I cancelled WaPo yesterday. Subscribing to NYT now.
EDIT:
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
150 points (95.7% liked)
New York Times gift articles
558 readers
24 users here now
Share your New York Times gift articles links here.
Rules:
- Only post New York Times gift article links.
Info:
- The NYT Open Team. (2021-06-23). “A New Way to Share New York Times Stories”. open.nytimes.com.
- “Gift Articles for New York Times Subscribers”. (n.d.). help.nytimes.com.
Tip:
- Google "unlocked_article_code" and limit search results to the past week.
- Mastodon: Use control-F or ⌘-F to search this page. (ref)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I get that its important to you they endorsed someone but do you really want to be spending money at the place that lied about the Oct 7th sexual assault stories and then refused to admit it? Like really we have forgotten already?
The thing with subscriptions is that one can cancel any time. I missed the Oct 7th stuff because I never read the NYT. I am about to start. If I smell bullshit, I will cancel and support a different outlet. No biggie.
Bezos messed up though because his WaPo stunt made me look at my subs with Amazon. So now I have cancelled WaPo, Audible, Kindle Unlimited, Amazon cloud storage, Prime Video ad-free, and we have just committed to purchasing significantly less from Amazon. If that works out, I will cancel Prime. The net effect is (or will be) tens of thousands of dollars less spent with Amazon per year.
Honestly, they're cherry picking. On average their news is fine. You want to diversify your sources, else you end up in a weird bubble. Just remember that if you come up on a year subbed, you can get it for a dollar a week again by talking to support to cancel.
I don't see NYT being worth it's base price but the promotional price is fine.
NYT has a bad track record for covering up genocide going back to stalin
Ehh, nyt is putting out so many anti trans articles and using lies and misinformation so them endorsing Kamala doesn't mean much.
It isn't about the Harris endorsement. It is about billionaire interference with the editorial board. Both the LA Times and the Washington Post had their endorsements ready for publication and in both cases their billionaire owners called in and killed them.
I don't need to agree with everything a publication writes. In fact, I want to hear differing opinions and takes. What I want is to know that what I am reading is what the professional journalists in the building wanted me to read and not what some billionaire puppet master told them to say. I need integrity. I also respect a bad take far more than silence and cowardice in the face of adversity.
EDIT: To clarify...I would not support an outlet that only spews out bad takes either.
Yeah, i just think someone is pushing or wants the anti trans stories along with them using bad/misleading data or outright wrong info on purpose that I don't trust them as a whole. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-new-york-times-publishes
Yep. The NYT can get fucked as long as they continue intentionally spreading misinformation on trans issues and basically assisting in the legislative genocide of trans people across the US.
I canceled my NYT sub awhile ago, but am considering subscribing again. They aren't perfect, far from, but I'd take this over fucking WaPo.
Didn't they drop a bunch of pro Russian narrative articles recently?
Yes and some right wing opinion pieces.
They are decent, you get a free subscription to “the athletic” alongside it.
That’ll teach ‘em!
TL;DR:
This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.
For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.
The only "sane" choice I would say.
Oh, did Papa Bezos let them publish this one?
Edit: I'm thinking of WSJ, not NYT!
The NYT is fortunately not owned by Bezos.
Glad that's the case. Didn't I see something the other day about him trying to block this?
He blocked an endorsement at the Washington Post, which he owns.
The WSJ is owned by Murdoch, and their editorial page is a bunch of far-right extemists.
Thanks for clarifying. They're all blurring together at this point.