addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupsimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Re: [newtech-1] fixes paywall URLs

From: user 6.
Sent on: Sunday, March 3, 2013 11:00 PM
I guess one the nuances is that a producer bias isn't the same as manufacturing consent.  One implies an inherent subjectivity driven by any variety of factors (shareholders, stakeholders, target demographic, etc.) the other explicitly means the institution operates for and behalf of the state / ruling class.  

For what it's worth the web sites for the FT and the WSJ are, IMO, better than the NYT especially with video (more so the FT).  Though NYT's info graphs are slicker.    

On Mar 1, 2013, at 9:24, "Anthony Zeoli" <[address removed]> wrote:

There is a clear distinction between "real-time" reporting and what newspapers do. If I want to look for "real-time" reporting, I'm going to look to Internet media and broadcast media for that information. If anyone is under the assumption that I think the New York Time is "real-time" reporting, they would be mistaken.

The New York Times provides a perspective that few other news organizations can match. Their reach into society and resulting reporting style is something that YouTube or Twitter can never replicate. YouTube cannot replicate it, because YouTube is video, not text. Twitter cannot replicate it, because Twitter is 140 characters of chatter.

There is something to be said for long form, in depth journalism that provides insight that you can never get through social media.

I have worked for the Associated Press, the UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication, and I have been a blogger for over 8-years. I have a specific understanding of journalism that comes from direct experience in the industry. You can decry the New York Times as whatever you want, but try and replicate what they do and you'll never be able to.

Sure, news organizations can get it wrong, just like hoaxes can blow up on Twitter or Facebook. Every media outlet has problems. Nothing is perfect. Where you choose to get your news from is a personal choice. But, if I want to find real stories of interesting people doing unique things that are rarely covered by other media outlets chasing eyeballs with trash journalism, People Magazine-style, I'm going to find those stories in the New York Times.

Now, I listen to NPR an awful lot on the car radio and through my TuneIn or Public Radio apps. I love NPR and think its a national asset, similar to the BBC. The problem with the BBC and Al Jazeera is that, while they may disseminate world news, they can never replicate knowing the streets of New York City like the New York Times.

Where are you going to find on any Al Jazeera channel the New York stories that make the New York Times what it is? You're not. That's not their speciality. You're not going to find it on the BBC either. Broadcast journalism is a different animal than the "old shoe."

I'm not defending the New York Times by any stretch of the imagination for things they may get wrong or whatever other ills they happen to perpetuate - what I'm saying is that the form of journalism that the New York Times produces is far superior in many ways that any general news outlet that is chasing eyeballs with sensationalism. And, they go far beyond most broadcast outlets in following up on stories and reporting in the long form journalism capacity, as well as pushing the envelope in using digital in innovative ways that many people don't necessarily stop and think about. How did they do that infographic? Where did they get the data? There is so much the NYTimes does that most people take for granted, like it's supposed to just be there. You can't get interactive infographics using YouTube or Twitter - those are better left for web and maybe mobile, depending on the UI. can all keep slamming the New York Times, but most of you have no clue what it takes to produce this type of content on a 24-hour basis. So, I'll just leave it at that. Keep reading Twitter to get your 140 characters, which then links off to long form journalism anyway. Twitter is an entry point, it's not the end all be all. You'll get your bits and pieces, but when you really want to understand the subject, then look no further than the "Grey Lady."

As for the Boston Globe, being a Boston native, it was also one of my favorite papers. I don't know why they are selling it now, but maybe downsizing and focusing on your core product may be a good move for them at this time. I don't know...I'm not in the financial aspect of news to understand what the opportunity is or isn't with that move at this time.

Digital Strategy Works
WordPress | Digital Strategy | IA & UxD
✉ [address removed] | Visit Our Site
Twitter: @dswks | Facebook: digitalstrategyworks 

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Frank Manheim <[address removed]> wrote:

I’m a bit late to this thread but it should be noted that the New York Times has been manufacturing consent for generations. 


One of the best aspects of the internet is that we can access many more media outlets than ever before – Financial Times, Al-Jazeera, BBC, Wall Street Journal, Le Figaro, Daily Ghanian Times etc. etc.


It is interesting that Buzzfeed was able to raise a lot of money recently and the New York Times is selling its Boston papers all against the background of Twitter and Youtube as the best sources of real-time information. 


I guess a lot of the people who like the New York Times enjoy the reassuring aspects of its reporting…like an old pair of shoes. 


From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of Anthony Zeoli
Sent: Thursday, February 28,[masked]:36 PM
To: [address removed]
Subject: Re: [newtech-1] fixes paywall URLs


No, they are not the same. You absolutely do not get the same level of in-depth reporting from other "commercial" news organizations. You're going to tell me that the Daily News gives you the same level of reporting? Show me the Daily News version of the New York Times Magazine. Show me the Daily News version of the Sunday New York Times. Show me the site that can compete with the same output and level of reporting as the New York Times. That's bullshit and you know it. I never said it was perfect - I said they were one of the best. There's a difference. Wake yourself up and then go back to sleep. Don't need the links. We disagree. I'm moving on...see ya.

Digital Strategy Works
WordPress | Digital Strategy | IA & UxD
 [address removed] | Visit Our Site
Twitter: @dswks | Facebook: digitalstrategyworks 


On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:03 PM, mark phelan <[address removed]> wrote:

the new york times is the same as any other commercial  news business
they can't afford "journalism ethics" because they need access to people
in power to sell papers... they don't "get it wrong sometimes" they "get it
wrong systematically"

wake up.


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Anthony Zeoli <[address removed]> wrote:

Thanks, Kate. I'll try that for articles I'd like to read.


And for those who bitch about the New York Times, in my opinion, it's still one of the best news organizations in the world. You may not agree and that's your choice. I happen to think it's pretty stellar, even if they get it wrong sometimes.


Nothing is perfect. You can strive for perfection, but it's unrealistic to think any organization with thousands of employees across the world can achieve it.

Digital Strategy Works
WordPress | Digital Strategy | IA & UxD
 [address removed] | Visit Our Site
Twitter: @dswks | Facebook: digitalstrategyworks 


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Kate <[address removed]> wrote:

Yes, but if you search the article title on Google, it still lets you access it without paying.




Kate Krauss

AIDS Policy Project

laser-focused on an AIDS *Cure*


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Anthony Zeoli <[address removed]> wrote:

Hey everyone,


I noticed the the New York Times has fixed their URLs so one can no longer remove anything after the "?" and refresh to get the article free. Has anyone else noticed this?

Tony Zeoli, Founder

Digital Strategy Works + Netmix Media
Web Development & Media & Publishing
[address removed] | [address removed]

My profiles:
Contact me: djtonyz tonyzeoli





Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Frank Manheim ([address removed]) from NY Tech Meetup.
To learn more about Frank Manheim, visit his/her member profile

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Anthony Zeoli ([address removed]) from NY Tech Meetup.
To learn more about Anthony Zeoli, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy