Hacker News Reader

Comment by bachmeier | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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