12 ms·
The OP you're responding to is correct that his popularity is MUCH higher than your response suggests: "In January 2015, the podcast was listened to by more th
by mancerayder 6y ago
The OP you're responding to is correct that his popularity is MUCH higher than your response suggests:
"In January 2015, the podcast was listened to by more than 11 million people. By October 2015, it had grown to acquire 16 million downloads a month. By April 2019, the podcast had 190 million downloads a month."
That's a lot higher a number than your NYT 6 million subscribers (-1 as I just canceled in early June after it became clear how far along it is in its transformation into naked narrative-driven agitprop).
The NYT has become a niche market.
- Barrin92 6y agoI did say that he was popular in my post? That's not really the point of the debate. Of course the NYT is a niche market in the sense that only a minority of people actually pay for news. Fox and talk radio probably have 20 times as many viewers/listeners, that's always been the case. But that doesn't say anything about what the NYT has become. They have a larger audience now than they had in the past, and their status isn't just a function of size of viewership. Pewdiepie has a hundred million subscribers or whatever, does he dwarf the New York times in terms of influence in social or political life? No. The fact that there's a new entertainment personality in mass media doesn't say anything about the state of journalism.
- mancerayder 6y ago>Pewdiepie has a hundred million subscribers or whatever, does he dwarf the New York times in terms of influence in social or political life? No. Who knows, though? If people influence opinions, by definition don't they influence social or political life?