right, the internet didn't play any part

guywithabike 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The New York Times has been thriving. They're profitable and their stock is near all-time highs. If the internet killed WaPo, why didn't it kill NYTimes?

▲

Exoristos 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is more to the New York Times Company than meets the eye [0].

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_Ne...

	▲	mbesto 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's the parent's point...

▲

snarf21 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As the sibling said, papers used to make money via ads and classifieds. NYTimes pivoted to games. This gives people a reason to go to NYT every day and gives them upsell opportunities to full subscriptions. WaPo and others don't have the alternate revenue source.

▲

gordian-mind 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

International prestige and internet-centered strategy (online games, lifestyle...).

▲

teachrdan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is an ignorant take. The New York Times made a profit last year of $550 million. Clearly the problem isn't the internet -- nor should it be for a paper bought by JEFF BEZOS, the man arguably who did more to revolutionize selling stuff on the internet than any other individual.

Another metric: Subscribers to the Times last year went up, while subscribers to the Post went down. It's clearly not just about the internet, or about partisan politics. (as the Post at least used to be about as liberal as the Times)

	▲	nemomarx 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The post getting less liberal and more conservative seemed to harm its reputation in many circles, like CBS is getting now

▲

gordian-mind 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The Good Billionaire? He buys journals to call other billionaires "evil".

The Bad Billionaire? He buys journals to run them to the ground. Learn the difference!