3 ms·
I'd been a relatively long-time subscriber (since 2016) and preferred the Post to the Times for political and international news; more focused, a little drier,
by tptacek 9mo ago
I'd been a relatively long-time subscriber (since 2016) and preferred the Post to the Times for political and international news; more focused, a little drier, easier to follow. I canceled my subscription early last year, not because of anything Bezos did, but because the Times had improved to the point where I just wasn't reading the Post very often.
In understanding everything that's being written about the Post layoffs, one thing you absolutely have to understand (you can weight it however you'd like) to have a coherent take is: the New York Times is an anomaly. Newspapers are a terrible business. People don't get news from newspapers anymore, and advertisers don't reach customers through them.
The Times is thriving because they've pivoted from being a newspaper to being a media business. The games vertical is the first thing people talk about, but cooking is arguably a better example. The verticals have dedicated users, their own go-to-markets, their own user retention loops.
Like basically every other newspaper, the Post failed to replicate this. They're staffed like a big media business, not like a targeted vertical like Politico, but they don't successfully operate like a media business.
- breakyerself 9mo agoNYT is good for games and cooking. Their news editors are garbage.
- tptacek 9mo agoWhen did you last subscribe?
- testdelacc1 9mo agoNot the other commenter, but I subscribed till November 2024. Am I allowed to say that they're garbage?
- tptacek 9mo agoYou can say whatever you'd like! It's just a useful data point. Current subscribers, former subscribers, and non-subscribers have different takes.
- guelo 9mo agoI was a subscriber until last year. They produce outstanding journalism with the exception of their Zionist pro-war bias, which I was ok ignoring until my disgust with their genocide whitewashing became too much.
- g8oz 9mo agoSame
- diffs 9mo agoHave you considered, and hear me out here, that the bias is yours? I mean if their reporting about everything but this one topic is good, perhaps their “Zionist pro-war bias” and “genocide whitewashing” only seem that way to you because you’ve assumed an extremist position on the issue?
- tptacek 9mo agoIt's not a reason I myself would rely on to end a subscription but I'm glad for the data point and don't see the point in cross-examining. I'm thankful they took the time to answer my question.
- diffs 9mo agoYou’re right, tptacek, I probably should’ve stayed out of this.
- kmote00 9mo agoI'm glad you didn't. Your reasoning was perfectly sound. The fact that your answer got downvoted is simply further evidence that there are those who want to hold a position without genuinely considering the arguments in favor of the alternate position.
- guelo 9mo agoThis is so condescending. You assume that your side has considered the opposing arguments and the other side has not and that is why they hold the wrong position.
- profsummergig 9mo agoAlso, it seems there are a lot of paid posts on NYT. Recently, both NYT and WP had front page articles about a book by some billionaire's daughter whose husband cheated on her. They seemed like puff-PR posts.
- epistasis 9mo agoThis sort of nearly open corruption at NYT is worthy of a Trump operation, to be honest. When Kanye West bought a full-page ad apologizing for his anti-semitisim upon release of a new album, he apparently also bought a full-on legitimate looking "news" article to go with it: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/26/arts/music/ye-kanye-west-apology-antisemitism.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/26/arts/music/ye-kanye-west-... This is the same newspaper that has reporters bragging on Twitter that they shouldn't have to report on major economic news, like the broad effects of the Inflation Reduction Act, because they don't need to report on anything that would benefit Biden. Apparently Biden didn't pay off the right people at the NYTimes.
- tptacek 9mo agoYou get that the economics underlying these claims about buying articles don't make much sense, right? The whole point of the NYT is that the newsfeed isn't the core business.
- epistasis 9mo agoThe newsfeed doesn't need to be the core business for NYTimes to sell full-page advertisements, nor does it need to be the core business to sell stories on preferred topics.
- tptacek 9mo agoSure. They could sell a lot of things that aren't core to their business. But why would they? Their next marginal dollar doesn't come from squeezing the news organization; in fact, the way things are trending, news is basically looking like it'll be a loss leader for them.
- groundzeros2015 9mo agoIt’s either a crossword or a religion.
- ilamont 9mo ago> The Times is thriving because they've pivoted from being a newspaper to being a media business. The games vertical is the first thing people talk about, but cooking is arguably a better example. The verticals have dedicated users, their own go-to-markets, their own user retention loops. NYT is taking a smart approach to other verticals, such as The Athletic and some of their podcasts (for tech, Hard Fork). I am hoping they can figure out business coverage eventually. What surprises me is how almost no other "hard news" brand in the English-speaking world has attempted to follow even a lite version of the NYT approach. It's not like Bezos or the other billionaire owners of legacy media (Murdoch, Soon-Shiong, Henry, etc) didn't have the chops or the deep pockets to invest in a recipe database or a simple gaming portal. Even AARP figured out that simple games are a good way to engage with its users (https://www.aarp.org/games/ https://www.aarp.org/games/).
- dmix 9mo agoAfter subscribing for a decade I canceled NYT last yr because I felt it was leaning more into social media bait (which I dont blame them for business reasons). That plus they kept blocking Firefox with an unpassable captcha even though I was logged in. I now read WSJ largely for the same reasons "more focused, a little drier, easier to follow". I also find WSJ is much better at writing good headlines that draw you in, on a broad range of topics not just breaking Trump news 24/7 which is mostly what NTYimes notifies you with. WSJ also has an excellent Youtube channel, probably the best of the big 3. The only problem with WSJ is it costs twice as much.
- tptacek 9mo agoI've been debating a WSJ subscription for years; it helps that they have a very strong paywall, so there's a big convenience factor.
- dmix 9mo agoIt is much easier to get by not paying for NYT by using stuff like https://periscope.corsfix.com/ https://periscope.corsfix.com/ for sure. But it is a big inconvenience. WSJ is much more aggressive with it.
- nobody9999 9mo ago>It is much easier to get by not paying for NYT by using stuff like https://periscope.corsfix.com/ https://periscope.corsfix.com/ for sure. But it is a big inconvenience. WSJ is much more aggressive with it. While not made specifically for that purpose, this extension[0][1] does a nice job without a lot of hassle, and it makes such pages accessible to others with a URL you can share. The downside is that dynamic content isn't supported. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/archive-page/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/archive-page/ [1[ https://github.com/JNavas2/Archive-Page https://github.com/JNavas2/Archive-Page
- compsciphd 9mo agothe washngton post was a media business. The Graham family kept the rest of the media business and sold off the newspaper.