NYT does the Dan Froomkin story — although their focus is on the issue of when/whether newspapers and other media should let traffic/popularity determine what stays and what goes.
We Robot 2021: Sept 21-23
A Personal Blog
by Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
My Publications | e-mailElectoral Vote Predictions
Who Reads Discourse.net?
Readers describe themselves.
Please join in.Reader Map
Recent Comments
- Samuel McDuffie on Black Eyed Peas Produce Uplifting Biden Video
- Dorothy Bacon on Black Eyed Peas Produce Uplifting Biden Video
- Mike on Voters’ Guide to the November 2020 Miami-Dade Ballot, Part I — The Easy Part
- Eric on This Ought to Move a Few Voters
- Eric on This Ought to Move a Few Voters
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Which, of course, is a derivative issue to the real story, and hardly worth mentioning in the same space.
Thanks for reducing the issue about what happened to Dan to “should popularity force editors’ hands in content decisions”, NYT. Like it is about Paris Hilton coverage or something. Popularity.
Because we surely wouldn’t want the hard-working NYT editors to have their decisions dictated to them, they are clearly so good at making these decisions by themselves.
Of course, we should not expect to ever see the term “accountability journalism” in the NYT, because that would just make a (further) mockery of the organization.
I wonder why NYT is so darn unpopular that it loses money? Good riddance, NYT, and don’t let the door…