> No one paid the NYTimes to publish this and it could have just as easily been a negative review.
NYTimes is primarily ad supported, of course they were paid to publish it.
NYTimes is primarily ad supported, of course they were paid to publish it.
This is not true.
"The company said on Thursday that it added 157,000 net digital-only subscriptions in the fourth quarter of the year, pushing overall subscription revenue to more than $1 billion for the year. Subscription revenue now accounts for 60 percent of the company’s total revenue."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-c...
Which of these entities do you think paid the NYT to publish this review? Because that would be a major story.
Also, you shifted the argument. You asserted that "of course" someone paid the NYT to publish the review. Who did, and how did you discover this?
I don't get paid for writing my blog, and I've reviewed books that have probably only ever had ten readers. If they're really not getting paid either way then it shouldn't matter.
They issue quarterly updates on their finances which include how much they make from subscription (a bundle): https://nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/new-york-times-compa...