← Back to context

Comment by catacombs

6 years ago

How about buying a subscription to not just NYT or other national outlets, but local news organizations so the people reporting on these issues can keep the lights on.

17 comments

catacombs

Reply
cutemonster  6 years ago

I've gotten the impression it'd cost like $100 / month to subscribe to the different newspapers whose articles I read maybe once a month?

But if there was a way to subscribe to all of them and pay $1 per article

(But I'd like to use Trim for 2 years, for Nyt.)

  • catacombs  6 years ago

    How many newspapers would you realistic subscribe to? If you're reading the NYT, LAT, WAPO, WSJ, FT, then yes, the subscriptions add up.

    • throwlogon  6 years ago

      If the newspapers/sites expect every reader to subscribe, it can add up quickly, if you're reading 2 articles in each of 20 publications every month.

      I do wish more people would pay for content, but the market hasn't really adjusted to the way people read 1% of dozens of different publications.

      2 replies →

zepto  6 years ago

The NYT in this case should never be supported again.

Scott Alexander does important journalistic work in deeply analyzing the issues.

It’s worth noting that the story is about how he was right about coronavirus in ways that the NYT was not.

The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.

  • catacombs  6 years ago

    > The NYT is knowingly attacking his livelyhood and person by exposing him in this way.

    You have no evidence to back up this claim.

    Yes, the fact SSC was fast to publish information about the coronavirus than other organizations. But, do you really think the NYT, a behemoth in the media world, considers an obscure blog -- to many -- a threat?

  • cutemonster  6 years ago

    I slightly wonder if they wanted to get rid of him? (his blog)

    • zepto  6 years ago

      One Scott Alexander is no threat to them, but 10 could be, and this is clearly going to produce a chilling effect.

      Edit for clarification:

      I mean 10 commentators with his level of diligence who are willing to engage with difficult issues without ignoring the complexity.

      We desperately need more of that in our society, and this action by the NYT will have a chilling effect.

      It is profoundly wrong and antidemocratic.

      1 reply →