Hacker News Reader

Comment by linkydinkandyou | Hacker News Reader

I pay for a NY Times digital subscription. Even though I don't always agree with their editorial slant, it's better quality news in on place than you can get for "free" around the web.

People hate paying so much these days that they'll deal with poor quality information. We used to all pay for newspapers--why should they be "free" now just because there's no paper?

View on HN

I generally agree. My only hesitation is that I wish they would simplify the pricing structure -- everything's pitched around promotional rates and discounts that only apply for X weeks, so it's difficult to know at a glance exactly what a sub will end up costing you over, say, a year.

I'm sure they have their reasons for doing it that way, but to me these kind of pricing structures are a huge turn-off. Just tell me what it costs and let me pay it, you know? If you want to capitalize on the moment when I'm reading an NYT story and think "you know, this is so good I really should be paying for it," putting math problems between me and the payment form is the wrong way to do it.

I've found nytimes.com content to be great and exhibiting great technical, artistic, and journalistic merit[1]. As a result, I visit it daily and and it's the first time in my life I have a paid recurring news subscription.

However, nytimes.com has a very regrettable pricing structure, as you say. They seem to aim to be Comcast-like. The pricing is:

* Heavily promotional (special price 50%+ off sticker price)

* Difficult to cancel (you are asked to call them, although they will ultimately run it through email)

* Opaque in billing (no way to actually look at the terms of your current subscription/promotion; full payment history hidden away to obscure how much you're paying them)

They do this no doubt because it works in the short term and bumps up numbers. But as a consumer I can't help but feel they are losing goodwill and face in this new age and hope they come around to more contemporary online billing practices.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media... is the best example I can find. It's very nice to get stuff like this every week. Kudos to the web team.

Recently I unsubscribed from the digital-only crossword and had to call in to get it done despite signing up entirely online. Their pricing structure isn't the only antiquated thing in the process.

This drove me batty as well. When I eventually caved and re-subscribed, I did it through iTunes -- it's the same price (they eat the 30%) and a one-click cancellation.

I agree. There's so much high quality content that it's almost like getting several first rate magazines (the weekly magazine, the NYT Book Review, the voluminous food section, etc.) along with a world-class newspaper.

> Even though I don't always agree with their editorial slant

You're better off disagreeing with something well written than agreeing with crap.

Is there any evidence that you get better quality content from a NY Times subscription than you get for free on the web? I personally don't view the NY Times as a credible source.

Every nyt article goes through layers of editing, fact checking and copy editing by people with years, often decades of experience. Nyt is one of the few places that can afford to do this. Furthermore, if the nyt does get something wrong, unlike most blogs, etc; there is a framework in place for submitting and publishing corrections. NYT even pays someone (Margaret Sullivan, the public editor) to advocate for readers. She writes about her work here[0].

Per evidence. Here's evidence: half the 'content' you read on the web was first reported by the nyt.

Recent examples: Hilary clinton emails, VW scandal, Nail salon exploitation, etc, etc...

here are 50 more:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/21/business/media...

(disclaimer: i work for the nyt but opinions are my own)

[0] http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index....

If only a similar process existed to check the editorial bias that permeates purportedly non-editorial content.

I used to have a very high trust in NYTimes articles but my 'trust level' dropped steeply (at least when it comes to foreign news) when I started reading their articles about Nigeria (I happen to be very familiar with the country). Lots of their stories about Nigeria were heavily skewed to 'portray a certain view', a few were outrightly false. The tipping point was when I read the Editorial about the presidential election that was postponed and it was factually incorrect. My thought was this - I know about these inconsistencies and false reporting because I'm familiar with the country. What is the guarantee that something similar is not happening with their reports on other countries. Nowadays, I stick with Aljazeera and BBC for foreign news

> Is there any evidence that you get better quality content from a NY Times subscription than you get for free on the web?

An interesting question:

1) It's not something that can be measured. It's similar to asking, 'is there any evidence that FDR was a better President than Calvin Coolidge?'

2) Is there evidence of that others are better?

3) Based on my experience, I believe the NY Times output has been more accurate than almost any other source (maybe the Financial Times or something I'm not thinking of). That's not true for every story, but over the population of stories. Because I can't evaluate the accuracy of each story, I need to find a source I trust.

4) The NY Times breaks many important stories that are not in other publications, at least not until the Times breaks them.

5) FWIW, Paul Graham, at least at one time, thought highly of the NYT's integrity (search the page for "times"). http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

6) The NYT's reputation is excellent, relative to other news sources; many people trust it. Also, both the left and right say the Times is biased against them, which I think is a good sign.

All that said, certainly the Times isn't perfect and has much room to improve.

What are some free and credible sources?

I'm an Economist subscriber so I do pay for news.

"What are some free and credible sources?"

BBC News (bbc.co.uk/news) isn't really free to UK users but website vistors outside the UK don't pay (but they do get ads instead). Of course, the BBC's news coverage of the US is nowhere near as extensive as NYT. They don't cover the US arts/sports/food/tech scene etc. (It would be interesting to see the breakdown of subscribers to the NYT. Are they mainly US readers? Or are there international subscribers too?)

If you don't like the BBC, there's Al-Jazeera. I suspect many Americans distrust them, but I'm impressed by the scale of their international news coverage.

I'm guessing that most people check multiple news sources (even if you trust some sources less than others). Does anyone really rely on a single news provider nowadays?

Can you give a few example metrics by which you would use to evaluate offered evidence?

Is there any evidence that you get better quality content from a NY Times subscription than you get for free on the web?

I would like to hear this argument as well.

Is there any evidence that a Beatles album is of any higher quality than a Vanilla Ice album?

Yes. Sunday mornings on my local AM oldies station is a Beatles program, featuring songs, old interviews and factoids. Probably lots of stations around the country carry it or similar.

Do the thought experiment. Will there ever be a Sunday Vanilla Ice program forty years after Vanilla Ice was current? I really doubt it.

(Ask a question, you risk responses. :)

That's just a measure of popularity, not quality (however that could be defined).

Popular music is entertainment. People wouldn't listen to it if they weren't entertained. They're probably entertained.

Thought experiments resulting in "I don't think something will happen in the future" aren't evidence.

How does that mean the quality is better?

If we define the metrics by which we judge quality, then possibly yes, possibly no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com