> 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.

detourdog an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The internet has provided tremendous access to news outside of the NYT. I have not seen the NYT editorial board doing anything to improve their status. Didn’t Paul Krugman leave the times for integrity reasons?

▲

Applejinx 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That is a REALLY wild take considering what the NYT functionally is.

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.

▲

palmotea 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> so I guess have fun with that? For me, seeing wild talk like that only underscores my complete, utter, earned distrust of the thing.

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.

	▲	detourdog an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Do you believe the NYT is the only source of news? Do you believe everyone should read the NYTs. What is this Soviet Russia? Who said the alternative to reading the NYTs is getting news from social media?

▲

einpoklum 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> That was more than 20 years ago. It's hardly relevant to the journalism landscape in 2026.

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".

▲

palmotea 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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?

	▲	einpoklum 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> You're stuck in the past Am I? I'm not the one claiming that > the newspaper industry... was a ... lot better than [that which]'s come to replace it.