3 ms·

Just canceled my NYT membership and subscribed to the print edition of Nautilus. A few months ago I went to the NYT homepage and every top article had "Trump"

Just canceled my NYT membership and subscribed to the print edition of Nautilus. A few months ago I went to the NYT homepage and every top article had "Trump" somewhere in the title. I have a threshold for how much political blather I can stand, and Nautilus is like a breath of fresh air from that.

dsharlet 10y ago
As much as I can't stand it either, Trump is the president of the US, and making a lot of waves. It's not surprising that he is dominating the news, and it's not just "political blather".
- Xcelerate 10y ago
  It has nothing to do with Trump in particular — it's that they pick a topic and just drive it into the ground with the same news rehashed in eight different ways.
  - ShannonAlther 10y ago
    The problem is that every third sentence out of the president's mouth is so disconnected from reality that it boggles the mind. If Obama, Bush, or Clinton had said even a few of the things that Trump has it would have made headlines for weeks. Every last drop of it is newsworthy, but in all it's become a flood.
    - rifung 10y ago
      While I don't disagree, at this point it's not news that the President says things which are not based in reality. I'd rather they just publish a piece every month to gather them up for those interested and publish more articles focused on what he actually did than what he said because frankly he doesn't really follow through on what he says anyway. If anything I feel like the focus on what he says is just distracting people from the more important news which is what he's doing.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    Could you provide an example? That's not my experience, but maybe we are looking at different parts of the site.
- js2 10y ago
  The Economist provides a pretty good mix. I subscribe to it, the NYT, and the New Yorker. I probably won't renew my NYT subscription as I find myself reading it much less often since I picked up The Economist subscription. What I'd really like though is to support one or two major publications and then have a slush fund where I could pay per article to other sources. I don't know... does HN have enough readership where it could collect funds and redistribute? It's my primary source of reading random material.
  - fovc 10y ago
    Check out Blendle.com. I haven't used them much recently, but I enjoyed paying for quality journalism per article. There is (or was) an HN sign up promo somewhere
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      I don't think this for-article model is a good one. It turns journalism into piecework, and while there's the opportunity to strike gold and get lucky with a particularly timely or well-received piece, it also tends to prioritize quantity over quality because the former yields more predictable rewards.
      - js2 10y ago
        Hmmm. Publications have always had a mix of both subscriptions and newsstand sales. Pay per article is just a more granular version of that. Unfortunately I can't afford all the different publications that might have an interesting article from time to time, but it seems like it would be their loss if they completely paywalled everything off. Maybe something more like gym memberships would work where you could purchase say a 10-article "punchcard" or a subscription.
        mattkrause 10y ago
        It might be too granular. One of the things I like about print magazines (and newspapers) is the serendipity--you read something that wouldn't normally grab your attention because it's on the next page and...you've already paid for it, after all. Paying per article seems like it would push people only to read things that they're sure they'll enjoy (based on the author, title, etc).

dsharlet 10y ago

As much as I can't stand it either, Trump is the president of the US, and making a lot of waves. It's not surprising that he is dominating the news, and it's not just "political blather".

Xcelerate 10y ago
It has nothing to do with Trump in particular — it's that they pick a topic and just drive it into the ground with the same news rehashed in eight different ways.
- ShannonAlther 10y ago
  The problem is that every third sentence out of the president's mouth is so disconnected from reality that it boggles the mind. If Obama, Bush, or Clinton had said even a few of the things that Trump has it would have made headlines for weeks. Every last drop of it is newsworthy, but in all it's become a flood.
  - rifung 10y ago
    While I don't disagree, at this point it's not news that the President says things which are not based in reality. I'd rather they just publish a piece every month to gather them up for those interested and publish more articles focused on what he actually did than what he said because frankly he doesn't really follow through on what he says anyway. If anything I feel like the focus on what he says is just distracting people from the more important news which is what he's doing.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Could you provide an example? That's not my experience, but maybe we are looking at different parts of the site.
js2 10y ago
The Economist provides a pretty good mix. I subscribe to it, the NYT, and the New Yorker. I probably won't renew my NYT subscription as I find myself reading it much less often since I picked up The Economist subscription. What I'd really like though is to support one or two major publications and then have a slush fund where I could pay per article to other sources. I don't know... does HN have enough readership where it could collect funds and redistribute? It's my primary source of reading random material.
- fovc 10y ago
  Check out Blendle.com. I haven't used them much recently, but I enjoyed paying for quality journalism per article. There is (or was) an HN sign up promo somewhere
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I don't think this for-article model is a good one. It turns journalism into piecework, and while there's the opportunity to strike gold and get lucky with a particularly timely or well-received piece, it also tends to prioritize quantity over quality because the former yields more predictable rewards.
    - js2 10y ago
      Hmmm. Publications have always had a mix of both subscriptions and newsstand sales. Pay per article is just a more granular version of that. Unfortunately I can't afford all the different publications that might have an interesting article from time to time, but it seems like it would be their loss if they completely paywalled everything off. Maybe something more like gym memberships would work where you could purchase say a 10-article "punchcard" or a subscription.
      - mattkrause 10y ago
        It might be too granular. One of the things I like about print magazines (and newspapers) is the serendipity--you read something that wouldn't normally grab your attention because it's on the next page and...you've already paid for it, after all. Paying per article seems like it would push people only to read things that they're sure they'll enjoy (based on the author, title, etc).