17 ms·
The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- asurachadtrot 10y agoCheck out Google too: https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/07/google-will-display-election-results-as-soon-as-polls-close/?ncid=rss https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/07/google-will-display-electi...
- honkhonkpants 10y agoNice. Last time their exit polls were fantastically accurate.
- msane 10y agoGreat move by NYT. Smart and generous.
- Salamat 10y agoHow is that generous when it is very convenient and opportunistic for NYTimes propaganda efforts for their candidate?
- donohoe 10y ago"propaganda efforts for their candidate" You're confusing their Opinion section with their news coverage. Completely separate groups with no overlap. Though I don't blame you for not knowing. Its not obvious - and thats a problem. This is your 2nd time posting the same comment?
- johnnyb9 10y agoWell the restrictions being lifted apply to both the news coverage and opinion section, don't they?
- oxide 10y agoIt would be, frankly, ridiculous for them to offer "open access" and have that actually include only news coverage and none of the opinion sections.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- instanton 10y ago"You're confusing their Opinion section with their news coverage. Completely separate groups with no overlap." You can't be serious. How people have not noticed that the NYT has blatantly turned into one big opinion section over the last 12 months is beyond me. Heck I was even going to write a quick side by side headline parser listing all articles pertaining to the three major candidates in 2016 alone to emphasize their ludicrous bias, but now I realize even that couldn't defeat the confirmation bias of their dwindling readership. In any event, I'll make sure to enjoy the free propaganda over the next few days indeed.
- untog 10y agoThere's a false equivalency issue here. Trump shouldn't get a favourable headline just because Hillary got one. It isn't propaganda to point out that he is woefully underqualified to ve President.
- lern_too_spel 10y agoWhat good are "propaganda efforts" on the day of the election? If that were the reason, they would have opened access without an account for a month leading up to the election.
- fuqted 10y agoI was expecting a 'Paid for by the Clinton Foundation' at the end.
- danso 10y agoAs is the Washington Post http://www.adweek.com/fishbowldc/the-washington-post-is-taking-down-its-paywall-for-election-day/160304 http://www.adweek.com/fishbowldc/the-washington-post-is-taki...
- joezydeco 10y agoJust an additional reminder that Amazon Prime members can get six months of Wapo Digital for free.
- dredmorbius 10y agoAnother discussion I'd like to see come out of this election: the idea of information as a public good. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/japan/japan.html#SECTION00060000000000000000 http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/japan/japan.h... Neither the advertising nor the paywall/subscription models are serving to either provide the public with information, or to foster quality and relevant information. Both are in fact the problem. Addressing an open-access model, with a tax-based compensation for authors and publishers strikes me as a vastly preferable model.
- Maarten88 10y agoYes. And tax advertising (or even all forms of communication, as there is 90% overlap) to pay for that.
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoHow would you define "advertising" for purposes of this tax?
- Maarten88 10y ago> How would you define "advertising" for purposes of this tax? I would define it as all revenue from any for-profit publisher. This starting from the assumption that 99% of it is: - reproduced from other sources without fact checking - provided by PR firms and other interested parties - actual advertisements or sponsored content This powerfull spread of disinformation must imo be countered somehow, and I cannot think of any other way then let a democratically elected government tax all this and use the proceeds to fund a compensating force of actual journalists doing their job independently, for the benefit of society.
- tedunangst 10y agoThe president creates a new post, the ad czar, who browses the internet, clicking on all the ads. Every time they click, a tax is assessed.
- azdavis 10y agoCould the admins switch the link to the non-mobile version[1]? [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/homepage/new-york-times-open-access-election-2016.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/homepage/new-york-times-op...
- Salamat 10y agoThis is very convenient and opportunistic for NYTimes propaganda efforts.
- santix 10y agoAlso, the LA Times is offering a free week (requiring registration).
- peterwwillis 10y agoDevil's advocate: reporting on the polling numbers as they come in can cloud the decisions people make at the polls, and the entire process of trying to determine who's winning serves no useful purpose in daily life other than as pure subjective entertainment. Normally I would say we should all just use online voting (edit: online registration & mailed voting) the way 3 states (Washington, Oregon, and Nevada) currently do. They provide real-time statistics on their voting results via their website. But at the same time there's those risks of security holes. For example, I took 30 seconds to look at Washington's voter registration website, and found this via Google: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ues5maE5tbsJ:https://weiappletsqa.sos.wa.gov/LanguageAdmin/Pages/Applets.aspx+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ues5ma... This makes it appear as though some admin functions may have been accessible publicly in the past. It is nice to get a look at their content management, though (http://weihelp.sos.wa.gov/help/support/_layouts/viewlsts.aspx http://weihelp.sos.wa.gov/help/support/_layouts/viewlsts.asp...) as we can see some of the behind the scenes operation like ticketing, bug reports, content, and other features and documentation. So from an "open & transparent government" aspect it's nice, but probably needs to be balanced more against how much information or access is given.
