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. 

[GunnerBill]

22 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

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. 

 

The point is people only tend to see political in content when it contradicts to their beliefs. The NFL is the classic example of that. Singing the anthem is political, the salute to service is political, the crucial catch campaign is political. The same people who say "keep politics out of sport" when it is about taking a knee or NFL teams hiring women onto coaching staffs have never bothered about the political elements before, because they agree with them. 

[HamSandwhich]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The point is people only tend to see political in content when it contradicts to their beliefs. The NFL is the classic example of that. Singing the anthem is political, the salute to service is political, the crucial catch campaign is political. The same people who say "keep politics out of sport" when it is about taking a knee or NFL teams hiring women onto coaching staffs have never bothered about the political elements before, because they agree with them. 

I’m not wading into that conversation, this is all besides the point. Sports should be about sports, that’s what the subscribers have come to expect and they have a reasonable expectation that it remains that way. They can surmise from previous situations where buy out like this has happened and hope that the content does not change, can they not? 

Edited January 7, 2022 by HamSandwhich

[BringBackFlutie]

9 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I steal ketchup packets from Chick Fil A.

 

You know Applebee's already has ketchup, right?

[GunnerBill]

32 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

I’m not wading into that conversation, this is all besides the point. Sports should be about sports, that’s what the subscribers have come to expect and they have a reasonable expectation that it remains that way. They can surmise from previous situations where buy out like this has happened and hope that the content does not change, can they not? 

 

Nor am I trying to start a debate about the rights and wrongs of some of those political interferences. My point is that the bolded is a completely unreasonable expectation. Some of the excellent journalism that the Athletic has done about the Bills stadium situation, for example, does necessarily stray into the political. 

 

Sport has always been political. It will never stop being political. Expecting coverage and or reporting of it to remain totally apolitical is just not realistic. 

 

When I look at the top five stories on my personal Athletic feed this morning they include:

 

- my soccer team wearing a different kit on Saturday as part of an anti-knife crime campaign;

- the rule changes on combine interviews;

- the way that soccer's African Cup of Nations is going to try and manage covid.

 

All three of those stories have overtly political elements. Politics in sport has always been here and it is here to stay. There were no halcyon days where the two didn't mix. And if you believe there were then it is probably because for the most part the political elements there previously were ones that already fitted with your own conceptions. 

[HamSandwhich]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Nor am I trying to start a debate about the rights and wrongs of some of those political interferences. My point is that the bolded is a completely unreasonable expectation. Some of the excellent journalism that the Athletic has done about the Bills stadium situation, for example, does necessarily stray into the political. 

 

Sport has always been political. It will never stop being political. Expecting coverage and or reporting of it to remain totally apolitical is just not realistic. 

 

When I look at the top five stories on my personal Athletic feed this morning they include:

 

- my soccer team wearing a different kit on Saturday as part of an anti-knife crime campaign;

- the rule changes on combine interviews;

- the way that soccer's African Cup of Nations is going to try and manage covid.

 

All three of those stories have overtly political elements. Politics in sport has always been here and it is here to stay. There were no halcyon days where the two didn't mix. And if you believe there were then it is probably because for the most part the political elements there previously were ones that already fitted with your own conceptions. 

You’re wading into something I have opinions on but is not pertinent to what we’re talking about. I’ll leave it at that 

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

You’re wading into something I have opinions on but is not pertinent to what we’re talking about. I’ll leave it at that 

 

Of course it is pertinent. This is an topic arguing that there is a risk that sports reporting becomes political. 

 

My argument is it has always been thus. Politics and sport have been intertwined since the beginning of time. Mussolini's World Cup. Hitler's Olympics. Sport is politics and politics is sport.

 

And now we are worried in case what? In case the Athletic does a few more stories about institutional racism? 

Edited January 7, 2022 by GunnerBill

[HamSandwhich]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Of course it is pertinent. This is an topic arguing that there is a risk that sports reporting becomes political. 

 

My argument is it has always been thus. Politics and sport have been intertwined since the beginning of time. Mussolini's World Cup. Hitler's Olympics. Sport is politics and politics is sport.

 

And now we are worried in case what? In case the Athletic does a few more stories about institutional racism? 

It’s not pertinent to my point. 

