I gave up on the NYT as a news source in their handling of the Iraq War. Prior to that it was a daily purchase.
That was more than 20 years ago. It's hardly relevant to the journalism landscape in 2026.
It's not inconceivable that in the near future, if you give up on the NYT, you give up on having a news source, period.
It is actually very relevant. If you read Chomsky & Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent', you'll get examples from the 1970s and 1980s, another 20 years earlier, and you will find that "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".
You're stuck in the past, and letting the (non-existent) perfect be the enemy of the good. However imperfect the newspaper industry may have been, it was a whole hell of a lot better than the mix of social media and outright propaganda that's come to replace it.
Pretty soon you may have no place to find out what's going on in your city, country, or the world; except via the rumor mill and works similar to Melania. But I guess you think that's fine fine, because Chomsky & Herman said the NYT wasn't perfect?
Am I? I'm not the one claiming that
> the newspaper industry... was a ... lot better than [that which]'s come to replace it.
Sure, dwell on Manufacturing Consent in the 90s when journalism was strong and better resourced. But nowadays it seems quaint, like a picky review of a fancy 5-star restaurant when the restaurant industry is collapsing and people may not be able to afford food.
Journalism is collapsing, to be replaced by something worse, not better.
It's also exactly the sort of take you'd see propagated by what the NYT functionally is, so I guess have fun with that? For me, seeing wild talk like that only underscores my complete, utter, earned distrust of the thing. All righty then, the New York Times is the only information, full stop. How nice for it.
Then have fun reading takes on social media other kinds of cheap opinionating. Is that really better?
Letting the perfect become the enemy of the good is a problem a lot of people have.
Not yet, but if you've looked at the trends, that's a real possibility. The New York Times doesn't have any problems not shared by other organizations like it, and I think it's important for such journalism organizations to exist.
It also provided tremendous access to the NYT, but most of those outlets are unhealthy or dying at this point ... because of the internet.
> I have not seen the NYT editorial board doing anything to improve their status. Didn’t Paul Krugman leave the times for integrity reasons?
Who cares about them? Anyone can write an opinion column. That's not what we need newspapers for.
"I thought CBS news was crap so I stopped watching it for NBC News"
You didn't lose much by the way, their handling of Gaza was equally despicable.