- Herodotus38 10y agoWashington uses 100% paper mail in ballots, not online voting.
- peterwwillis 10y agoAh my bad, online registration and mailed voting which is displayed online.
- Herodotus38 10y agoNo worries, I wasn't sure if you meant online registration or not. I don't think any state offers online voting (thank goodness).
- msie 10y ago
- dariusm5 10y agoI lost all trust in the NYT after Wikileaks revealed how they sabotaged Bernie Sanders and acted as a PR agency for the Clinton campaign. http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-propped-up-clinton-subverted-sanders/ http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-propped... https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-bernie-sanders-article-for-clinton-campaign-5156a43755ca#.by7rmq5is https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-wikileaks-john-podesta-emails-smear-negative-lies-a7358516.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sand...
- JumpCrisscross 10y agoI am genuinely curious about this. Do you have a better source handy?
- dariusm5 10y agoIt depends on what you mean by 'better'. The sources I linked are reporting on emails from Wikileaks. Therefore, I think Wikileaks would be the best source for the raw information without any editorializing or spin. I doubt some media outlets would offer any decent reporting on these leaks as it damaged their credibility (e.g. Huffington Post, CNN, Politico, NYT, etc)
- moultano 10y agoThen at least link to the emails you find objectionable? Everything I've seen is just the normal process of reporters talking to the people they cover.
- Mao_Zedang 10y agohttps://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/23554 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/27526 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/27526
- javiramos 10y agoI feel that NYTimes is the only news organization that has been able to transition to the Digital Era. Does anyone else know of any other old-school news organization that nicely transitioned to the Digital Era?
- richev 10y agoFinancial Times - http://ft.com http://ft.com
- dredmorbius 10y agoThe Financial Times and The Economist have a shared history, though common ownership interest in the two publications ended in August of 2015. The fact that both papers are very high quality and have done well in the online era strikes me as not unrelated. Though separate now (FT is owned by Nikkei of Japan, The Economist is now principally held by the Agnelli family, who founded Fiat, along with several other families including Cadbury, Layton, Rothschild, and Schroder. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/15/economist-becomes-a-family-affair-agnellis https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/15/economist-beco...
- knz 10y agoNPR (http://www.npr.org/ http://www.npr.org/) seems to be doing ok - they have a good mix of online reporting, audio from radio reporting, special features for events such as the election, and a number of successful podcasts associated with their various shows.
- chakalakasp 10y ago"Alexa, tell me the news" Cue well-polished NPR briefing
- Others 10y agoNPR is a non-profit that offers all of it's reporting for free. (Their income mostly comes from donors.) Their a bit of a special case since they're happy to lose money on their online offerings.
- grandalf 10y agoWikileaks revealed that the NYT was in coordination with HRC's campaign to publish flattering stories. I think the credibility of the news organization is over.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- stephth 10y agoThey survived the Judith Miller controversy. What is it about the HRC-NYT emails that ends their credibility in ways that Judith Miller didn't? edit: I can't think of a good reason to downvote this question (please do explain), but I'll rephrase: the Judith Miller Iraq reporting was bad to say the least, and they got rid of her. In this case I am under the impression that the problem is a few isolated cases, but I'm not well educated and am possibly missing something. What about these emails makes this a sweeping issue over the whole organization, as opposed to a few reporters having abused their welcome?
- jacobolus 10y agoJudith Miller and the NYT’s (and news media more generally) credulous Iraq War boosterism were much more damning. Most of the folks involved, either on the media side or the government side, suffered absolutely no consequence to their reputations.
- grandalf 10y ago> Most of the folks involved, either on the media side or the government side, suffered absolutely no consequence to their reputations. I still cannot believe this. In fact, it's probably the single most poignant fact of the Iraq war. It shows us that the NYT was not outraged by the "mistake" but supported what was effectively a propaganda effort. This is why I liken the NYT to America's Pravda. The stories it runs help to bolster the legitimacy of certain institutions and create PR and misdirection as needed to allow the status quo to continue.
- 0xCMP 10y agoOh you mean unlike the login-wall they've put up for every article in the past two weeks? That open access? Edit: I'm pretty mad that every NYT link I've been clicking for what has felt like two weeks has asked me to login. I was forced to finally make an account. Screw that. I'd pay if you gave me an option that made sense. I'm not going to drop $500+/year to subscribe to all the places I read from when I only read what is posted on HN and Twitter. You'd think Apple would at least help out here since they have it all nicely integrated on the Apple News app to handle subscriptions for them.
