I understand today's news ‘flagships’ in their respective countries as working (once again) in the same light France’s Liberation functioned in the 70s: as a signaller of class. Intellectual class, open to anybody who subscribes to the prescribed political, economical and cultural positions (in name mostly, few New Yorkers want Mamdani to actually economically ‘succeed’ - 19 dead homeless is plenty proof of his ideological fervour).
The only difference is that in the 70s Liberation was literally physically carried under one's arm while strolling to the cafe for another bout of denouncing capitalism and imperialism - until dinner time. Since the NYT is now digital-heavy, signaling class happens through quoting the NYT. Next to dress, education, dating, being in shape, language, vehicle (EV) and of course one’s coiffure.
The crossword isn't just bundling. It represents a reversal. News was supposed to be the daily ritual that kept readers coming back. Now ritual has migrated to Wordle while news becomes occasional, ambient background.
McLuhan would recognize this: the medium shifted from print's 'I read therefore I know' to digital's 'I engage therefore I exist.' In an attention economy, engagement beats information. A crossword gets finished; a news cycle never does. One gives closure, the other produces anxiety.
Strange that the most successful journalism business ended up needing less journalism. The model recapitulates what Ong called secondary orality: we're returning to ritual patterns after the literate interval of 'objective news' exhausted itself.
Verify this beyond what I say, but the rise of the bundle subscriptions may be caused in large part by the NYT putting in the additional offers sections that you could originally access through the normal subscription.
I for one know that I was once able to access the NYT cooking section with my subscription ; then one day I wasn't able anymore. I was pissed off, but I didn't use it enough to justify the subscription to the bundle. Same may go with the crosswords : I think you could get them through your normal subscription, originally. And in buying The Athletic, the NYT may have put all of its sport reporting in it, leaving sport enthusiasts with no other choice than to take an additional subscription.
This would mean that news still remain the main motive to subscribe, but that people are pushed to additional purchases in order to keep enjoying parts of the newspaper they were used to having.
I understand today's news ‘flagships’ in their respective countries as working (once again) in the same light France’s Liberation functioned in the 70s: as a signaller of class. Intellectual class, open to anybody who subscribes to the prescribed political, economical and cultural positions (in name mostly, few New Yorkers want Mamdani to actually economically ‘succeed’ - 19 dead homeless is plenty proof of his ideological fervour).
The only difference is that in the 70s Liberation was literally physically carried under one's arm while strolling to the cafe for another bout of denouncing capitalism and imperialism - until dinner time. Since the NYT is now digital-heavy, signaling class happens through quoting the NYT. Next to dress, education, dating, being in shape, language, vehicle (EV) and of course one’s coiffure.
The crossword isn't just bundling. It represents a reversal. News was supposed to be the daily ritual that kept readers coming back. Now ritual has migrated to Wordle while news becomes occasional, ambient background.
McLuhan would recognize this: the medium shifted from print's 'I read therefore I know' to digital's 'I engage therefore I exist.' In an attention economy, engagement beats information. A crossword gets finished; a news cycle never does. One gives closure, the other produces anxiety.
Strange that the most successful journalism business ended up needing less journalism. The model recapitulates what Ong called secondary orality: we're returning to ritual patterns after the literate interval of 'objective news' exhausted itself.
Verify this beyond what I say, but the rise of the bundle subscriptions may be caused in large part by the NYT putting in the additional offers sections that you could originally access through the normal subscription.
I for one know that I was once able to access the NYT cooking section with my subscription ; then one day I wasn't able anymore. I was pissed off, but I didn't use it enough to justify the subscription to the bundle. Same may go with the crosswords : I think you could get them through your normal subscription, originally. And in buying The Athletic, the NYT may have put all of its sport reporting in it, leaving sport enthusiasts with no other choice than to take an additional subscription.
This would mean that news still remain the main motive to subscribe, but that people are pushed to additional purchases in order to keep enjoying parts of the newspaper they were used to having.