> I could guess that this lower circulation is, at least partly, the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth.
The NYT's subscription rates are way up since Trump was elected.
> I’m already surprised how long they’ve lasted.
You already stated why they're seeing such success. "the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth."
Digital subscribers have been consistently up since they started a digital subscription [0] but I meant actual readers since I think digital subscriptions earn less than historical subscribers and number of subscribers has a lot of variability of what price is paid.
I was thinking of their profit and revenue [1] that keeps trending down (although this year is up). That’s probably a better sign of actual readers over time, I think.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/315041/new-york-times-co... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-ne...
I could guess that this lower circulation is, at least partly, the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth. I’m not sure how to measure this. It’s based on my own technique of when I encounter someone speaking false reality I try to understand and come to some common understanding. Sometimes I have it wrong. But if I don’t have a standing relationship with someone who frequently doesn’t operate in reality, I just ignore or unsubscribe. I assume they carry on.
In NYT’s case they carry on and have even more subscribers who like this version of reality. So it’s a bit of a spiral. I’m already surprised how long they’ve lasted.