- nefitty 10y agoIncognito didn't work for you?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- grzm 10y agoThen don't click on NYT links, or others that require you to subscribe. HN conveniently marks the source.
- mmphosis 10y agoPWDR
- grzm 10y agopaywall; didn't read?
- 0xCMP 10y agoI wish it didn't have to be that way. I like reading what the NYT publishes, just like how I enjoy Salon/WSJ/Forbes/WashPost/etc.. I just wish it wasn't "all or nothing". Why do I need to subscribe for $15-20/month so I can read the one article I really wanted to read from HN? I don't have time to sit there and enjoy that subscription, just isn't the kind of time I have, so could I just have like a lite version somehow that lets me pay for what I want? Something like Brave, but I just wish it was more accepted.
- jjawssd 10y agoIs it strange that I don't trust any electronic voting systems at all? I feel like without a paper trail, federal elections can be easily manipulated secretly.
- briandear 10y agoThey can be manipulated even with paper. Look at the absentee ballot scandal in Florida.. DNC operative filling out thousands of absentee ballots in secret rooms.
- sjwright 10y agoWhat scandal? If this did happen, we'd know about it. Googling around only pulls up results from exceptionally dubious sites, which in turn all seem to be based on the same trivially fabricable non-evidence. Scandals like this do happen and do get reported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force
- weerd 10y agoThe NYT always offers open access... you just need to disable javascript.
- oiiuks 10y agolol @ NYT acting like it's still relevant. That bastion of unbiased journalism is almost as big an embarrassment as the Guardian at this point. Seriously, if I want to have a good chuckle I'll just go to InfoWars or Drudge, they at least aren't ultra sexist/racist like NYT and TG these days. If I want the news, my best source is honestly YouTube at this point. The legacy news media has shamed itself so abysmally in the past few years that a 20 y/o on a laptop with the wikileaks open is giving me more valid information than multimillion dollar news conglomerates who are warning me not to look at the wikileaks because it's illegal and maybe has Russian malware (looking at you _C_linton _N_ews _N_etwork). I wouldn't even steal your neo-prog, third-wave, social-marxist drivel, NYT.
- physicalist 10y agoLow information voter detected.
- oiiuks 10y agoNice jab son. But the fact of the matter is I think that closing the borders is in fact the best thing for all lower socioeconomic classes by lessening the wealth transfer from the working poor to the ownership classes. Incidentally this would most positively affect hispanic and black laborers. So every time NYT or TG calls me a racist for supporting Trump I kind of wonder why they aren't talking about his policies. The fact of the matter is that Trump says he wants to chat with Putin. Hillary is dead set on a no fly zone in a country where the standing government has asked Russia to fly. I generally consider war to be the shittier option and have absolutely no problem negotiating with other world powers instead of unilaterally flexing military might in countries we were never invited to. No amount of syrian children pictures is going to make me think another regime overthrow is magically going to end up better than Iraq and Libya. The fact of the matter is that Obamacare is a proven disaster, even NYT covers how absurdly expensive it is. We should try something new and opening competition seems like a good start. No amount of articles about how backwards we are for not having universal healthcare is going to change the 4000$ copays. The fact of the matter is that tax loopholes are a thing. Trump uses them and says he uses them. He's going to raise tax rates, and theoretically close tax loopholes. That makes more sense to me than leaving billionaire loopholes open and raising the taxes on the top 5% earners... ie. doctors and engineers. If someone wants to sway my vote they can try using numbers and analyses and facts instead of shoving some pussy grabbing video in my face because, any honest individual will admit they've heard worse talk at basically any college party. These media organizations are the ones dropping the level of discourse to name calling and voter shaming and I'm furious at them for not addressing the actual points and just comparing someone to Hitler.
- the_duke 10y agoYou also get free access if you just delete your cookies once you have reached the free article limit...
- rajadigopula 10y agoSame with financial times - ft.com Open access for election
- DominikR 10y agoThe same NYT whose profit shrank by 95,7% in the last quarter because of the extremely biased reporting? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3897406/New-York-Times-reports-95-7-percent-fall-quarterly-profit.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3897406/New-York-Tim... And the exactly same numbers by Reuters but with completely misleading headline as if everything was fine: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newyorktimes-results-idUSKBN12X1HU http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newyorktimes-results-idUSK... Funny how the NYT now makes about as much profit as I do as a contractor. Maybe I should buy them and put their journalists to more profitable use, like for example letting them clean toilets or work the streets. Edit: Why the downvotes? Does somebody dispute the fact that the NYT's profits are down by 95,7%? Or would somebody dispute that this company wouldn't be making more profit if it sent its employees to clean toilets or sell their bodies? I believe I made here a sensible business case for saving the NYT.
