4 ms·

I would pay more for a subset of the current NYT. The website is full of imo prominently displayed clickbait that I consider negative value. I'm a previous sub

I would pay more for a subset of the current NYT. The website is full of imo prominently displayed clickbait that I consider negative value. I'm a previous subscriber of NYT and Bloomberg online. I've kept my WSJ subscription partly because its easier to consume only the useful content. I also subscribe to a couple of email lists where the author absolutely provides value in their niche over and above the larger newsrooms. They are usually great complements to each other and it tells you something that the journalists are also reading the newsletters.

daveguy 6y ago
I feel the same way. I stopped my NYT subscription because of "native ads"... Aka, paid advertising content posing as a news story by the outlet. I will not support deceitful ad placement. Subscriptions or ads. Pick one. No native ads.
tekdude 6y ago
> The website is full of imo prominently displayed clickbait that I consider negative value. When checking the New York Times, I prefer to look at the "Today's Paper" list of headlines, it's much easier to parse and less clickbaity: https://www.nytimes.com/section/todayspaper https://www.nytimes.com/section/todayspaper Same for the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper/updates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper/updates/