‘Failing’ New York Times after all?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DUCKofD3ATH, Dec 16, 2016.

  1. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #1
    First we heard:

    ‘Failing’ New York Times Saw an Enormous Rise in Subscriptions After Election Day
    Trump is Wrong About New York Times Subscriptions Going Down
    But now we hear:

    New York Time Will Vacate 8 Floors In Its HQ To Generate "Significant Rental Revenue"
    The remaining staff will be consolidated on the remaining, redesigned floors in a "more dynamic, modern and open workplace, one that is better suited to the moment."

    Furthermore, the NYT publisher and CEO will lose their corner offices, which they call a "vestige from a different era" and will "introduce more team rooms and common spaces."​

    That sure doesn't sound like a company doing brisk business. Guess Trump was right about them failing.
     
  2. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
  3. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    The NYT, which I read almost every day, has been a disappointment during this election cycle and they're paying for it. I have no problem with endorsements, or even some bias (after all, we're all human), but they have been worse than Fox News. If I remember correctly on 9/12/16 they didn't even mention the video of HRC almost collapsing at the WTC...
     
  4. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #5
    Almost only counts in horseshoes. Everywhere else almost is horsefeathers. You really want to get into a blow by blow comparison of the merits of any two media outlet's coverage of Clinton's "health issues" during that campaign? I'm too busy right now but in the downtime of February, assuming Trump isn't making headlines worth reading... I mean there are enough insane threads in here we could just link to and I'd say "...and you wanted the New York Times to report that??"

    As far as the NYT being worse than Fox News... get a grip. If you read even the obituaries in the New York Times you're likely ahead on facts worth filing compared to fauxSnooze.
     
  5. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    Gigglesnort. WaPo and the NYT were, are, and likely will continue to be voices of the Left. All the news that's fit to fake--including plagiarism.

    QE has been good for the stockholders of the NYT. At one time the stock was cheaper than the Sunday edition. Now it's up to fourteen bucks.
     
  6. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #7
    What an Orwellian thread this is shaping up to be. Let's reboot here for a minute.

    If one has issues with reporting done by a mainstream media outlet, the thing to do is take it up directly with the paper instead of insinuating or accusing a good newspaper paper of poor journalism. Good newspapers like the Times and the WaPo will make corrections brought to their attention. Like many other media outlets they will sometimes jump on bandwagons because... that's what selling papers this afternoon and they are in business to sell papers... but it doesn't mean they don't have standards or are not interested in ensuring the standards are met.

    Whatever you want to think of the "bias" of the mainstream papers, they are staffed by professional journalists and it's not the bottom of the barrel working at such institutions either. It's the top of the top and the bars are set high.

    To suggest that these papers are merely voices of the left begs the question what "leftness" has to do with, say, a report warning pregnant women to avoid travelling to Brownsville TX at this time due to prevalence of Zika virus transmitted by local mosquitoes and current temperatures still allowing those insects to thrive.

    When it comes to reading newspapers reporting on politics, it's important to focus on the difference between what is campaign trail buzz, analysis, opinion... versus traditional reporting about a candidate's policies, where he was campaigning, who among local pols spoke for him, etc.

    That last bunch of stuff is not left or right, that's who what where when how stuff, journo 101. If you don't like reading opinions or analysis with which you disagree, great, just find an outlet whose opinions you prefer but don't tag the paper as a whole for how you perceive its opinions. You do no one a favor by such behavior. Where do you think minor media outlets get their news from anyway? They send a reporter from East Podunk to Paris or Aleppo? Read the piece again. You find credits to wire services and other newspapers...

    On plagiarism or other material errors: When the Times realizes it has a plagiarism problem or set of flawed reports, it does an investigation and reports its findings in detail. No media outlet is immune from these potential problems and of course must investigate and report the errors in order to restore credibility going forward.

    Finally on, of all things, stock prices: It's certainly a cheap shot to single out Times shareholders as having come to particular benefit during the economic recovery. You could say the same thing about any number of publicly traded American companies. The proverbial rising tide lifted whole fleets of boats, so if you had money you could afford to put at risk and didn't get in on the ground floor as we began to pull away from the bottom of the Great Recession, that is not the fault of anyone who happened to be able to buy NYT shares at that time. Why not pick on purchasers of Nordsrom or Macy's or those who went for Ford or hey what practically amounted to penny telecom stocks there for awhile. It was like shooting fish in a barrel in 2009 and there was so much upside on quality companies that it didn't even matter when you got in. Assuming the swell banks collapsing had actually left you anything to start with.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Stocks are up under Trump as well.
     
  8. R.Perez, Dec 17, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2016

    R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #9
    Let's stop giving someone who isn't president yet so much credit there. After all, the last jobs report was quite good and could easily explain some of the current stock performance.

    Also, where was the Dow at when Obama was sworn in and where is it now? Stock performance under Obama has been quite good. Corporate and Wall Street profits have been just fine. It was almost everyone else feeling the squeeze. Have we seen anything to suggest that will get better when Cheeto Dictator is sworn in? And please, people don't mention that ****ing joke of a Carrier deal for 600 jobs that the CEO has said will be automated in a few years.

