9 ms·

>the NYT is a business primarily focused on seeking profit, no different from FedEx That is incorrect, albeit precisely what FedEx (and many other subjects of

>the NYT is a business primarily focused on seeking profit, no different from FedEx That is incorrect, albeit precisely what FedEx (and many other subjects of investigative journalism) would like us to believe. When "all news is fake news" becomes widespread public perception, that public is doomed to authoritarian rule, most likely by leaders backed by the business elite.

wolco 7y ago
I believe the charge was against mainstream media not all news.
zepto 7y ago
How is incorrect that the NYT is a business primarily focused on seeking profit?
- hef19898 7y ago
  But that's a strawman argument. By artificially setting the bar that high for entities like the NYT to be allowed to publish stories like that you make it impossible to publish any journalistic piece at all. And that higj bar allows everybody else to just past everything underneath it. A slippery slope if you ask me.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    They can publish whatever they want. It’s a free country. And I’m free to disbelieve them or distrust their motivations.
    - hef19898 7y ago
      Not arguing with that. The thing with free speech so is to be aware of the consequences for society if the public discurs becomes based on opinions, distrust and partisanship instead of civility and facts.
      - philwelch 7y ago
        The New York Times does not have a monopoly in facts.
      - zepto 7y ago
        Seems like the onus is on the NYT to be more scrupulous in establishing that.
  - eanzenberg 7y ago
    Or, that seeking profit isn't inherently evil? Maybe it's working as designed? Poor journalism will suffer profits (at least we hope). Good journalism will attract more profits.
    - jonathankoren 7y ago
      That’s also a straw man, since literally no one is making that statement. The point of contention is whether after arguing that a tax cut was needed to do capital investment, did the savings from the tax cut actually go to capital investment, or merely financial trickery of stock buy backs as the critics of the tax cut predicted. Literally everything else is a distraction.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Who is saying they shouldn’t be allowed to publish stories? That is the straw man.
- undersuit 7y ago
  There are many more media companies, employing far worse in the standards of journalism, making more money. Even if you can make an argument that their standards have slipped they still aren't Buzzfeed.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think it's intensely incorrect and that journalism is an asset to society that definitely is deserving of public subsidies - but given the environment NYT is operating in they're either going to need to seek a profit or a patron. I think it's pretty obvious the sort of PR fallout the Washington Post has (somewhat deservedly) gotten after being taken over by Bezos.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    There’s no silver bullet in any of this. If the government subsidies journalism the government can control journalism. At least with corporate control you can have competing corporations telling alternate sides of the story. But ultimately it’s on the public to be skeptical and critical consumers of media.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      I agree that both are corruptible, but I'd rather see some heavily subsidized government friendly news sources that then receive competition from private corporations (similar to the british or canadian model with the bbc and cbc respectively) rather than rely wholly on corporate backed news sources... NPR and PBS are alright I guess, but their budgets have been slashed several times over and while there is good journalism (like the Newshour) there isn't the budget to cover stories in as in depth a manner. I'd also like to highlight that as much as people fear government control of subsidized news sources - both PBS and NPR have been quite decently independent, with PBS in particular not having qualms about investigating the government when warranted.
Reedx 7y ago
Run this experiment: 1) Subscribe to NYT 2) Notice they are still serving you ads 3) Try to cancel your subscription
- crispyambulance 7y ago
  I'll save people the effort: They create an "obstacle" to cancelling your subscription. The "obstacle" is you have to make phone call and talk to one of their agents who will try to keep you as a subscriber by offering a discount on the subscription. It's a good way to extend your introductory payment plan (or close to it). You can still cancel, of course, just be firm and say so. Not a big deal.
  - Sebguer 7y ago
    You can also cancel via live chat - or at least you could the last time I tried.
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    You can still cancel, of course, just be firm and say so. Not a big deal. You don't even need to be firm or argue. I've had to cancel my NYT subscription several times over the years. Sometimes I moved to a place where delivery wasn't available. Others because I was between jobs. The people on the phone are very polite and professional. They will offer you discounts, but they won't ever give you a hard sell. At least in my experience.
  - bazooka_penguin 7y ago
    Being in the same level as cable tv isnt great in this day and age
    - crispyambulance 7y ago
      Yeah, it's a dark user pattern, but there's a long way to go for them to match the tactics of Comcast or Verizon. I would call it unfair to characterize NYT subscriptions with Cable-TV-like tactics. Do they offer intractably complex subscriptions meant to deceive you into buy more than what you need ? No. Do they prey on old people and talk them into services they neither use nor understand? No. Do they call you on a regular basis to nag you about an upgrade to your subscription? No. Do they send you mail 1-2 times a month with one of those stupid credit-card-sized cardboard ads with a deal on them? No. Do they automatically jack-up your bill as soon as intro is over? Yes. That's about as close as they get to cable TV. It's not good, but it's not evil either. You can, AFAIK, extend a discount indefinitely by calling them up and asking for it.
philwelch 7y ago
The NYT is a public corporation. About 1/6 of it is owned by Carlos Slim, a billionaire member of the “business elite”. Does the NYT deliver higher quality reporting than Alex Jones? Yes, of course they do, but they are neither perfect nor omniscient nor unbiased nor purely virtuous in their motivations. Let’s turn this around, shall we? When the public implicitly trusts media corporations that are operated for profit and owned by billionaires, they are doomed to authoritarian rule, most likely by leaders backed by the business elite that owns and operates these media corporations in the first place. Implicit trust of any institution is a shortcut to authoritarian rule. And every authoritarian justifies themselves by accusing others of being a greater threat. The only proper attitude for a free people is to distrust and resist any institution that holds or seeks power, and that includes the mainstream press.
- justin66 7y ago
  > When the public implicitly trusts media corporations that are operated for profit and owned by billionaires That's something that has literally never been the case. Skepticism exists on a sliding scale, and children are taught in high school how to spot a biased headline, a poor use of a statistic, and so on. When it comes to the public's attitude toward the press, it's not credulousness versus skepticism that exists, it's healthy skepticism versus cynicism.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    There was a mercifully brief period in this country’s history where most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them. The mainstream media is terrified by the gradual erosion of this power and is desperately trying to convince everyone that it’s better for society at large for them to hold that level of implicit public trust. This is even more true for newspapers, which have always considered themselves of higher status than television anyway. To wit, I don’t characterize as “healthy skepticism” the propagation of the outright lie, in this very thread, that the NYT is not a business.
    - justin66 7y ago

