Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jaytaylor | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

jaytaylor

Now NYT disables reading from incognito. Lame.

http://archive.is/cF01U

View on HN

Turn off JS and open in either private/regular window:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/disable-javas...

WaPo has been doing that for a few months. LATimes started doing that this week as well.

Use Firefox's reader mode. You might need to refresh once or twice to get the full NYT article in reader mode.

How do these work anyway? Guess they're running some feature checks as the (probably aged to hell) webview in the HN or reddit app I use always hits that wall.

Logging in sort of defeats the point of private mode.

Most people were using private mode to read more articles than they paywall allows without paying for a subscription.

And incognito mode sort of defeats the point of a paywall.

Not defending it, but the motivations are pretty clear here.

Anecdotally, I've also found this link helpful if you find yourself hitting NYT paywalls in the future: https://www.nytimes.com/subscription

This is an off-topic comment that is distracting from the topic-at-hand.

For a "hacker," one just disables scripts from running from that domain.

They've been lame every since implementing article limits. It's the freaking news. Who wants to pay to read the news, especially when the articles are shared all over the web?

I pay to read the news because I prefer to get information from high-quality organizations that I trust to hire skilled, relatively objective journalists who will work hard to accurately report a story.

So much of unpaid journalism is bloggers re-hashing the work of these big(ger)-budget news agencies, often with less clarity and more partisan slant. Not to say NYT, WaPo, WSJ and other high-quality paid sources are perfect but they are far better than the free competition.

The NY Times doesn't exactly have a consistent record of skilled, relatively objective reporting.

Are there specific instances you have in mind? I actually think they do pretty good job on the whole.

Sure. Two of the most egregious examples are the early coverage of the Vietnam war and basically all of the coverage of the U.S. meddling in Latin American politics. There's also its long track record of uncritical coverage of the so-called "war on terror", especially during Obama's tenure. When not busy toeing the military-industrial line, the Times is happy to report that there's still a genuine debate about whether climate change is real [1] and that people who have flatly been accused of rape are simply having "#metoo problems."

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anytimes.com+"debate+o...

All true but most people don't want all their news from one outlet any more.

Yeah. It sucks that there's not a great solution here (at least not one that I know of; I haven't looked to closely at the various buffet-style options). Currently I pay for three subscriptions: one local (Long Beach Press-Telegram) one regional (LA Times) and one national (NY Times).

Because it costs money to pay the professionals who report and write the articles?

I thought that they got most of that money from the companies and influencers paying them to write stories and passing it as news?

Such as?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com