NY Times to buy The Athletic for ….

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Well there goes the neighborhood! Too bad

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

2 hours ago, Inigo Montoya said:

1.)  I'm a subscriber of The Athletic.

2.)  I think it's fantastic.

3.)  I will never subscribe to the NY Times.

4.)  If the NY Times tries to insert any of its crap into The Athletic, I'm gone.

 

 

 

Interesting you say that.  I'm also an Athletic subscriber (better than a supporter) About 2 to 3 months ago I started getting this daily NY times "briefing", kind of a  story of the day, each day something different and not necessarily a big news item.  And maybe once a week, get an email offering me a full subscription for some introductory price.

 

I was wondering how and why I was getting this, now wondering if in the early stages of the purchase discussion The Athletic gave the Times their list of subscribers and that's why I'm getting this daily email.

 

Did any other Athletic subscribers start getting these NY Times daily emails?

[Jauronimo]

1 hour ago, SCBills said:

Quite the “I have a big brain” post by you here.  
 

Fans frustrated a politically slanted journalistic organization bought out a publication they enjoy, therefore hoping they keep politics out of it is not injecting politics. 

You mean already raging about the interjection of politics into the publication well before it has happened.  Its tantamount to bitching about the officiating 6 days before the game has been played.  Real high minded stuff.  

 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Jauronimo

[Mango]

4 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

Interesting. It sounds like they wanted the Athletic less for the content and more for its customers’ info.  

 

I was thinking about this the other day, data is to the economy what older generations mortgage debt is. With the younger generation having higher expenses and less income than generations past, there is less private debt to buy and sell. Companies are buying and selling my information rather than my loan. 

[SCBills]

20 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You mean already raging about the interjection of politics into the publication well before it has happened.  Its tantamount to bitching about the officiating 6 days before the game has been played.  Real high minded stuff.  

 

 

Yea, journalists/media orgs have such a good track record these days when it comes to keeping their personal bias separate from their work.. Nobody who enjoys The Athletic should be concerned. 

[HT02]

4 hours ago, Inigo Montoya said:

1.)  I'm a subscriber of The Athletic.

2.)  I think it's fantastic.

3.)  I will never subscribe to the NY Times.

4.)  If the NY Times tries to insert any of its crap into The Athletic, I'm gone.

 

 

"The Failing NY Times"....

[Mr. WEO]

4 hours ago, Demongyz said:

 

 

Bye Bye The Atheletic

 

It was probably never right for you anyway....

 

 

8 minutes ago, HT02 said:

"The Failing NY Times"....

 

what loser said THAT??

[Spiderweb]

4 hours ago, Inigo Montoya said:

1.)  I'm a subscriber of The Athletic.

2.)  I think it's fantastic.

3.)  I will never subscribe to the NY Times.

4.)  If the NY Times tries to insert any of its crap into The Athletic, I'm gone.

 

 

Never thought the truth could draw so much negativity. Ahhh.

[aceman_16]

Ugggg time not to renew my subscription

[Dan Darragh]

5 hours ago, Draconator said:

$550 Million is not a lot of money for a corporation as big as the New York Times. 

I suggest that you test this thesis by asking for a $550 million raise.  Or even $50,000.

[letsgoteam]

Someone else can come along and because me the "new" athletic. The road has been paved.

[todd]

I enjoy both the NYT and The Athletic. Cool.

[purple haze]

3 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

Interesting you say that.  I'm also an Athletic subscriber (better than a supporter) About 2 to 3 months ago I started getting this daily NY times "briefing", kind of a  story of the day, each day something different and not necessarily a big news item.  And maybe once a week, get an email offering me a full subscription for some introductory price.

 

I was wondering how and why I was getting this, now wondering if in the early stages of the purchase discussion The Athletic gave the Times their list of subscribers and that's why I'm getting this daily email.

 

Did any other Athletic subscribers start getting these NY Times daily emails?

I haven’t so far.

[Jauronimo]

7 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

You’re being disingenuous here. At best a terrible job of trolling. I don’t think anyone thinks they will come in and change things immediately, that would not be advantageous to the company. If anything, they will go for the long game, slowly move people in the direction they want readers to move. It’s how media usually works, look at the NYT thirty years ago to today. ESPN thirty years ago to today.  There’s definitely a bent to their coverage, I’ll let you determine which way. 
 

I don’t see anyone saying they want content in one way or the other politically, just that they want the talk to be about sports. That’s what we’re here for and it didn’t used to be a sin to say. That’s a sign of the current discourse in itself. Just sports is what The Athletic has been about and what makes it so appealing.
 

So subscribers seeing what the NYT has become, even if it is their opinion and you may not agree with it, is fair. I don’t know why you want to carry a torch. You seem to want to devolve the conversation into some more suitable for PPP. 
 

