
The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election - artsandsci
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/homepage/new-york-times-open-access-election-2016.html?_r=0&referer=
======
dariusm5
I lost all trust in the NYT after Wikileaks revealed how they sabotaged Bernie
Sanders and acted as a PR agency for the Clinton campaign.

[http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-
propped...](http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-propped-up-
clinton-subverted-sanders/)

[https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-
berni...](https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-bernie-
sanders-article-for-clinton-campaign-5156a43755ca#.by7rmq5is)

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-
sand...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sanders-
hillary-clinton-wikileaks-john-podesta-emails-smear-negative-
lies-a7358516.html)

~~~
monfrere
I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much
that is troubling about NYT's behavior.

This is just how journalism works: the reporter has to request/negotiate
access to the source. The PR folks will obviously try to spin everything
positively to the reporter; that's their job. Afterward, the reporter writes
up a story as objectively as possible. When some part of the story happens to
be flattering, the PR people will obviously high-five themselves. When some
part of the story is negative, the PR people will be disappointed and try to
get the reporter to see their side.

See this article [1] from Mark Leibovich for an NYT reporter's account of one
of the issues addressed in your links.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-
medi...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-
conspiracy.html?_r=0)

~~~
briandear
However there are documented instances, with Politico for instance where
stories were given prior approval by the Clinton campaign before publishing.
There's lots of evidence that reporters colluded with the Clinton campaign.
That's not 'negotiating access.' Reporters ethically are bound to not give
sources the ability to approve stories. Otherwise those stories might as well
be press releases.

I went to journalism school and giving sources prior-review over a story is
about as unethical as it gets.

Getting access to a source doesn't mean softballing everything for the benefit
of the source. With the email scandal for instance, those stories could be
written with or without cooperation from Clinton -- you simply say: we're
running this story, care to respond? If they are 'mad' at you, they are the
ones that miss out on getting their side represented. Reporters ought not be
'negotiating' anything. We have a story, we're going to run it; if you want to
respond, here's your chance, if you don't want to respond, we can report that
as well.

Journalists in many organizations have sold themselves out. It's no surprise
that most of them are Clinton supporters. The days of Walter Cronkite
objectivity have seemingly passed.

The media colluded against Sanders not even to mention all of the Republican
candidates.

~~~
07d046
> email scandal

On this topic, I find it mildly amusing that, for all the accusations of bias,
it was actually the New York Times that broke the story of Clinton's private
email server.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-
clinto...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-
of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html)

~~~
throwaway_nyt
Some reporters can break stories too, and the same newspaper can have cronies
too.

There is a good email in wikileaks where Jake Tapper is pushing back against a
slanderous story published against him. Made me respect him for that. There is
also another one, where a buzzfeed reporter is introducing a collegue
cordially and professionally.

------
mark_l_watson
I am disgusted with the NYT and media in general. I am a lifetime democrat,
and in my opinion the news media has treated outside candidates like Trump and
Sanders very unfairly. People should have information to make their own
judgements, and not have the 'news' be a one hour infomercial for one
candidate or another.

I am also unhappy with so many of my friends who only see one side of things,
one side not respecting the opinion's of the other side. We need more civility
and more respect for other people's opinions.

~~~
07d046
The usual narrative is that coverage of Trump and Sanders couldn't be more
different, with Sanders struggling for attention while Trump received vast
amounts of free advertising. There is a lot of truth to it, but, according to
a study:

> Sanders’ media coverage during the pre-primary period was a sore spot with
> his followers, who complained the media was biased against his candidacy. In
> relative terms at least, their complaint lacks substance. Among candidates
> in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money, no organization,
> and no national following, Sanders fared better than nearly all of them.
> Sanders’ initial low poll numbers marked him as less newsworthy than Clinton
> but, as he gained strength, the news tilted in his favor.

And for Trump:

> By our estimate, Trump’s coverage in the eight news outlets in our study was
> worth roughly $55 million. Trump reaped $16 million in ad-equivalent space
> in The New York Times alone, which was more than he spent on actual ad buys
> in all media during all of 2015. In our eight outlets, the ad-equivalent
> value of Trump’s coverage was more than one-and-a-half times the ad-
> equivalent value of Bush, Rubio, and Cruz’s coverage, more than twice that
> of Carson’s, and more than three times that of Kasich’s. Moreover, our
> analysis greatly underestimates the ad-equivalent value of Trump’s exposure
> in that it’s based on only eight media outlets, whereas the whole of the
> media world was highlighting his candidacy. Senator Cruz might well be
> correct in claiming that Trump’s media coverage was worth the equivalent of
> $2 billion in ad buys.

It's an interesting read.

[http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-
coverage-2016-...](http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-
coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/)