- DanBC 10y agoYou talk about bias, but then cite the daily fucking mail. For people who aren't aware, most of the UK press is scum, and the daily mail is certainly among the scummier end of UK newspapers.
- DominikR 10y agoThat's why I cite Reuters below which reports identical data. Profit fell by 95,7% down to about $400k.
- iza 10y agoThey went from barely making a profit to basically breaking even, the 95.7% figure is very misleading. > Revenue fell 1 percent to $363.6 million
- DominikR 10y agoProfit fell to $400k, there are many people that actually make this kind of money as employees.
- stevekemp 10y agoIs that an admission that if people hit a paywall they don't proceed to pay for the high-quality content behind it?
- Allower 10y agoSTFU NYT. You have no credibility, no value to sell. Just die already
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago>The New York Times is inviting readers to take advantage of its reporting, analysis and commentary from the lead-up through the aftermath of the 2016 election. Aftermath? Somehow this smacks of already leading the narrative.
- deckard1 10y agoin what way? Are you referring to the slightly apocalyptic connotation of the word? Or are you suggesting there won't be a conclusion to the election?
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoAftermath: the consequences or aftereffects of a significant unpleasant event. Why is the election of a new President an "unpleasant event"? For some, it may not be. So, the NYT is leading the narrative already.
- mark_l_watson 10y agoI am disgusted with the NYT and media in general. I am a lifetime democrat, and in my opinion the news media has treated outside candidates like Trump and Sanders very unfairly. People should have information to make their own judgements, and not have the 'news' be a one hour infomercial for one candidate or another. I am also unhappy with so many of my friends who only see one side of things, one side not respecting the opinion's of the other side. We need more civility and more respect for other people's opinions.
- 07d046 10y agoThe usual narrative is that coverage of Trump and Sanders couldn't be more different, with Sanders struggling for attention while Trump received vast amounts of free advertising. There is a lot of truth to it, but, according to a study: > Sanders’ media coverage during the pre-primary period was a sore spot with his followers, who complained the media was biased against his candidacy. In relative terms at least, their complaint lacks substance. Among candidates in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money, no organization, and no national following, Sanders fared better than nearly all of them. Sanders’ initial low poll numbers marked him as less newsworthy than Clinton but, as he gained strength, the news tilted in his favor. And for Trump: > By our estimate, Trump’s coverage in the eight news outlets in our study was worth roughly $55 million. Trump reaped $16 million in ad-equivalent space in The New York Times alone, which was more than he spent on actual ad buys in all media during all of 2015. In our eight outlets, the ad-equivalent value of Trump’s coverage was more than one-and-a-half times the ad-equivalent value of Bush, Rubio, and Cruz’s coverage, more than twice that of Carson’s, and more than three times that of Kasich’s. Moreover, our analysis greatly underestimates the ad-equivalent value of Trump’s exposure in that it’s based on only eight media outlets, whereas the whole of the media world was highlighting his candidacy. Senator Cruz might well be correct in claiming that Trump’s media coverage was worth the equivalent of $2 billion in ad buys. It's an interesting read. http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/ http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-...
- MarkMc 10y agoWhat's the media supposed to do about Trump? Keep quiet about the outrageous thing he did today because they already reported 4 outrageous things he did last week? Trump has received more media coverage because he has simply said and done more things that are newsworthy.
- justaaron 10y agoenough about all of THIS... Suffice it to say that the NY Times is a tool of entrenched power and serves as a pseudo-intellectual gatekeeper that is willing to publish stories based upon leaked information but is unwilling to stand-up and defend the sources of such information. It's willing to be like NPR and appear to be thoughtful, but won't actually do anything to change the status quo. With their International Herald Tribune arm it becomes all the more apparent that they are more-or-less a mouthpiece for the American executive branch: State Dept, CIA, DOD, etc. as well as the entrenched specific corporate agenda that's been masquerading as the public interest for over 60 years. That they have no credibility with regards to altruistic token gestures doesn't even begin to describe why I could care less about their crappy content that they seem so self-impressed with as to think merits payment. This is the Internet. I would think a publication like the NY Times could have figured out a way to transfer their same advertising-based print model to the net, what with minimal distro costs and all the rest of us doing so and what-not... very well. They shall remain the valued premise of a tiny market segment that is only shrinking. Good luck with that one.
- dominotw 10y agoNYTimes never again. Fuck you.