Tweet from Rosen:
@jayrosen_nyu: It's called "harvesting." You. admit your newspaper has no future. And you milk the remaining years of profit in print. http://t.co/xKh1mec
End messsage:
My point is that I've tried to give the NYT a reason for me to subscribe since since they started their paywall, but what I found was a horrible downgrade in intelligence and reporting, except for the usual suspects (Krugman, Nicholas for two.)
A feminist blog recently noted a recent NYT report that seemed more of a promotion of the makeup industry than a news feature. My SO showed me that. We laughed except we really felt like crying.
About a year ago we ran into a report at Th Times that promoted "Slushies" as the new sports drink, but it turns out that the linked scientific study only promoted non-caloric ice-slurries over cold water before exercise, noting that it allowed exercisers to go 20% longer before suffering heat freeze in an indoor warm exercise chamber on treadmills, no replenishment allowed.
The 20% increased the ability to treadmill for the slurry only to 50 minutes over 40 for the same amount of cold water, but a NYT report told us that meant that we should drink a three hundred calorie (I'm guessing and that's more than the NYT did and will do under their paywall scam) to enhance your 40 min workout. To Ms Gina Kolada's credit, she did link to the original scientific study and collaborated with the head Aussie scientist of the study (name unremembered). She also linked to the original study which is the only reason I knew the details of the original study which didn't match the promotion of 300 calorie drinks from the local quickie mart facility.
My point is that all we asked this year was that the NYT and other paywall newspapers beat Ms Kolada's crazy Slushy report so I can pay them.
Instead we see a downgrade.
NYT & most other pay wall papers have shown a lowering of standard and an extreme move to the right since their paywalls were installed.
It is telling that the NYT fired their ethicist Mr. Cohen, just days before their paywall went up.
Apparently they pretended that their paywall would help them improve their reporting, and he only learned it would be the opposite and objected. I don't know for sure.
(Other intelligent columnists jumped ship in the last weeks of free NYT proving the move was more World Trade Center disaster than an improvement of a news system and subsequent reporting.)
I thought recently that the NYT was trying to take over the WSJ readers pocketbooks. (They are more affluent you know, but my daughter, in trying to save her family, graduated ) as an accountant, subscribed to the Wall Street Journal, turned 24, moved out, and forgot to move her paper subscription.)
All I ask is that the NYT beat the WSJ in non propoganda in the twenty articles I pick up a month. So far they are losing. I will not trust any paywall until I find one that deals w/ reality rather than sucks up to the assumed "more affluent" right. Till I contact my kid and
see if she isn't using her internet approvals, I am, like you, stuck, like you, stuck in a world of propoganda when dealing w/ most MSM.
To any news source: Please. give. me a reason to believe in you. Don't turn to the right.
And, Bloggers, Don't follow the NYT and move to the right of Murdoch's WSJ. Then I will follow you.
