s...
An investment in VR might be premature because of the immaturity of the technology, but assuming that VR tech does grow to be commonplace, wouldn't e.g. immersive VR video shot in a warzone be more affecting than still images or 2D video when communicating the scale of atrocity/warfare/protests to the viewers back home?
That's actually one of their current VR stories. "The Fight for Falluja": https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/14/magazine/figh...
Personally, I used the cardboard VR thing with my iPhone 6 to watch a short during the election. I was underwhelmed by the experience.
Personally, I used the cardboard VR thing with my iPhone 6 to watch a short during the election. I was underwhelmed by the experience.
Why discount VR so readily?
Seems that as VR becomes more accessible it would be a phenomenal way at delivering news and in-depth stories. VR can do a lot in the way of empathy and communicating things which the printed word—or even 2D video—never can. Similar to how the television influenced the standard news cycle and social media challenged it further.
Some of the best news stories from this year have been immersive 360 videos published by The Times, imo.
Seems that as VR becomes more accessible it would be a phenomenal way at delivering news and in-depth stories. VR can do a lot in the way of empathy and communicating things which the printed word—or even 2D video—never can. Similar to how the television influenced the standard news cycle and social media challenged it further.
Some of the best news stories from this year have been immersive 360 videos published by The Times, imo.
If the whole point is to make the Times more efficient and ultimately profitable and self-sustaining, VR isn't going to bring home the bacon any time soon for them. Will it eventually? Maybe. But you're not going to see print (or TV) ad dollars suddenly flow into VR that is used (i.e. owned or simply tried once) by a small fraction of the U.S. population.
This kind of study is essentially a recommendation for layoffs in the newsroom and investments in other areas. Having worked at 3 magazines, I don't personally believe the current VR market is big enough to be a viable source of persistent and growing revenue for them to pay salaries. I do think there is an opportunity on long-term, expensive-to-produce feature stories where VR is offered more as a package deal to an advertiser rather than the sole output format of the report. That aligns an advertiser with innovation, even if those that actually experience it is statistically small. But those types of sales deals are expensive tactical one-offs, not strategic plans. Not yet, anyway.
This kind of study is essentially a recommendation for layoffs in the newsroom and investments in other areas. Having worked at 3 magazines, I don't personally believe the current VR market is big enough to be a viable source of persistent and growing revenue for them to pay salaries. I do think there is an opportunity on long-term, expensive-to-produce feature stories where VR is offered more as a package deal to an advertiser rather than the sole output format of the report. That aligns an advertiser with innovation, even if those that actually experience it is statistically small. But those types of sales deals are expensive tactical one-offs, not strategic plans. Not yet, anyway.
They have a VR app and produce some of the best content for cardboard, in my opinion.
But all that aside, recreating print on the web isn't an answer, in my opinion. Leveraging what makes the platform unique[0] will be what ultimately separates some of the billions (trillions?) of written words on the web.
[0]: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunne...
But all that aside, recreating print on the web isn't an answer, in my opinion. Leveraging what makes the platform unique[0] will be what ultimately separates some of the billions (trillions?) of written words on the web.
[0]: http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow-fall/#/?part=tunne...
VR may still be early (if you're really cynical you could say it still might take 5-10 years for it to achieve mainstream popularity) but it's here.
You either start experimenting and learning and adapt to the new medium or you'll be replaced by someone else who will.
You either start experimenting and learning and adapt to the new medium or you'll be replaced by someone else who will.
No, I believe that's a real thing. I've heard them talk about investing in VR on their Inside The Times podcast.
One possible outcome is more than one NYT, for the laid off workers to join some other organization and make it better, I suppose. I think it's very possible a few of those who just contribute "low-value line editing" would do much more if they were just given the chance.
This report started well before the real meat of the recent election and I think it really shows some lack of appreciation of what's become pretty clear in the last few months, is a rather spectacular failure of "the Web" and the ridiculously over-hyped "digital journalism" as means of providing people realistic information about people, events, policies and other things that fall under the umbrella of "news."
As much as many of us have maligned newspapers as "legacy," "dead tree," or "rags," or as people that just don't "get" technology, all we have built, from news perspective, is a world wide network spreading silos of disinformation at the rate of terabytes of nonsense per day.
I think if anything, for me, we have seen that the legacy dead tree rags are far more valuable to an individual, a nation, and really the world, than blog engines and social networks. Newspapers, as with anything, have their faults but are much more preferable to "choose your own propaganda" aggregators or Alex Jones meme factories.
So, please, don't give the "visual storytellers" a "primary role." Let's get to real investigative journalism and journalism itself. It's not the medium; it's the content.