~~~
MarkMc
What's the media supposed to do about Trump? Keep quiet about the outrageous
thing he did today because they already reported 4 outrageous things he did
last week?

Trump has received more media coverage because he has simply said and done
more things that are newsworthy.

~~~
nogbit
I think that's the rub, "newsworthy". He never really got in the news for the
right things (if there were any I don't know).

After August, if he sat himself in a closet and never did or said anything
(and that recording never was released) he would of won very easily.

------
azdavis
Could the admins switch the link to the non-mobile version[1]?

[1]: [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/homepage/new-york-times-
op...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/homepage/new-york-times-open-access-
election-2016.html)

------
javiramos
I feel that NYTimes is the only news organization that has been able to
transition to the Digital Era. Does anyone else know of any other old-school
news organization that nicely transitioned to the Digital Era?

~~~
knz
NPR ([http://www.npr.org/](http://www.npr.org/)) seems to be doing ok - they
have a good mix of online reporting, audio from radio reporting, special
features for events such as the election, and a number of successful podcasts
associated with their various shows.

~~~
Others
NPR is a non-profit that offers all of it's reporting for free. (Their income
mostly comes from donors.) Their a bit of a special case since they're happy
to lose money on their online offerings.

~~~
bitJericho
That's the thing. I don't think they're losing money on the online offerings.
I think people pay by becoming donors and then use the online offerings.

~~~
1wheel
Most of their donors are older and primarily use the radio.

~~~
bitJericho
Most, but not all.

------
grandalf
Wikileaks revealed that the NYT was in coordination with HRC's campaign to
publish flattering stories. I think the credibility of the news organization
is over.

~~~
stephth
They survived the Judith Miller controversy. What is it about the HRC-NYT
emails that ends their credibility in ways that Judith Miller didn't?

edit: I can't think of a good reason to downvote this question (please do
explain), but I'll rephrase: the Judith Miller Iraq reporting was bad to say
the least, and they got rid of her. In this case I am under the impression
that the problem is a few isolated cases, but I'm not well educated and am
possibly missing something. What about these emails makes this a sweeping
issue over the whole organization, as opposed to a few reporters having abused
their welcome?

~~~
jacobolus
Judith Miller and the NYT’s (and news media more generally) credulous Iraq War
boosterism were much more damning. Most of the folks involved, either on the
media side or the government side, suffered absolutely no consequence to their
reputations.

~~~
grandalf
> Most of the folks involved, either on the media side or the government side,
> suffered absolutely no consequence to their reputations.

I still cannot believe this. In fact, it's probably the single most poignant
fact of the Iraq war. It shows us that the NYT was not outraged by the
"mistake" but supported what was effectively a propaganda effort.

This is why I liken the NYT to America's Pravda. The stories it runs help to
bolster the legitimacy of certain institutions and create PR and misdirection
as needed to allow the status quo to continue.

------
0xCMP
Oh you mean unlike the login-wall they've put up for every article in the past
two weeks? That open access?

Edit: I'm pretty mad that every NYT link I've been clicking for what has felt
like two weeks has asked me to login. I was forced to finally make an account.
Screw that. I'd pay if you gave me an option that made sense. I'm not going to
drop $500+/year to subscribe to all the places I read from when I only read
what is posted on HN and Twitter. You'd think Apple would at least help out
here since they have it all nicely integrated on the Apple News app to handle
subscriptions for them.

~~~
grzm
Then don't click on NYT links, or others that require you to subscribe. HN
conveniently marks the source.

~~~
mmphosis
PWDR

~~~
grzm
paywall; didn't read?