wolco 7y ago

I believe the charge was against mainstream media not all news.

zepto 7y ago

How is incorrect that the NYT is a business primarily focused on seeking profit?

hef19898 7y ago
But that's a strawman argument. By artificially setting the bar that high for entities like the NYT to be allowed to publish stories like that you make it impossible to publish any journalistic piece at all. And that higj bar allows everybody else to just past everything underneath it. A slippery slope if you ask me.
- philwelch 7y ago
  They can publish whatever they want. It’s a free country. And I’m free to disbelieve them or distrust their motivations.
  - hef19898 7y ago
    Not arguing with that. The thing with free speech so is to be aware of the consequences for society if the public discurs becomes based on opinions, distrust and partisanship instead of civility and facts.
    - philwelch 7y ago
      The New York Times does not have a monopoly in facts.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Seems like the onus is on the NYT to be more scrupulous in establishing that.
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  Or, that seeking profit isn't inherently evil? Maybe it's working as designed? Poor journalism will suffer profits (at least we hope). Good journalism will attract more profits.
  - jonathankoren 7y ago
    That’s also a straw man, since literally no one is making that statement. The point of contention is whether after arguing that a tax cut was needed to do capital investment, did the savings from the tax cut actually go to capital investment, or merely financial trickery of stock buy backs as the critics of the tax cut predicted. Literally everything else is a distraction.
- zepto 7y ago
  Who is saying they shouldn’t be allowed to publish stories? That is the straw man.
undersuit 7y ago
There are many more media companies, employing far worse in the standards of journalism, making more money. Even if you can make an argument that their standards have slipped they still aren't Buzzfeed.
munk-a 7y ago
I think it's intensely incorrect and that journalism is an asset to society that definitely is deserving of public subsidies - but given the environment NYT is operating in they're either going to need to seek a profit or a patron. I think it's pretty obvious the sort of PR fallout the Washington Post has (somewhat deservedly) gotten after being taken over by Bezos.
- philwelch 7y ago
  There’s no silver bullet in any of this. If the government subsidies journalism the government can control journalism. At least with corporate control you can have competing corporations telling alternate sides of the story. But ultimately it’s on the public to be skeptical and critical consumers of media.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I agree that both are corruptible, but I'd rather see some heavily subsidized government friendly news sources that then receive competition from private corporations (similar to the british or canadian model with the bbc and cbc respectively) rather than rely wholly on corporate backed news sources... NPR and PBS are alright I guess, but their budgets have been slashed several times over and while there is good journalism (like the Newshour) there isn't the budget to cover stories in as in depth a manner. I'd also like to highlight that as much as people fear government control of subsidized news sources - both PBS and NPR have been quite decently independent, with PBS in particular not having qualms about investigating the government when warranted.