As much as many of us have maligned newspapers as "legacy," "dead tree," or "rags," or as people that just don't "get" technology, all we have built, from news perspective, is a world wide network spreading silos of disinformation at the rate of terabytes of nonsense per day.
I think if anything, for me, we have seen that the legacy dead tree rags are far more valuable to an individual, a nation, and really the world, than blog engines and social networks. Newspapers, as with anything, have their faults but are much more preferable to "choose your own propaganda" aggregators or Alex Jones meme factories.
So, please, don't give the "visual storytellers" a "primary role." Let's get to real investigative journalism and journalism itself. It's not the medium; it's the content.
An interesting contextual point from 2009 that highlights what an odd situation this is:
Printing The NYT Costs Twice As Much As Sending Every Subscriber A Free Kindle
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/printing-the-nyt-costs...
Also, their back of the envelope calculations were done presuming that a Kindle cost $359.
Printing The NYT Costs Twice As Much As Sending Every Subscriber A Free Kindle
http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/printing-the-nyt-costs...
Also, their back of the envelope calculations were done presuming that a Kindle cost $359.
I find it interesting that the report is full of renderings of NYTimes stories on phones.
I wonder what the bounce rate is among mobile readers - that is, the percentage of readers who read less than 5% or so of a given news story.
I suspect that it's very high. For me, it takes a significant chunk of radio-silence (that is, no calls, text, social media updates, app alerts, no need for map directions, etc.) combined with an equally significant amount of willpower (i.e. not proactively checking in on any of the above) to read an informative ~1000 word story on my phone.
The NYTimes might be the highest quality content I skim online, but really, that's what I do 95% of the time at my desk and close to 100% on a mobile device: skim. I'm pretty sure devices that are concurrently in use for critical communication and/or work functions are awful places to try to engage readers and convey critical, often nuanced information.
Print happens to be great for that. And while I'm not holding my breath, the fact that vinyl records are about to be a billion dollar industry does suggest that old good things can make a comeback.
I wonder what the bounce rate is among mobile readers - that is, the percentage of readers who read less than 5% or so of a given news story.
I suspect that it's very high. For me, it takes a significant chunk of radio-silence (that is, no calls, text, social media updates, app alerts, no need for map directions, etc.) combined with an equally significant amount of willpower (i.e. not proactively checking in on any of the above) to read an informative ~1000 word story on my phone.
The NYTimes might be the highest quality content I skim online, but really, that's what I do 95% of the time at my desk and close to 100% on a mobile device: skim. I'm pretty sure devices that are concurrently in use for critical communication and/or work functions are awful places to try to engage readers and convey critical, often nuanced information.
Print happens to be great for that. And while I'm not holding my breath, the fact that vinyl records are about to be a billion dollar industry does suggest that old good things can make a comeback.
I subscribe to both the WSJ and NYT and find that my bounce rate is probably pretty high. But I tend to save articles that are interesting and I might want to read later on my device. I'll later read the article on my iPad or laptop. I can't stand reading a long piece on a small screen.
The NYT have conducted internal investigations like this on a few occasions in my memory. I don't have specific examples right in front of me, but I vaguely recall reading of several other major internal reviews, all of them with the intention of being 100% honest, no matter what they uncover, to be sure, since 2007. Interestingly, I can't think of a single time where the conclusion was simply the quality of their editorial discretion, i.e. stories they cover, resisting telling a story according to an already familiar, established narrative, etc.
Many people on HN are probably familiar with a similar design pattern: hiring consultants to either a.) tell you something you already know or b.) support a competing position with data points from an outside source. In fact, I vaguely recall the outcome of these internal investigations being something to the effect of needing to ramp up in the digital age with more multi-media, fancier toys, and things of that nature.
I would argue that just as necessary as streamlining the editorial process to compete with online-only new sources, like Buzz Feed, would be to understand their major failings and differentiate themselves from their competitors by owning up to them with action. I'm in no way an expert on the subject, just a reader like anyone else, but off the top of my head I can remember the misreporting of the evidence behind the need to invade Iraq, and failing to report NSA mass-surveilinance before George Bush's reelection - the same revelations that came back years later from Snowden (along with more).
Granted, they did own up to these failings, and others no doubt, but what editorial changes have been made? Why aren't the actual people who choose what news gets reported and how the facts are presented ever included as part of the outcomes of these reports? If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's for the same reason as when a consultant is brought on to figure out how to tease out data points in support of justifying some new (and bold) initiative to, say, dockerize a division's infrastructure vs. actually getting to the bottom of why the reliable tooling of yesteryear are slowing development and deployment down. You get praise for doing things, and so you pay someone to give you a path towards justifying that. In many cases, I see a parallel between the reporters who lead this investigation and the ones from the NYT who are out there working in the field: to them the truth is all the news that's fit for their editors to print.
