News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The New York Times sells premium ads based on how an arti... by matt4077 on Sunday April 14, 2019 @01:53PM (#19660688)
It has always been known that certain content would work better to sell ads than other. Travel, cooking, or home decoration, for example, are definitely better than political news.

And yet, the NYT has withstood the pressure to become the ground level equivalent of an in-flight magazine.

Can we maybe credit them for that, instead of just assuming that everybody agrees that they will succumb to economic pressure without feeling the need to even make the case for it?

Re:The New York Times sells premium ads based on how an arti... by adw on Sunday April 14, 2019 @02:13PM (#19660798)
The news industry has been aware of this forever; one of the fundamental problems with news being ad-supported is that advertisers don't want their ads next to bad news.

This predates the Internet; it's why glossy Sunday sections exist.

Re:The New York Times sells premium ads based on how an arti... by sidibe on Sunday April 14, 2019 @04:13PM (#19661430)
Some advertisers prefer the negative news. AM radio has lots of ads for guns and emergency supplies.
Re:The New York Times sells premium ads based on how an arti... by smadge on Sunday April 14, 2019 @05:20PM (#19661777)
The important point is that the information that gets to the public should be in the public interest, not business interests.
Re:The New York Times sells premium ads based on how an arti... by shaggyfrog on Sunday April 14, 2019 @05:33PM (#19661833)
Some glossy weekend sections are now entirely “sponsored content”, aka ads: https://twitter.com/canadaland/status/1116848132539678722