    Also, you have to love the right-wing posters on here questioning the journalistic integrity of the New York Times and then saying nothing when someone posts an article from NewsMax right below OPs post. Gimme a break.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #10
    Businesses know the regulations are coming down. Funny that the left wants to take credit for the evil corporate entities making more profit, I thought they were going to try to spread that cash around a bit.
     
  10. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #11
    The whole point is that Obama is not on the political left, never has been. So essentially, you're debunking your own made up political construct.
     
  11. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
    #12
    To me the NYT lost its way when in canned all the Editors and went to bloggers for news stories. :mad:
     
  12. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #13
    All print media are suffering. Who here receives the same amount (or more) of print media that they did a few years ago ?
    --- Post Merged, Dec 17, 2016 ---
    I can't see any publication skewing the facts on obituaries so I agree that the NYT obituaries (and other media listings of obituaries) would be more accurate then most media publications / shows.

    I'm not sure you can directly compare Fox News to the NYT. Even though it says "News" in their title, Fox News is primarily an entertainment channel while the NYT is supposed to be (or was) a reporter of news. People purchased an NYT paper because they wanted the news (not entertainment) and because they were able to trust the news stories without commentary / opinion. Unfortunately, it looks like many people have lost their trust in the NYT and feel that the NYT is giving commentary / opinion rather then the news stories. The NYT can only turn things around by going back to what they used to be.
     
  13. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #14
    Pretty telling though that the markets jumped the day after the election and have kept going. Especially given they know the new administration is about to take off their chains off.
     
  14. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #15
    Ah, nothing says "evenhanded, cooly intellectual opinionating" than resorting to childish name-calling. "fauxSnooze"? Pitiful.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 17, 2016 ---
    Yes, but the NYT must be doing particularly badly to be forced to rent out space and make their executives give up their tony corner offices. The Wall Street Journal, for example, is still quite profitable.
     
  15. Plutonius macrumors 603

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #16
    Yes they are. I still believe in order to turn it around, the NYT needs to stick to news with all opinions / commentary in the editorial section.
     
  16. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #17
    It's all about expectations. I honestly don't expect Fox News, or MSNBC to be reliable. I expect CNN to be somewhat reliable.
    The NYT, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journals are institutions. They are not simply media outlets. There is a big, enormous difference between the New York Times and the New York Post. There is a big difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times. When I open to read an edition of the New York Times, I open the volume of one of the most important - if not THE most important - newspapers in the world. It's the the Encyclopedia Britannica of news. It might be less "fun" than its wikipedia counterpart, but by God if I need to know something serious Britannica is the place to go. NYT has to be reliable, efficient, and less biased. A news reported slightly wrong on the New York Times is much more damaging than some BS from Fox News or the New York Post. In that, the NYT has shown that in 2016 it is worse than Fox, CNN, or even MSNBC. The NYT not only betrayed its values, but also its history, its traditions, and its editorial line.
    As a faithful reader, I won't stand back on my comments, I actually rehiterate them and believe fully that the NYT has made a possibly irreparable damage to journalism (real journalism, not youtubing and click baiting). Hopefully they learned their lesson and with many years of hard work they will come back stronger than before. The US, the World, needs strong, real journalism, especially in the printed word.
     
  17. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #18
    It's the child in me that wants to keep living, darling. FauxSnooze should be considered a compliment by that outfit. Lighten up or I'll put up that meme about what happens when you "google" "Fox News" :D

    What's pitiful is the grasp on reality that Fox News viewers project onto their own situations when they limit themselves (for whatever choiceful or inadvertent reason) to that media outlet and only glance in on it once in the evening. As others here have pointed out, the impact would be somewhat less damaging if they'd watch it in the daytime when there's more of what passes for actual news coverage.

    You blithely note that the Wall Street Journal "is still quite profitable." I am not sure in what context or timeframe you make that assertion. You could be, or not be aware that Murdoch finally paid $5.6 billion while eating Dow Jones' debt in order to wrest the Journal away from the Bancroft family. And that he wrote down half of that a year later. That's before plowing in money to refresh his new toy. So go figure. Maybe it makes a buck and maybe it doesn't. The WSJ could be run as a loss leader in his info-empire, if Rupert were so inclined, and maybe he is. Let the Sydney Morning Herald pick up the tab, what the heck, it's just bookkeeping.

    The Wall Street Journal itself, back in the day more or less a running journal of capitalistic dreams and achievements --as distinct from a more generalized newspaper of record like the NYT or WaPo-- is a creature of a world in which either the Journal or the FT or both are mandatory reading before trading opens (anywhere) and so are usually company-provided subs.

    So bottom line, let's not compare apples and oranges. I subscribe to Rupert's shiny prize but unlike with my interest in the NYT (full disclosure: I own 100 shs), Murdoch is on his own past the sub fee. If the "War at the Wall Street Journal" (a good read, that book, by Sarah Ellison, a former reporter at the old Journal) had turned out differently after the Bancrofts got down to selling it, then perhaps I'd be a shareholder of a paper that was once a great read. Now it merely has some great reads in it from time to time and I try to plow through enough of the rest of it to make me think it's worth the annual re-up. So far the answer is yes. To be honest if Clinton had won the election I'd probably bail on the Journal since I do have a sub to the FT. So Trump's making money for Rupert, at least off my account.