Many people on HN are probably familiar with a similar design pattern: hiring consultants to either a.) tell you something you already know or b.) support a competing position with data points from an outside source. In fact, I vaguely recall the outcome of these internal investigations being something to the effect of needing to ramp up in the digital age with more multi-media, fancier toys, and things of that nature.
I would argue that just as necessary as streamlining the editorial process to compete with online-only new sources, like Buzz Feed, would be to understand their major failings and differentiate themselves from their competitors by owning up to them with action. I'm in no way an expert on the subject, just a reader like anyone else, but off the top of my head I can remember the misreporting of the evidence behind the need to invade Iraq, and failing to report NSA mass-surveilinance before George Bush's reelection - the same revelations that came back years later from Snowden (along with more).
Granted, they did own up to these failings, and others no doubt, but what editorial changes have been made? Why aren't the actual people who choose what news gets reported and how the facts are presented ever included as part of the outcomes of these reports? If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's for the same reason as when a consultant is brought on to figure out how to tease out data points in support of justifying some new (and bold) initiative to, say, dockerize a division's infrastructure vs. actually getting to the bottom of why the reliable tooling of yesteryear are slowing development and deployment down. You get praise for doing things, and so you pay someone to give you a path towards justifying that. In many cases, I see a parallel between the reporters who lead this investigation and the ones from the NYT who are out there working in the field: to them the truth is all the news that's fit for their editors to print.
> Many people on HN are probably familiar with a similar design pattern: hiring consultants ...
The two major reviews I'm aware of, including this one, were conducted internally.
The two major reviews I'm aware of, including this one, were conducted internally.
> The two major reviews I'm aware of, including this one, were conducted internally.
Good point, I wasn't very clear. For what it's worth, I know that they're exactly the same, but I should have pointed that wasn't the main thrust of my point. I was trying more to say "Hiring people to tell you what you want to hear". Probably not the most helpful analogy in retrospect.
I should point out now that I don't disagree with their conclusions either, but was arguing rather that they could have been made more comprehensive by examining the editorial discretion.
Good point, I wasn't very clear. For what it's worth, I know that they're exactly the same, but I should have pointed that wasn't the main thrust of my point. I was trying more to say "Hiring people to tell you what you want to hear". Probably not the most helpful analogy in retrospect.
I should point out now that I don't disagree with their conclusions either, but was arguing rather that they could have been made more comprehensive by examining the editorial discretion.
Only 37 % of NYT readers access the paper from the home page. The rest are coming from search, social media etc. [0]
While I see a possibility of converting the first segment (37 %) into subscription paying users, I am curious about what they are doing to convert the rest?
[0] (As of 2015) https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Digital-News-RISJ-Challeng...
[0] (As of 2015) https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Digital-News-RISJ-Challeng...
> The New York Times has deftly adapted to the demands of digital journalism
EDIT: And from the report itself: [0]
> The Times employs the finest staff of journalists in the world
> [Elsewhere in the report, in case you forgot:] Our staff is made up of the world’s best journalists
> We have defined multimedia storytelling for the news industry and established ourselves as the clear leader. Yet despite our excellence ...
> The print version of The New York Times remains a daily marvel
> We continue to be the most influential news organization in the country
First, I'm not a hater: I think the NY Times is one of the more important institutions in the world and read it daily.
IMHO they have been dragged into the digital age kicking and screaming, and their execution has been barely adequate to keep afloat. Financially, they've been cutting staff. Their digital products are clearly the product of old-school newspaper people trying to adapt their product to a web browser and to claim cred by doing some clever tech that has little impact or value (such as 'Snowcrash').
Look at their homepage: Does it look like, A) Any digital-native news site you've seen? B) Something optimized for the user and interface? Or C) Is it an old paper layout adapted to digital. (Answer: C). Look at their branding, the typeface: Overdone custom typefaces may have been a symbol of status and resources when printing presses were used, but now anyone can make a typeface on my laptop. The branding says loudly We have come to you from the world of paper. If someone used that typeface for anything else on the web, it would look bizarre; I can imagine the HN response. When the NY Times gets rid of that typeface, I'll believe they are all in for digital and aren't just trying to adapt. (EDIT: They even say it themselves in the report: Our largely print-centric strategy, while highly successful, has kept us from building a sufficiently successful digital presence and attracting new audiences for our features content; but then still can't let go: We need to reduce the dominant role that the print newspaper still plays in our organization and rhythms, while making the print paper even better.)