 

You spend all this text laying out the grand design of the NYT to infect everyone with their liberal bent like slowly turning up the temperature on an unwitting frog and suggest I'm the one "carrying a torch" (whatever the hell that means) to take this convo to PPP land?  That's impressive.  Did you miss all your like-minded friends who just couldn't resist to take their shots at the NYT?

 

The Athletic is still 100% sports and there is no reason to expect that to change but people here are ready to cancel their subscriptions.  But I'm the one making it political. 

[Ray Stonada]

The NYT’s existing sports coverage isn’t especially woke or leftist.
 

They seem kind of clueless about sports, like an egghead uncle who reads but never played them… but not especially political IMO.

Most of their takes feel three weeks behind. Like their guy always picks the team who was hit a few weeks ago lol

[HamSandwhich]

13 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You spend all this text laying out the grand design of the NYT to infect everyone with their liberal bent like slowly turning up the temperature on an unwitting frog and suggest I'm the one "carrying a torch" (whatever the hell that means) to take this convo to PPP land?  That's impressive.  Did you miss all your like-minded friends who just couldn't resist to take their shots at the NYT?

 

The Athletic is still 100% sports and there is no reason to expect that to change but people here are ready to cancel their subscriptions.  But I'm the one making it political. 

First, the part about what tbe NYT and ESPN has done in the past is a critique on your stance that people think they will overnight the change, you’re belittling them. Not really about whether or not I believe either way will happen. I’m pointing out your trolling. 
 

Secondly, yes you’re the one making it political with your statements, most people are hoping it won’t turn into political fodder because of a track record for buy outs like this. It’s fair to be worried about that. No more than that, you took it beyond that.

14 minutes ago, Ray Stonada said:

The NYT’s existing sports coverage isn’t especially woke or leftist.
 

They seem kind of clueless about sports, like an egghead uncle who reads but never played them… but not especially political IMO.

Most of their takes feel three weeks behind. Like their guy always picks the team who was hit a few weeks ago lol

That’s not a ringing endorsement lol

[Doc Brown]

"The Athletic will continue to operate as a standalone site, the Times said in its announcement. New York Times Company CEO Meredith Kopit Levien told investors on a call following the news that they would initially offer The Athletic as a separate subscription and ultimately offer it as part of a “broader Times bundle.”

 

Give it a year or two before you can only get it in a packaged deal.

[Jauronimo]

12 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

First, the part about what tbe NYT and ESPN has done in the past is a critique on your stance that people think they will overnight the change, you’re belittling them. Not really about whether or not I believe either way will happen. I’m pointing out your trolling. 
 

Secondly, yes you’re the one making it political with your statements, most people are hoping it won’t turn into political fodder because of a track record for buy outs like this. It’s fair to be worried about that. No more than that, you took it beyond that.

That’s not a ringing endorsement lol

You don't know what trolling is and you certainly don't understand the concept of satire.  You already stated your apolitical beliefs about what will happen so don't shy away now.  

 

This thread was political from jump and if you had an ounce of intellectual honesty you would acknowledge it.  But you don't, so we're here, having this conversation yet again where you tell me no one has said all things they have in fact said, and I'm just misconstruing their subtle, nuanced views regarding the NYT. 

 

Its no coincidence that my posts are the only ones you are responding to, and it proves the point I made on page 1 completely.  

[Chandler#81]

5 hours ago, Chaos said:

2 QBs

Perfect. Great way to put it in perspective.

[HamSandwhich]

6 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

You don't know what trolling is and you certainly don't understand the concept of satire.  You already stated your apolitical beliefs about what will happen so don't shy away now.  

 

This thread was political from jump and if you had an ounce of intellectual honesty you would acknowledge it.  But you don't, so we're here, having this conversation yet again where you tell me no one has said all things they have in fact said, and I'm just misconstruing their subtle, nuanced views regarding the NYT. 

 

Its no coincidence that my posts are the only ones you are responding to, and it proves the point I made on page 1 completely.  

Wow, you have an axe to grind don’t you? I don’t have a dog in this fight. I know what satire is, and it can be used to troll. Just as you did. I’m not interjecting my political beliefs, you are reading what you want from what I’m saying. I’m leaving that up to you to determine. I personally don’t care what happens here, and if you’re admitting this is a political thread and you continue to post political things, I’m not sure how you don’t get suspended for talking politically?  
 

My entire premise is, it’s fair for someone to not want things to change in a direction that they feel would ruin the publication based on track record of what they’ve seen happen. That’s an opinion, not right or wrong, it doesn’t need to be made political, that’s what you’ve done with your “smart” responses, antagonizing.