Reedx 7y ago

Run this experiment: 1) Subscribe to NYT 2) Notice they are still serving you ads 3) Try to cancel your subscription

crispyambulance 7y ago
I'll save people the effort: They create an "obstacle" to cancelling your subscription. The "obstacle" is you have to make phone call and talk to one of their agents who will try to keep you as a subscriber by offering a discount on the subscription. It's a good way to extend your introductory payment plan (or close to it). You can still cancel, of course, just be firm and say so. Not a big deal.
- Sebguer 7y ago
  You can also cancel via live chat - or at least you could the last time I tried.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  You can still cancel, of course, just be firm and say so. Not a big deal. You don't even need to be firm or argue. I've had to cancel my NYT subscription several times over the years. Sometimes I moved to a place where delivery wasn't available. Others because I was between jobs. The people on the phone are very polite and professional. They will offer you discounts, but they won't ever give you a hard sell. At least in my experience.
- bazooka_penguin 7y ago
  Being in the same level as cable tv isnt great in this day and age
  - crispyambulance 7y ago
    Yeah, it's a dark user pattern, but there's a long way to go for them to match the tactics of Comcast or Verizon. I would call it unfair to characterize NYT subscriptions with Cable-TV-like tactics. Do they offer intractably complex subscriptions meant to deceive you into buy more than what you need ? No. Do they prey on old people and talk them into services they neither use nor understand? No. Do they call you on a regular basis to nag you about an upgrade to your subscription? No. Do they send you mail 1-2 times a month with one of those stupid credit-card-sized cardboard ads with a deal on them? No. Do they automatically jack-up your bill as soon as intro is over? Yes. That's about as close as they get to cable TV. It's not good, but it's not evil either. You can, AFAIK, extend a discount indefinitely by calling them up and asking for it.

philwelch 7y ago

The NYT is a public corporation. About 1/6 of it is owned by Carlos Slim, a billionaire member of the “business elite”. Does the NYT deliver higher quality reporting than Alex Jones? Yes, of course they do, but they are neither perfect nor omniscient nor unbiased nor purely virtuous in their motivations. Let’s turn this around, shall we? When the public implicitly trusts media corporations that are operated for profit and owned by billionaires, they are doomed to authoritarian rule, most likely by leaders backed by the business elite that owns and operates these media corporations in the first place. Implicit trust of any institution is a shortcut to authoritarian rule. And every authoritarian justifies themselves by accusing others of being a greater threat. The only proper attitude for a free people is to distrust and resist any institution that holds or seeks power, and that includes the mainstream press.

justin66 7y ago
> When the public implicitly trusts media corporations that are operated for profit and owned by billionaires That's something that has literally never been the case. Skepticism exists on a sliding scale, and children are taught in high school how to spot a biased headline, a poor use of a statistic, and so on. When it comes to the public's attitude toward the press, it's not credulousness versus skepticism that exists, it's healthy skepticism versus cynicism.
- philwelch 7y ago
  There was a mercifully brief period in this country’s history where most people unquestioningly accepted whatever Walter Cronkite told them. The mainstream media is terrified by the gradual erosion of this power and is desperately trying to convince everyone that it’s better for society at large for them to hold that level of implicit public trust. This is even more true for newspapers, which have always considered themselves of higher status than television anyway. To wit, I don’t characterize as “healthy skepticism” the propagation of the outright lie, in this very thread, that the NYT is not a business.
  - justin66 7y ago