4 ms·

A newspaper isn't a monolith and, by design, the members of the editorial board have very little connection to the business side of the newspaper. You're absol

by eli 5y ago

A newspaper isn't a monolith and, by design, the members of the editorial board have very little connection to the business side of the newspaper. You're absolutely right to call out bad behavior of the subscription department, but the "liar, liar" heading is unfair.

rock_hard 5y ago
Looking forward to read the editorial coverage of this story
dominotw 5y ago
> A newspaper isn't a monolith Neither is amazon.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
elefanten 5y ago
Given the NYT’s overall style and editorial choices these days, it’s a fair heading more broadly. Prime case in point: They have elevated opinionated moral crusading over responsible and informative reporting. If moral activism is the value the organization purports to elevate, it’s fair to call the organization dishonest when it employs transparently immoral business practices. Whether the editorial board is involved or not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
anarazel 5y ago
Indeed. Obviously it's bad that the NYT is using these dark patterns. But it would be worse if the NYT would just stop to cover dark patterns, because of that. It's a sign of a working separation between the journalistic and business sides.
- dominotw 5y ago
  > It's a sign of a working separation between the journalistic and business sides. How is author not including his own employer in the article a sign of separation.
  - eli 5y ago
    How is it a sign of lying?
    - dominotw 5y ago
      what else is the explanation for the omission? It just didnt occur to him?
ipsum2 5y ago
> the members of the editorial board have very little connection to the business side of the newspaper And yet you will never see the editorial side write negative things about the business side of the newspaper. People bring up this distinction that there is some barrier between the two, but its a very weak argument, since the incentives of both are the same (to increase the newspapers revenue)
- eli 5y ago
  This is the first one that came to mind but I’m sure there are many other examples especially if you include columnists. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/opinion/cartoon-nytimes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/opinion/cartoon-nytimes.h... I do think the paper made a huge mistake in eliminating the public editor position, which was essentially dedicated to criticism of the paper. I think you would be surprised with how little the editorial team at newspapers concerns themselves with revenue. It's to the point where it's often actually harmful to the organization.
zepto 5y ago
I think it’s entirely fair. If they are so independent, why don’t they critique the NYT itself in the article?
kcplate 5y ago
Sorry but no one who has worked at a newspaper for more than a day believes this. If a cub reporter wants to run a story that will piss off your largest advertiser, I can guarantee that it will be discouraged by any editor interested in keeping their job. Been there…
- eli 5y ago
  Me too. Guess we had different experiences. Regardless, I can assure you that the NYT Editorial Board holds very little sway over the subscriptions dept.
mdoms 5y ago
The New York Times absolutely is a monolith, whether they like it or not. They operate under one banner and in fact companies like NYT trade on their one trusted name. The general public considers them a monolith.
atty 5y ago
No company is a monolith, but the company, as an organization, is responsible for everything that happens inside the org. This is why it’s fair to criticize Amazon when it has poor worker safety issues in its warehouses, instead of needing to know what specific warehouse managers are in charge of those facilities. Or why it’s fair to criticize Apple for increasing their own ad business while cracking down on other companies’, when those are obviously different units. In the same way, it is very fair to call out hypocrisy in the NYT’s behavior, even if it happens in two different units of the business. They don’t get a pass just because one unit happens to be journalists or something.

by eli 5y ago

rock_hard 5y ago

Looking forward to read the editorial coverage of this story

dominotw 5y ago

> A newspaper isn't a monolith Neither is amazon.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

elefanten 5y ago

Given the NYT’s overall style and editorial choices these days, it’s a fair heading more broadly. Prime case in point: They have elevated opinionated moral crusading over responsible and informative reporting. If moral activism is the value the organization purports to elevate, it’s fair to call the organization dishonest when it employs transparently immoral business practices. Whether the editorial board is involved or not.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

anarazel 5y ago

Indeed. Obviously it's bad that the NYT is using these dark patterns. But it would be worse if the NYT would just stop to cover dark patterns, because of that. It's a sign of a working separation between the journalistic and business sides.

dominotw 5y ago
> It's a sign of a working separation between the journalistic and business sides. How is author not including his own employer in the article a sign of separation.
- eli 5y ago
  How is it a sign of lying?
  - dominotw 5y ago
    what else is the explanation for the omission? It just didnt occur to him?

ipsum2 5y ago

> the members of the editorial board have very little connection to the business side of the newspaper And yet you will never see the editorial side write negative things about the business side of the newspaper. People bring up this distinction that there is some barrier between the two, but its a very weak argument, since the incentives of both are the same (to increase the newspapers revenue)

eli 5y ago
This is the first one that came to mind but I’m sure there are many other examples especially if you include columnists. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/opinion/cartoon-nytimes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/opinion/cartoon-nytimes.h... I do think the paper made a huge mistake in eliminating the public editor position, which was essentially dedicated to criticism of the paper. I think you would be surprised with how little the editorial team at newspapers concerns themselves with revenue. It's to the point where it's often actually harmful to the organization.

zepto 5y ago

I think it’s entirely fair. If they are so independent, why don’t they critique the NYT itself in the article?

kcplate 5y ago

Sorry but no one who has worked at a newspaper for more than a day believes this. If a cub reporter wants to run a story that will piss off your largest advertiser, I can guarantee that it will be discouraged by any editor interested in keeping their job. Been there…

eli 5y ago
Me too. Guess we had different experiences. Regardless, I can assure you that the NYT Editorial Board holds very little sway over the subscriptions dept.

mdoms 5y ago

The New York Times absolutely is a monolith, whether they like it or not. They operate under one banner and in fact companies like NYT trade on their one trusted name. The general public considers them a monolith.

atty 5y ago

No company is a monolith, but the company, as an organization, is responsible for everything that happens inside the org. This is why it’s fair to criticize Amazon when it has poor worker safety issues in its warehouses, instead of needing to know what specific warehouse managers are in charge of those facilities. Or why it’s fair to criticize Apple for increasing their own ad business while cracking down on other companies’, when those are obviously different units. In the same way, it is very fair to call out hypocrisy in the NYT’s behavior, even if it happens in two different units of the business. They don’t get a pass just because one unit happens to be journalists or something.