zlacker

>>uptown+(OP)
Although it's regrettable that Reuters' content will be harder to access, it's a positive trend for the news ecosystem to generate increasing revenue through a subscription-based business model rather than selling ads.

The more money that comes from subscriptions, the more that news coverage will reflect the interests of subscribers rather than advertisers.

>>rectan+4d
In my very personal opinion, based on the New York Times this isn't necessarily a good thing. Yes they cater to their subscribers but that's made them batshit crazy in their coverage. (and Fox is just as bad, but its not an online publication for the sake of my point)

>>zpeti+Nd
>Yes they cater to their subscribers but that's made them batshit crazy in their coverage

Equating one of the premier news organizations in the world with Fox is quite interesting.

NYTimes has been breaking news stories since the Civil War. They are the only organization that routinely breaks news against 'both sides' of the aisle. e.g. Clinton Email server and Trump business ties to name a couple

The fact of the matter is that people can not differentiate the opinion pieces from their hard hitting news pieces. Which is a symptom of the low quality "social media news" that currently exists.

>>nojito+xg
> They are the only organization that routinely breaks news against 'both sides' of the aisle.

Both sides indeed. They report on news of national importance, such as a playground scuffle:

A Black Virginia Girl Says White Classmates Cut Her Dreadlocks at a Playground - https://web.archive.org/web/20190927202007/https://www.nytim...

Once it turns out the story was a hoax, they do their journalistic duty and remove any reference to race from the title:

Update: Virginia Girl Recants Story of Assault, and Family Apologizes - https://web.archive.org/web/20191001003852/https://www.nytim...

I wonder if they would have reported on it at all if victim and perpetrator were reversed, or featured race so prominently. But if they were reversed, the story would not be important to the national conversation, would it?