Please let's ban paywalled articles or else change the link to a google search so that the free version can be clicked.
The NYT has lost its position as the paper of record and has lost so much credibility. I used to be close to re-subscribing, but the horrible coverage of the 2016 election has helped me vow never to subscribe again. The NYT is America's Pravda and it continues to disgrace itself by trying to create a narrative to supports its political interests (Judith Miller, etc.)
Posting paywalled stories is an attempt to help the organization generate revenue, much like posting a link that adds an item to cart and funnels the user right to the checkout page.
- Is paying for news categorically bad, or is it OK?
- If it is bad, why do you think volunteers will magically produce better results than paid journalists/editors/etc.?
- If it is OK that news gets paid for, why do you object to posting paid news sources on HN?
- If you do not object to paid sources, but only to some sources, and the sources are indicated when the link is posted, why do you think they should the system should prevent the links from being clicked rather than let users choose which sources to visit?
Imagine if many HN posts were links to academic journals with subscriptions costing $250 per year. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's not fun to continually click on links and be greeted by a paywall.
> If it is bad, why do you think volunteers will magically produce better results than paid journalists/editors/etc.?
It has nothing to do with how the writers are paid, it has to do with how the publication generates revenue.
> If it is OK that news gets paid for, why do you object to posting paid news sources on HN?
I simply don't like clicking on a link and finding myself at a paywall. I'd prefer to be able to filter out all such links and avoid ever knowing they're there. They amount to teaser clickbait headlines for content that is not free to read.
> If you do not object to paid sources, but only to some sources, and the sources are indicated when the link is posted, why do you think they should the system should prevent the links from being clicked rather than let users choose which sources to visit?
The source is low contrast and I rarely notice it when skimming the home page. My suggestion of converting the link to a google search to allow the content to be freely accessed would solve the problem.
Every media source has bias - is the NYT really any worse than others?
> Every media source has bias - is the NYT really any worse than others?
The NYT is far worse, simply because great measures are taken to make the content seem like actual unbiased news. Nobody minds editorial content on the editorial page, but the NYT has grown increasingly bold with its "narrative" where stories serve to reinforce a predefined worldview, which is essentially a form of propaganda.
The paper runs a small number of actual unbiased articles, and a small number of quality stores about progressive causes, but those serve to help disguise its true nature.
Ever since the Judith Miller fiasco the paper has gone down hill. What was previously simply omission of newsworthy content has become outright promotion of ideas.
I suppose one explanation is that the NYT has "fans" of a worldview who simply want to pay for a specific narrative. That's fine, I guess, but it's not actually news.