Why does the NY Times charge $$
10 responses | 0 likes
Started by joj - July 22, 2019, 2:56 p.m.

I occasionally post an article or an editorial from the NY Times and am reminded that the public doesn’t get it for free.  Same with the fine reporting from the Washington Post and Bloomberg.  

Foxnews is free.

Breitbart is free.

I am guessing it a reflection of the fact that Foxnews is a propaganda arm of conservatism.

By TimNew - July 22, 2019, 3:04 p.m.
Like Reply

No,  FOX just has a better understanding of business and realizes that they can generate for more money from ads with a wide readership.

A propaganda arm of the socialist movement in the US is unlikely to gasp that concept.

By mcfarm - July 22, 2019, 4:20 p.m.
Like Reply

our local paper had the same problem the NY times has....declining subscriptions by the the thousands and for the same reason...both turned far left commy type papers that nobody thinking American wants to read. I cancelled my subscription to our local paper after 50 years. They call all the time now with special low dollar offers if I give them 1 more chance. I ask about their editorial page and how the right gets squeezed out. They say no change  and I say "thanks and go away until you become atleast pretend balanced"

By metmike - July 22, 2019, 4:44 p.m.
Like Reply

Right joj,

All the sources that print what you like to read......provide "fine reporting" but the sources that print things that you disagree with are sources of "the propaganda arm of conservatism"

It's  great when we get to observe ingrained human behavioral  patterns repeating themselves with countless examples here, some more profound than others.

This one ranks near the top (-:

"Cognitive Biases"


 What just happened?

joj made a random political post with the sole objective of targeting conservatives here by attacking the authenticity of 2 of their main news sources, while bragging about the fine reporting of his more liberal sources.

The intended targets of his post, immediately responded as he was hoping they would, confirming that his effort to mess with them paid off. 

Then metmike had some fun analyzing what just happened.

By mcfarm - July 22, 2019, 6:02 p.m.
Like Reply

MM, except one detail, mine had facts. Non deniable facts. Lib papers are falling and failing by the dozen.

By metmike - July 22, 2019, 7:34 p.m.
Like Reply

"MM, except one detail, mine had facts. Non deniable facts."

mcfarm, you mentioned one of my favorite words........facts. Let's go on a little fact finding mission here and see how the sources of  joj's  fine reporting have been doing recently:

Average paid and verified weekday circulation* of the New York Times from 2000 to 2018 (in 1,000 copies)


Like most other American newspapers, The New York Times has experienced a decline in circulation. Its printed weekday circulation dropped by 50 percent to 540,000 copies from 2005 to 2017

By metmike - July 22, 2019, 7:40 p.m.
Like Reply

Of course this is entirely because of the physical paper part of the industry itself is getting obsolete  and there is much more competition with live news on the internet making yesterdays news in the paper............old news. 

Decline of News-on-paper: United States


More than a 1/3 of paid daily newspaper circulation has disappeared over 10 years

At the turn of the century, newspaper circulation in the United States rested at a relatively stable level of approximately 55 million copies a year. Nevertheless, ever since peaking in the late 1980s—hitting 62.82 million in 1987—the circulation of paid daily newspapers has consistently declined.

Image result for washington post graph of circulation

By metmike - July 22, 2019, 7:57 p.m.
Like Reply

Here is an interesting graph. Television news networks certainly are not suffering from the same problem as conventionally delivered newspapers, in fact, they have benefited from this very controversial president....some by design:

How are CNN's ratings since Trump took office?


By metmike - July 22, 2019, 8:12 p.m.
Like Reply

But digital subscriptions for the NYT and others have soared in recent years, one of those subscribers being joj, who is willing to pay to have his news delivered by the entity that tells it the way he likes to read it.

I believe that the NYT is #1 in this market.


Infographic: The "Failing" NY Times Passes 2.5 Million Digital Subscriptions | Statista

By JP - July 22, 2019, 8:47 p.m.
Like Reply

I occasionally post an article or an editorial from the NY Times and am reminded that the public doesn’t get it for free. Same with the fine reporting from the Washington Post and Bloomberg.  

Fascinating. Who reminds you? 

Foxnews is free.

Well, what do you know?

Breitbart is free.

Will wonders never cease?

I am guessing it (sic) a reflection of the fact that Foxnews is a propaganda arm of conservatism.

Well, bless your heart. Thanks for sharing!

By TimNew - July 23, 2019, 5:41 a.m.
Like Reply

But, it is a fact that internet business  like news outlets and social media make far more money from ad revenue than they do from subscription revenue. I read an article on this in the late 90's and it remains true today. And the heavier the traffic, the more revenue ads will generate.  Facebook is an excellent example of this business model. Subscription prices tend to drive away potential customers, thus reducing ad revenue, while to my knowledge, not offsetting the lost ad revenue.

We can speculate as to why the NYT does not adhere to this proven business model, and my "arm of the socialist movement" was obviously an "editorial" inspired by JOJ's "arm of right wing propaganda"  comment. 

It's certainly  a reasonable hypothesis that left wingers don't appreciate or even understand free market capitalism.