Finally, I fear the NYT suffers from narcissism, similar to the U.S. President-elect. This report (see the quotes above) and prior internal reports I've read (very few, a small sample) repeated many times how the NYT is the greatest. These reports aren't for marketing purposes, but for internal consumption. I'd be worried if I saw that in my organization. Narcissists are fragile; they keep telling themselves how great they are because they can't handle reality.
EDIT: A few edits after I read the report
----
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/
EDIT: And from the report itself: [0]
> The Times employs the finest staff of journalists in the world
> [Elsewhere in the report, in case you forgot:] Our staff is made up of the world’s best journalists
> We have defined multimedia storytelling for the news industry and established ourselves as the clear leader. Yet despite our excellence ...
> The print version of The New York Times remains a daily marvel
> We continue to be the most influential news organization in the country
First, I'm not a hater: I think the NY Times is one of the more important institutions in the world and read it daily.
IMHO they have been dragged into the digital age kicking and screaming, and their execution has been barely adequate to keep afloat. Financially, they've been cutting staff. Their digital products are clearly the product of old-school newspaper people trying to adapt their product to a web browser and to claim cred by doing some clever tech that has little impact or value (such as 'Snowcrash').
Look at their homepage: Does it look like, A) Any digital-native news site you've seen? B) Something optimized for the user and interface? Or C) Is it an old paper layout adapted to digital. (Answer: C). Look at their branding, the typeface: Overdone custom typefaces may have been a symbol of status and resources when printing presses were used, but now anyone can make a typeface on my laptop. The branding says loudly We have come to you from the world of paper. If someone used that typeface for anything else on the web, it would look bizarre; I can imagine the HN response. When the NY Times gets rid of that typeface, I'll believe they are all in for digital and aren't just trying to adapt. (EDIT: They even say it themselves in the report: Our largely print-centric strategy, while highly successful, has kept us from building a sufficiently successful digital presence and attracting new audiences for our features content; but then still can't let go: We need to reduce the dominant role that the print newspaper still plays in our organization and rhythms, while making the print paper even better.)
Finally, I fear the NYT suffers from narcissism, similar to the U.S. President-elect. This report (see the quotes above) and prior internal reports I've read (very few, a small sample) repeated many times how the NYT is the greatest. These reports aren't for marketing purposes, but for internal consumption. I'd be worried if I saw that in my organization. Narcissists are fragile; they keep telling themselves how great they are because they can't handle reality.
EDIT: A few edits after I read the report
----
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/projects/2020-report/
> Their digital products are clearly the product of old-school newspaper people trying to adapt their product to a web browser
I think by far their main concern is how to get people to pay for reading their digital product in the same way that people pay to read their paper product.
Given that every one else on the digital spectrum that extends down to 'random blog page' gets paid zero or near zero for their writing (interesting exceptions aside), making your web site look like something that people currently pay for seems like a good idea to me.
I think by far their main concern is how to get people to pay for reading their digital product in the same way that people pay to read their paper product.
Given that every one else on the digital spectrum that extends down to 'random blog page' gets paid zero or near zero for their writing (interesting exceptions aside), making your web site look like something that people currently pay for seems like a good idea to me.
It'd be nice to see more of a focus on news rather than advocacy. I'll decide my own opinion.
I'd like that. But it's not clear to me that they realize how badly they are currently failing at it.
Over the holidays, the PBS Newshour did a "free energy from water!" story. Really. And then apologized, saying they would review their news process. But even then, it wasn't clear to me they realized just how brainlessly they had f*ed up. The NYT usually manages to avoid such. And to spell names right.
But on topics I know about, NYT coverage often/usually manages to miss the point. (And yet I keep going back, implicitly assuming their coverage of other topics, that I know less about, is somehow less bad. Somebody-or-other's fallacy.) There are more ways to "get it badly wrong", than to merely fail fact-checking.
And then there's the old concept of news. Report the trivia of what happened yesterday, and if you're lucky, use it as a "hook" to squeeze in an inch or two aimed at providing context and understanding. From scratch each time, because you can't count on any one reader having previously encountered it.
Authoritative? Clarifying? Well, they manage to be less bad at these than many other venues. But that's a very low bar.
The report says "We have developed one of the most civil and successful comment sections in the news business". Talk about low bars. "but we still don’t do nearly enough to allow our readers to have these interactions." Interactions... not say, opportunity to lend us a clue.
I was wondering over the holidays whether to get a NYT subscription. And then hit another article that was "well, sort of..., but no" getting it wrong, and gave up. News coverage, from every venue I know about, is just startlingly bad. Which makes "committed to holding powerful people and institutions accountable" a nice idea, but largely unimplemented.
NYT search... "groupthink trump": 17 hits (hmm, I expected more). "groupthink tpp": 0. ""regulatory capture"": 2 hits in all of 2016. Sigh.