3 ms·

No. Its not 2% of our budget. NYT (to the best of my knowledge) has the largest newsroom in the world (even after recent layoffs and hiring freeze). As such tha

by donohoe 16y ago

No. Its not 2% of our budget. NYT (to the best of my knowledge) has the largest newsroom in the world (even after recent layoffs and hiring freeze). As such thats a very very large expense. While this same newsroom covers nice and safe things like Travel, Arts, Books, Crosswords and such it also covers things that entail 4 journalists getting detained and abused in Libya, a photographer losing limbs in Afganistan, reporters abducted by the Taliban, and all the other war, economic, analytical, and political reporting that is done. The NYT is far from perfect but its not Burger King. I should clearly state that I work there - this opinion is my own and very very personal

Alex3917 16y ago
"It also covers things like involve 4 journalists getting detained in Libya, photographers losing limbs in Afganistan, reporters abducted by the Taliban, and all the other war, economic, analytical, and political reporting that is done." But how much of that is actually investigative journalism versus reporting, opinion, or shallow analysis?
- donohoe 16y ago
  I'm going to avoid this argument. I'm not going to change your mind. The only thing I can say is look at the CNN homepage, and then look at the NYTimes. EOM. Update (since i cannot reply to your comment): I don't know the %, but i know is greater than 2. I can ask and see if anyone can give me an actual figure.
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    "The only thing I can say is look at the CNN homepage, and then look at the NYTimes." I don't see that's relevant to how much the NYT spends on investigative journalism. You say I'm closed-minded, but you're the one whose not willing to disclose the actual percentage.
high5ths 16y ago
I love the NY Times, but I'm angry at both the subscription options and their price points. As has been pointed out elsewhere, they make no sense: $x = NYtimes.com (website) + smartphone app $y = NYtimes.com (website) + tablet app $(x+y) = NYtimes.com (website) + smartphone app + tablet app So you can effectively cancel out the website access, even though that's all that many of us want. The value of the website is $0? (Also worth noting that there is absolutely no conceivable reason that a tablet app should require an additional subscription. If you're going to make everything à la carte, then price it that way and let me pick. But there's no way I'm going to accept that the website would be priced at $0.) Do I think the Times spends oodles of money to report on tons of topics nobody else wants to cover? Yes, and I want to support that. But what they've done with these subscription options is convince me that they don't understand how the industry is actually changing. For $23/month (which is just a little over the cost of $y above), I could get M-F delivery of the paper and the complete $(x+y) digital package -- and throw out all the papers I receive. This makes no sense.
- jaysonelliot 16y ago
  From what I understand, your issue is with the amount they plan to charge, not the fact that they will be charging? That seems like a reasonable place to have a discussion, rather that people who just think everything which once cost money should now be free.
  - high5ths 16y ago
    Yes, I believe the Times generates more than enough content to warrant paying -- I look at the last few years as probably some lucky free-period that should have ended a while ago. I just think their plans are misguided and overpriced. In the meantime, though, I got an email from Lincoln offering me free Times access through the end of 2011[1]. So at least I won't have to think too hard about it for another 8 months. [1] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216770555617038.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870446130457621... for details.
- vacri 16y ago
  Business maths is not algebra. Algebra, for example, doesn't give you discounts for buying in bulk.

by donohoe 16y ago

Alex3917 16y ago

"It also covers things like involve 4 journalists getting detained in Libya, photographers losing limbs in Afganistan, reporters abducted by the Taliban, and all the other war, economic, analytical, and political reporting that is done." But how much of that is actually investigative journalism versus reporting, opinion, or shallow analysis?

donohoe 16y ago
I'm going to avoid this argument. I'm not going to change your mind. The only thing I can say is look at the CNN homepage, and then look at the NYTimes. EOM. Update (since i cannot reply to your comment): I don't know the %, but i know is greater than 2. I can ask and see if anyone can give me an actual figure.
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "The only thing I can say is look at the CNN homepage, and then look at the NYTimes." I don't see that's relevant to how much the NYT spends on investigative journalism. You say I'm closed-minded, but you're the one whose not willing to disclose the actual percentage.

high5ths 16y ago

I love the NY Times, but I'm angry at both the subscription options and their price points. As has been pointed out elsewhere, they make no sense: $x = NYtimes.com (website) + smartphone app $y = NYtimes.com (website) + tablet app $(x+y) = NYtimes.com (website) + smartphone app + tablet app So you can effectively cancel out the website access, even though that's all that many of us want. The value of the website is $0? (Also worth noting that there is absolutely no conceivable reason that a tablet app should require an additional subscription. If you're going to make everything à la carte, then price it that way and let me pick. But there's no way I'm going to accept that the website would be priced at $0.) Do I think the Times spends oodles of money to report on tons of topics nobody else wants to cover? Yes, and I want to support that. But what they've done with these subscription options is convince me that they don't understand how the industry is actually changing. For $23/month (which is just a little over the cost of $y above), I could get M-F delivery of the paper and the complete $(x+y) digital package -- and throw out all the papers I receive. This makes no sense.

jaysonelliot 16y ago
From what I understand, your issue is with the amount they plan to charge, not the fact that they will be charging? That seems like a reasonable place to have a discussion, rather that people who just think everything which once cost money should now be free.
- high5ths 16y ago
  Yes, I believe the Times generates more than enough content to warrant paying -- I look at the last few years as probably some lucky free-period that should have ended a while ago. I just think their plans are misguided and overpriced. In the meantime, though, I got an email from Lincoln offering me free Times access through the end of 2011[1]. So at least I won't have to think too hard about it for another 8 months. [1] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216770555617038.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870446130457621... for details.
vacri 16y ago
Business maths is not algebra. Algebra, for example, doesn't give you discounts for buying in bulk.