    It remains to be seen how the NYT is doing, does it not? It's her perennial state. The Grey Lady can't win according to her detractors: She's bloated, she's starving. She's overmanaged, undermanaged, mismanaged, lost the thread, editorial is too influenced by corporate, corporate fails to take editorial in hand, the sins of the past darken prospects of the future, yada yada. But the Times doesn't play whack a mole on that stuff; no paper bothers flinging PR back at death knells, a form of trolling. They just do what post-literate era newspapers of record do: continue to construct (and correct) the record for those interested, and continue to innovate in their online offerings.

    I'm interested enough to subscribe to the Times online and don't regret for a moment sharing with other readers and the staff (and the Sulzbergers) the angst and joys of living through a time when newspapers have been pronounced dead or committed suicide in droves and the answer must lie online but there's so much resistance to paying for "news". I'm still willing to pay for news worth paying for.

    Somewhere in the evolution of commerce on the internet, we took a wrong turn with our "information wants to be free" mantra. It does, but it ain't. Whoever mistakes the struggles of our papers of record to stay in business as futile, or not worth supporting, will wake up some day to find themselves flying blind in a world that is about a lot more than the prices of marketable securities and the achievements of today's masters of the capitalist universe plus their political sycophants. We are what we feed our minds and none of it amounts to a free lunch when sourced properly. There's something missing at the WSJ and you will find it in a more general paper of record. Pick one (and it doesn't have to be American, either).
     
  18. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #19
    They said they would downsize the Paris operations in April.
     
  19. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #20
    They could do that. They'd have to have a "come to Jesus" moment, admit their error, and then reorganize to hire a more diverse culture of reporters. Then they'd need to have fact checkers who include those on the Right. After a couple of years, I'm sure they'd be profitable again.
     
  20. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #21
    This short interview with Chomsky by TV person Andrew Marr could short circuit the (learned and welcome) posts by @LizCat .His short answer "you wouldn't be sitting there if you had different views" gives Marr the inkling that everything he has been told is true is probably all bollocks:




    E2a: Forgot the point of the post, any idea that the main stream media in the U.S. or Europe is not guided by the wealthy owners (including trusts like the Guardian) is ludicrous as is the idea of the leftwing liberal press.In sixty five years never come across one.(again fifties Guardian got close)
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #22
    R.Perez, the political left has always favored the increase in central planning. That's been going on for the last half-century, and Obama certainly has made no effort to change that. The government takeover of Generous Motors and the taking control of Fannie&Freddie certainly were not in any form free-market actions.

    What we've been suffering here for a long time is parts of Socialism in the "from each according to his ability to pay" (graduated income tax) and "to each according to his need" (welfare/entitlements).

    Then, in the sense that Fascism includes "You own it, but we'll tell you what you can do with it", we have all the alphabet agencies. Self-defense on the part of the business world has thus led to Mussolini's marriage of government and corporations. Thus the growth in influence of the Banksters, the MI complex and such as ADM (gasohol).
     
  22. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #23
    This was on the Power Line blog:

    This is Spinal Tap territory. Playing the Ian Faith role in explaining that the New York Times‘s appeal isn’t shrinking but is merely becoming “more selective” is publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.:

    “The coming redesign will introduce more team rooms and common spaces,” publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and president and CEO Mark Thompson wrote in a company memo Friday. “And, we will do away with big corner offices, like the ones you see on the 16th and 17th floors, including, yes, the publisher and CEO’s offices. We don’t need to preserve those vestiges from a different era, so we won’t.”
    Heh. A “different era” meaning when newspapers were profitable, and elite reporters flew first class. Shadow owner Carlos Slim will need to change his name to Carlos Slimmer if this keeps up.​
     
  23. alex2792, Dec 19, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2016

    alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #24
    They're THIS close to entering the Huffington Post territory. The only thing that's missing is a "transexual, gay, aborted baby, gender neutral Muslims ranting about white privilege" section to totally nail this thing down.
     
  24. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #25
    I agree, but I would not limit it to just printed journalism. They can't ignore podcasts, youtube, and social media. If anything, the NYT is an example of what happens when you ignore those things for too long. There has been a sort of spoken-word revolution lately in the podcast world, with a wealth of very high quality new content. Likewise, there are some great gems on youtube.

    Whole the world and US need strong, quality, real journalism, I think the issue across all mediums is how to monetize it? It's not free after all. Many podcasts rely on donations and public grants. Youtubers rely on ad revenue. In Boston, I see the most talented journalists going to non-journalist careers - such as PR and marketing. The top of the top talent seem goes to public media - such as NPR - mainly because we have a very healthy local NPR station.

    NYT is proving that living off subscriptions alone is insufficient. CNN is proving that living off ad revenue alone is insufficient. So what do they do?

    I don't know if it would work, but I think they should try the donation / fund-drive model. It's annoying, but I think if people see them less as "profit corporation providing a fee-for-service" and more as a public good, they would be willing to pay more.
     

Share This Page