I've just about stopped bothering about news sites like NYT that go to inordinate lengths to stop access to casual viewers, they're simply just not worth the ef

I've just about stopped bothering about news sites like NYT that go to inordinate lengths to stop access to casual viewers, they're simply just not worth the effort. If the story is important and or it's breaking news then it's almost inevitably available from multiple outlets, or it is in short order. Otherwise it's opined or editorial material that's the view of the news outlet. I can do without such editorializing, there's just so much other stuff on the web that's competing for my attention which is much more accessible. Another reason to avoid such sites is the huge amount of bloat which is usually much, much larger than the story content (as here), JavaScript junk, ads and links to dozens of data gathering sites make them pathetically slow—so slow one almost cries out of frustration. More to the point, readers are paying for network time to download this junk. Given your comment, here's what this 'blank' page consisted of: Size of download: 973,384 bytes index.html = 733,826 bytes (Almost unbelievable, I dare you all to just take a look at this junk!) Given what slowmovintarget said about its limited content, and that plaintext is about 2kB/page, the evidence speaks for itself. NYT, haven't you yet figured out you are just doing yourselves a disservice with these antics?