4 ms·

Honestly only case where I'm willing to overlook it. It's so hard for them to stay in the black. I can't imagine, in this age. For a serious newspaper that does

Honestly only case where I'm willing to overlook it. It's so hard for them to stay in the black. I can't imagine, in this age. For a serious newspaper that does good investigative journalism, I'll accept some desperate measures to keep subscribers and not hold it against them. Any other company and I'd call them garbage, but the NYT does a lot of good. (Same would go for other top investigative journals that have published a lot of pieces revealing major information to the public.)

leesalminen 6y ago
> For a serious newspaper Unfortunately this is now a debatable topic. Their headlines have been trending towards the National Enquirer for years. IMHO, they should crash and burn.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  Also then drama in the newsroom. It does not inspire optimism about the professionalism and objectivity of their coverage.
mStreamTeam 6y ago
You must really like the NYT. These dark patterns are never excusable.
Cyph0n 6y ago
If they really need to rely on dark patterns just to survive - which I highly doubt is the case - then they simply don’t deserve to survive. Yes, it sucks, but that’s how the free market works.
- ganstyles 6y ago
  Presumably not, if they use dark patterns and not only survive, but thrive. Right?
  - Cyph0n 6y ago
    Again, I highly doubt that NYT relies on these dark patterns, but I could be wrong. If NYT actually relied on these tactics to keep themselves afloat, then I wouldn’t call it “thriving”, simply because these kinds of techniques are not sustainable at all in the long run.
    - ganstyles 6y ago
      Well, the OP is about a dark pattern... And a common definition of thriving is growing in profitability, for which stock price can often be a good metric. Their stock price gas increased 289% over the last five years.
great_tankard 6y ago
eh, I don't know. NYT sucks up a LOT of talent from across the country. What I'm saying is: this sort of thing is maybe excusable from small/independent journalism outlets trying to stay afloat, but you don't need to make excuses for NYT. They pay their own executives handsomely to do that.
alwaysdoit 6y ago
The NYT has been doing really, really well financially the last 4 years. Their stock price is up almost 300% since 2016--not the only metric, obviously, but it certainly gives some indications of how concerned investors are that it will stay in the black. Other, smaller papers are not doing nearly as well.
offby37years 6y ago
NYT has been a net negative on society since 2016, rapidly so since 2019.
- aerovistae 6y ago
  Elaborate??
  - barbacoa 6y ago
    NYT was once known as the paper of record decades ago. In the past recent years they have starting slipping on their journalist standards and reliability. They were pivotal in pushing the WMDs in iraq for example as well as russian collusion.
- crispyambulance 6y ago
  What would you recommend, then?
  - offby37years 6y ago
    Substack. Citizen journalism is the future. The MSM solely exist to make every problem your problem through an omnipresent stream of manufactured outrage.
    - sneak 6y ago
      One reason I don't click links that go to Substack is that the founders seem happy to donate free content to alt-right outlets. I don't give traffic to organizations like that.
Bakary 6y ago
A while back someone posted a look into their finances and business strategy. They were fumbling the ball a decade ago, but are now doing extremely well
rthomas6 6y ago
They're not a charity or a nonprofit that relies on donations. They're a business selling a product, and the only thing that should rationally factor into giving them money or not is if you want to buy the product. Need doesn't factor into the equation.
- xyse53 6y ago
  Some business and industries do more social good than others. We're all still adjusting to the internet. I'm on the side of leaning towards giving NYT a pass for this. It was a single chat interaction, not so bad.
  - lenkite 6y ago
    No business gets a pass for crappy behaviour bordering on malpractice. NYT is a left-leaning, propaganda paper today which has fired most of its older and rational staff writers and editors.

leesalminen 6y ago

> For a serious newspaper Unfortunately this is now a debatable topic. Their headlines have been trending towards the National Enquirer for years. IMHO, they should crash and burn.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
Also then drama in the newsroom. It does not inspire optimism about the professionalism and objectivity of their coverage.

mStreamTeam 6y ago

You must really like the NYT. These dark patterns are never excusable.

Cyph0n 6y ago

If they really need to rely on dark patterns just to survive - which I highly doubt is the case - then they simply don’t deserve to survive. Yes, it sucks, but that’s how the free market works.

ganstyles 6y ago
Presumably not, if they use dark patterns and not only survive, but thrive. Right?
- Cyph0n 6y ago
  Again, I highly doubt that NYT relies on these dark patterns, but I could be wrong. If NYT actually relied on these tactics to keep themselves afloat, then I wouldn’t call it “thriving”, simply because these kinds of techniques are not sustainable at all in the long run.
  - ganstyles 6y ago
    Well, the OP is about a dark pattern... And a common definition of thriving is growing in profitability, for which stock price can often be a good metric. Their stock price gas increased 289% over the last five years.

great_tankard 6y ago

eh, I don't know. NYT sucks up a LOT of talent from across the country. What I'm saying is: this sort of thing is maybe excusable from small/independent journalism outlets trying to stay afloat, but you don't need to make excuses for NYT. They pay their own executives handsomely to do that.

alwaysdoit 6y ago

The NYT has been doing really, really well financially the last 4 years. Their stock price is up almost 300% since 2016--not the only metric, obviously, but it certainly gives some indications of how concerned investors are that it will stay in the black. Other, smaller papers are not doing nearly as well.

offby37years 6y ago

NYT has been a net negative on society since 2016, rapidly so since 2019.

aerovistae 6y ago
Elaborate??
- barbacoa 6y ago
  NYT was once known as the paper of record decades ago. In the past recent years they have starting slipping on their journalist standards and reliability. They were pivotal in pushing the WMDs in iraq for example as well as russian collusion.
crispyambulance 6y ago
What would you recommend, then?
- offby37years 6y ago
  Substack. Citizen journalism is the future. The MSM solely exist to make every problem your problem through an omnipresent stream of manufactured outrage.
  - sneak 6y ago
    One reason I don't click links that go to Substack is that the founders seem happy to donate free content to alt-right outlets. I don't give traffic to organizations like that.

Bakary 6y ago

A while back someone posted a look into their finances and business strategy. They were fumbling the ball a decade ago, but are now doing extremely well

rthomas6 6y ago

They're not a charity or a nonprofit that relies on donations. They're a business selling a product, and the only thing that should rationally factor into giving them money or not is if you want to buy the product. Need doesn't factor into the equation.

xyse53 6y ago
Some business and industries do more social good than others. We're all still adjusting to the internet. I'm on the side of leaning towards giving NYT a pass for this. It was a single chat interaction, not so bad.
- lenkite 6y ago
  No business gets a pass for crappy behaviour bordering on malpractice. NYT is a left-leaning, propaganda paper today which has fired most of its older and rational staff writers and editors.