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
> The fact of the matter is that people can not differentiate the opinion pieces from their hard hitting news pieces.

They intentionally blur that line. Almost all of their news pieces the last several years have been full of opinion.

>>beervi+hh
No. There is a distinct Opinion Section with it's own editorial oversight.

https://www.nytimes.com/section/opinion

Just like every other high quality news source.

>>nojito+Dm
That doesn't refute what I said at all. Yes, they have an opinion section. They also inject a lot of opinion into articles that are nominally straight news.

>>beervi+tn
This just isn’t true at all.

They are distinct and completely governed by different editors.