[mcbaby]

The New York Times, according to a quick Wikipedia search, has a (print) circulation of <2,000,000. They also have several hundred thousand users subscribing online (this number is to be taken with a grain of salt, it's my own estimate after perusing Google). The NYT has been around since 1851. Instagram was founded two years ago, and already has 27 million users--and its Android version is not even a month old. I know owning a company is different than investing in one, but if we stripped away their names and cultural stigmas, I think most people would innvest in--and own--Instagram over the NYT.

[ArtB]

I think the point is that it is sad that yet another social media app is worth more monetarily than The New York Times which is one of the finest new sources in existence.

[mcbaby]

But "worth" is such a subjective word. Instagram is only worth 1bn to Facebook, whereas the NYT's value is derived from its market cap. And being "one of the finest news sources in existence" (which I don't believe) does not necessarily denote monetary value. With that said, I'd assert that Instagram's value does not truly reflect its market value—it's only the value that Facebook saw in it. The NYT's value does reflect its true market value, as it's a publicly traded company. Again, I'd still invest in Instagram over the New York Times any day of the week.

[gavinlynch]

"The New York Times which is one of the finest new sources in existence."

Really? I've read the times for almost a decade and just can't agree with that statement. I hardly bother anymore, unless it's to peak at Thomas Friedman or David Brook's opinion columns. I just don't find the quality of writing I'm looking for.

If I want to inform myself on an issue, I'm looking to the Economist, the Atlantic or Financial Times. NYTimes is barely on the radar to me shrugs

Don't get me wrong, the New York Times is a phenomenal brand, but they're just a run of the mill above-average news source IMHO.