[eli]

A newspaper isn't a monolith and, by design, the members of the editorial board have very little connection to the business side of the newspaper.

You're absolutely right to call out bad behavior of the subscription department, but the "liar, liar" heading is unfair.

[elefanten]

Given the NYT’s overall style and editorial choices these days, it’s a fair heading more broadly.

Prime case in point: They have elevated opinionated moral crusading over responsible and informative reporting. If moral activism is the value the organization purports to elevate, it’s fair to call the organization dishonest when it employs transparently immoral business practices. Whether the editorial board is involved or not.

[kcplate]

Sorry but no one who has worked at a newspaper for more than a day believes this.

If a cub reporter wants to run a story that will piss off your largest advertiser, I can guarantee that it will be discouraged by any editor interested in keeping their job.

Been there…

[eli]

Me too. Guess we had different experiences. Regardless, I can assure you that the NYT Editorial Board holds very little sway over the subscriptions dept.

[anarazel]

Indeed. Obviously it's bad that the NYT is using these dark patterns. But it would be worse if the NYT would just stop to cover dark patterns, because of that. It's a sign of a working separation between the journalistic and business sides.

[dominotw]

> It's a sign of a working separation between the journalistic and business sides.

How is author not including his own employer in the article a sign of separation.

[eli]

How is it a sign of lying?

[dominotw]

what else is the explanation for the omission? It just didnt occur to him?

[ipsum2]

> the members of the editorial board have very little connection to the business side of the newspaper

And yet you will never see the editorial side write negative things about the business side of the newspaper.

People bring up this distinction that there is some barrier between the two, but its a very weak argument, since the incentives of both are the same (to increase the newspapers revenue)

[eli]

This is the first one that came to mind but I’m sure there are many other examples especially if you include columnists. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/opinion/cartoon-nytimes.h...

I do think the paper made a huge mistake in eliminating the public editor position, which was essentially dedicated to criticism of the paper.

I think you would be surprised with how little the editorial team at newspapers concerns themselves with revenue. It's to the point where it's often actually harmful to the organization.

[zepto]

I think it’s entirely fair. If they are so independent, why don’t they critique the NYT itself in the article?

[atty]

No company is a monolith, but the company, as an organization, is responsible for everything that happens inside the org. This is why it’s fair to criticize Amazon when it has poor worker safety issues in its warehouses, instead of needing to know what specific warehouse managers are in charge of those facilities. Or why it’s fair to criticize Apple for increasing their own ad business while cracking down on other companies’, when those are obviously different units.

In the same way, it is very fair to call out hypocrisy in the NYT’s behavior, even if it happens in two different units of the business. They don’t get a pass just because one unit happens to be journalists or something.

[rock_hard]

Looking forward to read the editorial coverage of this story

[mdoms]

The New York Times absolutely is a monolith, whether they like it or not. They operate under one banner and in fact companies like NYT trade on their one trusted name. The general public considers them a monolith.

[dominotw]

> A newspaper isn't a monolith

Neither is amazon.