Battling over which news org as the best app or website is a muddy and confused field and is not one in which an organization can distinguish itself -- let alone distinguish itself for very long. Do you currently use Flipboard? Current? Any of the other darling news apps that won marketshare because of the smart and sharp design ethos? I'm taking a liberty here in saying that you most likely don't.
Apps and websites and gleam are ephemeral. They are very important to people (and especially tech-world people like ourselves), but they are still ephemeral and our tastes are fickle.
What NYT is doing here is providing the continuity of news it has reported as a means of shoring up its reliability as a source and its reputation as a journalism organization.
When people search for news, or read something on a blog and search for stronger evidence, where do they go? Do they go to the app/website/organization with the best website or the best app? Sometimes, maybe; but more often no, they choose the organization with the best reputation for truth (even if leaning in one direction). You can disagree with the politics of the NYT, but I don't think people tend to dispute much outside of the Opinions/Editorials (and if they do, it's generally something other reputable sources would be disputed on).
The website experience of the NYT is great, in my opinion. The long-form, js-augmented pieces are incredible. Are you so unhappy with them that their expansion of available archives is such a diversion from what you think their goals should be?
News is about events in context, and context includes the history. If you are lambasting them over their opening up of a trove of near recent archives, then you have a blinded view of the world. "[T]he province of history books - but not of successful businesses" -- could there be a better symbol of the lack of contextual understanding than the utter dismissal of news from the last 30 years? Can we not look back at history to make determinations as to causes of current news? Is ISIS a being conceived and borne entirely out of thin air from the present on? Is the news of 10 years ago so worthless that we shouldn't have easy access to see what happened or was talked about in the days when the Iraq War was first debated or when the first Persian Gulf War happened?
The newspaper industry is failing, but the Times is still profitable. Now is not the time for them to sell stock of what makes them -- as you say -- the world's leading institution of journalism. Archives are important, and it is sincerely disheartening for the top comment about this new source lambasting them for not focusing on bettering an app.
Apps and websites and gleam are ephemeral. They are very important to people (and especially tech-world people like ourselves), but they are still ephemeral and our tastes are fickle.
What NYT is doing here is providing the continuity of news it has reported as a means of shoring up its reliability as a source and its reputation as a journalism organization.
When people search for news, or read something on a blog and search for stronger evidence, where do they go? Do they go to the app/website/organization with the best website or the best app? Sometimes, maybe; but more often no, they choose the organization with the best reputation for truth (even if leaning in one direction). You can disagree with the politics of the NYT, but I don't think people tend to dispute much outside of the Opinions/Editorials (and if they do, it's generally something other reputable sources would be disputed on).
The website experience of the NYT is great, in my opinion. The long-form, js-augmented pieces are incredible. Are you so unhappy with them that their expansion of available archives is such a diversion from what you think their goals should be?
News is about events in context, and context includes the history. If you are lambasting them over their opening up of a trove of near recent archives, then you have a blinded view of the world. "[T]he province of history books - but not of successful businesses" -- could there be a better symbol of the lack of contextual understanding than the utter dismissal of news from the last 30 years? Can we not look back at history to make determinations as to causes of current news? Is ISIS a being conceived and borne entirely out of thin air from the present on? Is the news of 10 years ago so worthless that we shouldn't have easy access to see what happened or was talked about in the days when the Iraq War was first debated or when the first Persian Gulf War happened?
The newspaper industry is failing, but the Times is still profitable. Now is not the time for them to sell stock of what makes them -- as you say -- the world's leading institution of journalism. Archives are important, and it is sincerely disheartening for the top comment about this new source lambasting them for not focusing on bettering an app.