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.
Recent Bluessky Posts- I remember the great Charles L. Black, Jr. saying in response to something complimentary I'd said about the NYT, "The New York Times is a thin reed," not an institution to be relied on to stand up to power or injustice. So true, so often. August 17, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Internet outage at home. Cause: "Network improvement". I know people justly complain about Comcast, but honestly it was better than nothing before they improved it. August 17, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- I think that might have causation backwards? August 16, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Alas what pictures don't capture is the temperature. It will be great in winter though. August 16, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- So many fundraising texts begin, "You won't believe what" X said or did, followed by a URL promising to reveal whatever. Plonk. Either you think I'm a credulous idiot, or I indeed won't believe it, or I will, but in any case I'm not playing. August 15, 2026 Michael Froomkin
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…