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

https://www.vox.com/recode/22870773/athletic-new-york-times-550-million-explained

 

[BillnutinHouston]

9 hours ago, RunTheBall said:

Some of you are so close minded. I subscribe to the Athletic, the NYT and the WSJ. My politics are pretty opposite of the NYT on most issues but you have to be willing to listen to other points of view even if you disagree with them. If the Athletic becomes some woke sports app than yeah, I’ll bail but I highly doubt that will happen. The Times isn’t buying the app to try and make converts. 

 

See there's a thing called principle.

 

I canceled today.

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

36 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

It’s not pertinent to my point. 

 

Of course it is not pertinent to your point - because it just smashed your point to pieces.  
 

You were left with no point to make.  
 

The NYT may or may not ruin the Athletic, but the large group of people early have made a “political” decision that they will stop supporting it because of the politics of the NYTs.  The biggest stated argument is they don’t want politics in sports when as @GunnerBillstated - it has always been there - it just mirrored the beliefs they favored.

 

 

[HamSandwhich]

26 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

Of course it is not pertinent to your point - because it just smashed your point to pieces.  
 

You were left with no point to make.  
 

The NYT may or may not ruin the Athletic, but the large group of people early have made a “political” decision that they will stop supporting it because of the politics of the NYTs.  The biggest stated argument is they don’t want politics in sports when as @GunnerBillstated - it has always been there - it just mirrored the beliefs they favored.

 

 

It did not but I see it’s gone over your head also. I’m not arguing your political point, my point is apolitical.

If you all want to have a debate on politics in sports, I have strong opinions on that. We can move over to PPP but I’m sure we’ll just have to agree to disagree in the end. 

Edited January 7, 2022 by HamSandwhich

[HOUSE]

Lots of great stories about the Jests

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by HOUSE

[GunnerBill]

18 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

If you all want to have a debate on politics in sports, I have strong opinions on that. We can move over to PPP but I’m sure we’ll just have to agree to disagree in the end. 

 

I am happy to debate politics in sport. But if you dispute the assertion that it has always been there then there isn't really much to debate. Because I think it very evidently has.  

[HamSandwhich]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

I am happy to debate politics in sport. But if you dispute the assertion that it has always been there then there isn't really much to debate. Because I think it very evidently has.  

Again, you keep baiting me into trying to talk politics here. When I do the same thing or take the bait, I get suspended. I’m wondering if the same thing happens to others who argue a point that you would likely argue vs my viewpoints.

3 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

Lots of great stories about the Jets

 

 

 

Spags is definitely the authority on Jets info. I would defer to him over any other Jets punditry or journalist. 

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Again, you keep baiting me into trying to talk politics here. When I do the same thing or take the bait, I get suspended. I’m wondering if the same thing happens to others who argue a point that you would likely argue vs my viewpoints.

 

 

I am not baiting you to argue politics at all. I am asking if you disagree that politics has always been prevalent in sport? That is a simple yes or no question that does not bait you into debating any political issue.  

[Draconator]

6 hours ago, Dan Darragh said:

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

If I had over a couple million names with email address and other personal information, I could get $550 Million no problem. 

[HamSandwhich]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not baiting you to argue politics at all. I am asking if you disagree that politics has always been prevalent in sport? That is a simple yes or no question that does not bait you into debating any political issue.  

We can debate that in PPP, it’s more than a yes or no question. 

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

We can debate that in PPP, it’s more than a yes or no question. 

 

It really isn't, but sure. Let's do it in PPP.

 

[BobbyC81]

12 hours ago, Doc said:

It was nice knowing you The Athletic…

Does anyone remember The National?

I thought it was great but it only lasted about a year and a half.

 

[colin]

It somewhat baffles me that with all the anti trust laws on the books, and there were anti trust actions in the past, they are basically DOA now, for both parties (isn't this what the left, or now the seemingly more populist GOP are supposed to stop?).

 

The joy of the internet for many, at least at first, was that you didn't need to abide by what the powers that be want to distribute for your eyes and ears, you can find music not on the radio, you can get sports coverage not from the local or national paper (this message board is a still functioning example of how the internet can fulfill that function).

 

Unfortunately, we seem to be headed back to where we started from, with fewer channels delivering content, more bundling, less actual choice.

 

Totally sucks.  I was planning on cancelling my athletic subscription.  I sort of wanted to continue supporting them cuz i thought they were doing something interesting, but a couple decent bills articles a week is all i get from them.  their boxing and mma coverage stinks, and their kick boxing/thai boxing coverage is basically zero.  oh well, perhaps we will get another one of these in the future.