Hacker News Reader

Comment by volaski | Hacker News Reader

Just because something is in vogue doesn't mean it is the right answer in the long term. Their mission is NOT about generating more pageviews in the short term to rack up ad revenue but stick to being a reliable source of information. Outlets like Buzzfeed have their own place but that doesn't mean New York Times need to "adapt" to become one of those. That's the worst decision they can make. People who go to New York Times are not there because they're bored and want to read the next "what sex and the city character are you?". They are there because they want to stay on top of only what matters today, which means not everyone will appreciate it if the front page is an infinite scroll page of links. Also your opinion about their font is your opinion. I am fond of it. Lastly, there are tons of articles with embedded media, here's one: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/nyregion/bronx-school-embr...

View on HN

> Just because something is in vogue doesn't mean it is the right answer in the long term. Their mission is NOT about generating more pageviews in the short term to rack up ad revenue

Nothing I mentioned was abouut trends or short term page view revenue. It's about making their site more functional, improving their content by taking advantage of multimedia (hardly a trend by now) and making their excellent content more available to their readers.

> there are tons of articles with embedded media, here's one: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/nyregion/bronx-school-embr....

In that article, the photos are what I meant by 'decorative' media (I'll agree it's not a perfect choice of word). the not integral to the story - you could skip the photos and not miss anything. The video is separate from the text of the story; they are not integrated; from reading the story, There is no indication that the author of the text knows that the video exists.

What I see many amateur bloggers do is tell one story and use the right tool for the right moment. Where text tells the the story best, use that; switch to video/audio/whatever when that does best. The story is what matters, not the media used. As one possible example:

At New Visions Charter High School in the Bronx, here's how one innovative class starts its day:

<video of segment class> Click <here> to watch the full class (45 min.)

What you just saw is a new school program that seeks to use hip-hop music to reach teenagers who may not respond to more traditional counseling. Called hip-hop therapy, it encourages them to give voice to their day-to-day struggles in neighborhoods where poverty and crime are constants, and provides a foundation for school leaders to engage directly with them in a way that seems more enjoyable than intrusive.

I appreciate knowing that I can read the NY Times anywhere and not have to view some video or (worse) have a video start blaring out at me.

Video is popular nowadays not because that's what users want but because that's what generates more ad revenue for media. There are certain cases where video storytelling is better than textual/visual storytelling but very rarely so. In case you have forgotten, there's this thing called "TV" that has been in the video space long before Internet came along. That didn't mean NYT had to turn themselves into CNN. I would never visit a NYT article if they start autoplaying videos on their website, for the same reason I never visit college humor anymore (they used to be a nice fun site but at certain point they started only serving videos, and nobody has time for videos)

Separating mediums, text and video, is I think an archaic perspective on communication. Convergence happened long ago (for bloggers, as I've mentioned a few times).

We should be fluent enough to use whatever medium best gets across the next idea in the article.

Their mission is NOT about generating more pageviews in the short term to rack up ad revenue but stick to being a reliable source of information

Strictly speaking, their mission of the NYT is to make enough money to survive. In the long term, that will prove difficult if the audience does not grow.

It's all very well trying to be a reliable source of information, but a reliable source of information combined with frothy light articles is better than a bankrupt company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com