[matt4077]

> I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy.

  https://github.com/nytimes
  https://github.com/BostonGlobe
  https://github.com/npr & https://github.com/nprapps
  https://github.com/theatlantic
  https://github.com/wsj
  ...

I really wish people wouldn't always assume the worst of the media. Especially when it takes about two seconds to verify (disprove) one's prejudice. I know one such post isn't going to have much of an effect. But considering every tangential mention of "mainstream media" brings out a thousand cynics, being an underpaid journalist trying to keep our society's discourse somewhat together must be endlessly frustrating.

Plus, of course, it's just impossible to make informed decisions in a democracy when all trust in the media has been eroded by this hysteria.

[botverse]

I would recommend to double check those links to the github orgs, I’m sorry to say they are small projects. Can’t compare with publishing the whole frontend, their image managing library and their text editor.

[matt4077]

The NYT has 65 projects, most of which have a few hundred stars, and many in the thousands.

It's lower for some of the others. But it still seems to me that these publishers default to publishing their code.

BUT: most publishers probably do not run an entirely home-grown system. Indeed, you will find many Wordpress plugins or rails gems among those published projects. And for the homespun solutions, it's likely that they are too specific to a publisher to be usefully open-sourced without a major investment of resources, like the Guardian's undertaking.