------
danso
As is the Washington Post [http://www.adweek.com/fishbowldc/the-washington-
post-is-taki...](http://www.adweek.com/fishbowldc/the-washington-post-is-
taking-down-its-paywall-for-election-day/160304)

~~~
joezydeco
Just an additional reminder that Amazon Prime members can get six months of
Wapo Digital for free.

------
peterwwillis
Devil's advocate: reporting on the polling numbers as they come in can cloud
the decisions people make at the polls, and the entire process of trying to
determine who's winning serves no useful purpose in daily life other than as
pure subjective entertainment.

Normally I would say we should all just use online voting ( _edit: online
registration & mailed voting_) the way 3 states (Washington, Oregon, and
Nevada) currently do. They provide real-time statistics on their voting
results via their website. But at the same time there's those risks of
security holes. For example, I took 30 seconds to look at Washington's voter
registration website, and found this via Google:
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ues5ma...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ues5maE5tbsJ:https://weiappletsqa.sos.wa.gov/LanguageAdmin/Pages/Applets.aspx+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
This makes it appear as though some admin functions may have been accessible
publicly in the past.

It is nice to get a look at their content management, though
([http://weihelp.sos.wa.gov/help/support/_layouts/viewlsts.asp...](http://weihelp.sos.wa.gov/help/support/_layouts/viewlsts.aspx))
as we can see some of the behind the scenes operation like ticketing, bug
reports, content, and other features and documentation. So from an "open &
transparent government" aspect it's nice, but probably needs to be balanced
more against how much information or access is given.

~~~
Herodotus38
Washington uses 100% paper mail in ballots, not online voting.

~~~
peterwwillis
Ah my bad, online registration and mailed voting which is displayed online.

~~~
Herodotus38
No worries, I wasn't sure if you meant online registration or not. I don't
think any state offers online voting (thank goodness).

------
justaaron
enough about all of THIS... Suffice it to say that the NY Times is a tool of
entrenched power and serves as a pseudo-intellectual gatekeeper that is
willing to publish stories based upon leaked information but is unwilling to
stand-up and defend the sources of such information. It's willing to be like
NPR and appear to be thoughtful, but won't actually do anything to change the
status quo. With their International Herald Tribune arm it becomes all the
more apparent that they are more-or-less a mouthpiece for the American
executive branch: State Dept, CIA, DOD, etc. as well as the entrenched
specific corporate agenda that's been masquerading as the public interest for
over 60 years. That they have no credibility with regards to altruistic token
gestures doesn't even begin to describe why I could care less about their
crappy content that they seem so self-impressed with as to think merits
payment. This is the Internet. I would think a publication like the NY Times
could have figured out a way to transfer their same advertising-based print
model to the net, what with minimal distro costs and all the rest of us doing
so and what-not... very well. They shall remain the valued premise of a tiny
market segment that is only shrinking. Good luck with that one.

------
asurachadtrot
Check out Google too: [https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/07/google-will-display-
electi...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/07/google-will-display-election-
results-as-soon-as-polls-close/?ncid=rss)

~~~
honkhonkpants
Nice. Last time their exit polls were fantastically accurate.

------
weerd
The NYT always offers open access... you just need to disable javascript.

------
jjawssd
Is it strange that I don't trust any electronic voting systems at all? I feel
like without a paper trail, federal elections can be easily manipulated
secretly.

~~~
briandear
They can be manipulated even with paper. Look at the absentee ballot scandal
in Florida.. DNC operative filling out thousands of absentee ballots in secret
rooms.

~~~
sjwright
What scandal? If this did happen, we'd know about it. Googling around only
pulls up results from exceptionally dubious sites, which in turn all seem to
be based on the same trivially fabricable non-evidence.

Scandals like this do happen and do get reported:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force)

------
dredmorbius
Another discussion I'd like to see come out of this election: the idea of
information as a public good.

[http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/japan/japan.h...](http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/japan/japan.html#SECTION00060000000000000000)

Neither the advertising nor the paywall/subscription models are serving to
either provide the public with information, or to foster _quality_ and
_relevant_ information. Both are in fact the problem.

Addressing an open-access model, _with a tax-based compensation for authors
and publishers_ strikes me as a vastly preferable model.

~~~
tptacek
How is this not a suggestion that we nationalize the media?

~~~
dredmorbius
It is a suggestion that we nationalise the _payment basis_ for media.
Authorship and publishing could/would remain independent.

It's strikingly similar to the extant instances of mechanical copyright
licenses, which apply to "cover" performances of musical works, in that:

1\. Grant of licence is automatic (hence "mechanical").

2\. Payments are automatic (handled through copyright clearance organisations,
e.g., Harry Fox in the US).

3\. The original author _cannot deny_ the licence.

The principle difference I'm proposing is a base level of compensation based
on a broad-based tax. Preferably indexed to wealth and/or income.

Previous discussions:

A Modest Proposal: Universal Online Media Payment Syndication:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modes...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modest_proposal_universal_online_media_payment/)

Richard Stallman's "Internet Sharing" content syndication proposal:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3p0bp6/richard...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3p0bp6/richard_stallmans_internet_sharing_content/)

Content Syndication: Phil Hunt's Broadband Tax / Content Compensation Fund
proposal:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1vknhc/content...](https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1vknhc/content_syndication_phil_hunts_broadband_tax/)

~~~
stephenhuey
Even with a much simpler model, the publicly-funded BBC seems to be a better
news source for me than my typical American sources.

------
JustSomeNobody
>The New York Times is inviting readers to take advantage of its reporting,
analysis and commentary from the lead-up through the aftermath of the 2016
election.

Aftermath? Somehow this smacks of already leading the narrative.

~~~
deckard1
in what way? Are you referring to the slightly apocalyptic connotation of the
word? Or are you suggesting there won't be a conclusion to the election?

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Aftermath: the consequences or aftereffects of a significant unpleasant event.

Why is the election of a new President an "unpleasant event"? For some, it may
not be. So, the NYT is leading the narrative already.

------
the_duke
You also get free access if you just delete your cookies once you have reached
the free article limit...

------
rajadigopula
Same with financial times - ft.com Open access for election

------
msane
Great move by NYT. Smart and generous.

~~~
Salamat
How is that generous when it is very convenient and opportunistic for NYTimes
propaganda efforts for their candidate?

~~~
donohoe

      "propaganda efforts for their candidate"
    

You're confusing their Opinion section with their news coverage. Completely
separate groups with no overlap. Though I don't blame you for not knowing. Its
not obvious - and thats a problem.

This is your 2nd time posting the same comment?

~~~
johnnyb9
Well the restrictions being lifted apply to both the news coverage and opinion
section, don't they?

~~~
oxide
It would be, frankly, ridiculous for them to offer "open access" and have that
actually include only news coverage and none of the opinion sections.

------
santix
Also, the LA Times is offering a free week (requiring registration).

------
stevekemp
Is that an admission that if people hit a paywall they don't proceed to pay
for the high-quality content behind it?

------
dominotw
NYTimes never again. Fuck you.

------
Salamat
This is very convenient and opportunistic for NYTimes propaganda efforts.

------
DominikR
The same NYT whose profit shrank by 95,7% in the last quarter because of the
extremely biased reporting?

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3897406/New-York-
Tim...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3897406/New-York-Times-
reports-95-7-percent-fall-quarterly-profit.html)

And the exactly same numbers by Reuters but with completely misleading
headline as if everything was fine:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newyorktimes-results-
idUSK...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-newyorktimes-results-
idUSKBN12X1HU)

Funny how the NYT now makes about as much profit as I do as a contractor.
Maybe I should buy them and put their journalists to more profitable use, like
for example letting them clean toilets or work the streets.

Edit: Why the downvotes? Does somebody dispute the fact that the NYT's profits
are down by 95,7%? Or would somebody dispute that this company wouldn't be
making more profit if it sent its employees to clean toilets or sell their
bodies?

I believe I made here a sensible business case for saving the NYT.

~~~
DanBC
You talk about bias, but then cite the daily fucking mail.

For people who aren't aware, most of the UK press is scum, and the daily mail
is certainly among the scummier end of UK newspapers.

~~~
DominikR
That's why I cite Reuters below which reports identical data. Profit fell by
95,7% down to about $400k.

