Last month there was the smattering of some surprise among the clueless mediadroids when those wonks discovered the Daily Mail Online was eating the New York Times' breakfast, lunch, dinner, and late-night snack when it came to web traffic.
The Daily Mail has become the leading online newspaper in the world, according to figures by the tracking service comScore. The British middle-market tabloid has eclipsed the previous, and long-time, holder of the top spot, the New York Times. The figures show that Mail Online reached 45.3m people last December compared to the NY Times's 44.8m.
"Why, oh, why?" many mentally colonized "progressives" wailed into the cold, unforgiving darkness of their brains. It seemed so.... so... un-fair.
Well, perhaps so, but not surprising when you actually look at what the two media companies are up to on the web. On the one hand, the winning site, Daily Mail, sees nothing at all in the contradictory frisson of running this at the top of their current page:
At the same time, this coma-inducing content tops the New York Times home page:
Crime, punishment, and blandishment vs. Uganda, a rocket to nowhere, and a to-do list for a federal agency. Any questions -- other than why the people responsible for the New York Times home page still have a job and are consuming oxygen?
Posted by gerardvanderleun at April 14, 2012 12:34 PM
Are you sure Kendall and her cohorts don't have something to do with it?
Posted by: BillH at April 14, 2012 1:57 PMThe Times' wailing about overcrowding in Uganda looks very ominous for a completely different reason than they would have their readers believe, in light of the following (via Insty today).
If even a fraction of what Zubrin says is true... well, I don't know that I even have the words, but it's awful, and it's one American practice of which I am truly ashamed.
Posted by: Julie at April 14, 2012 2:32 PM*Nigeria, not Uganda; I should have paid more attention to the headline...
Posted by: Julie at April 14, 2012 2:33 PMTruth in media: Kendall DOES look all grown up in that bikini shoot. Frisson/off.
Posted by: Velociman at April 14, 2012 6:18 PMThe Mail almost always gets extra clicks from me because of the celebrity bits, most of which involve scampily-clad women, in the sidebar. But I go there for news. Their sludge isn't any better digested than any other "journalism" site, but they do come a good bit closer to telling me what to think about than what to think -- and the latter is what the NYT is all about.
The NYT and most other "news" organs, including British ones, have become so pervasively ideological as to reach the point I predicted years ago in debate with (Jeff?) Rosen: not even the people who agree with their slant go to them for information. Go to the Mail for data, then go to the NYT for the Democratic/Progressive slant.
They also don't censor their comments section.
And, while only a cad would take advantage of the fact, 16 is old enough to know better. Pas le frisson.
Posted by: B Lewis at April 15, 2012 1:49 AM...the New York Times home page still have a job and are consuming oxygen?
The NYT is also responsible for the disappearance of the Sahara Forest.
Posted by: Peccable at April 15, 2012 4:19 AMIt should also be pointed out that the Titanic sinking is what made the New York Times’ reputation.
At the time there probably a dozen newspapers in New York City. The Times was just one of them.
But a young technogeek named David Sarnoff was listening to the wireless traffic on the North Atlantic that night, heard the distress calls, and notified a friend who worked for the NYT.
The next morning, newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic were saying that the Titanic had been in an accident, but was being towed to port and all passengers were safe.
Only the New York Times ran with a front page story that the Titanic had sunk with great loss of life.
They’ve been coasting on that ever since.
Posted by: rickl at April 15, 2012 6:53 AMThe girl with the stars is kinda cute (I'd hit it), but I would get out the shotgun if "Mr. Toumaniantz" came within visual range.
Still starstruck: Young Belgian's misery three years after she had 56 tattoos on her face
Posted by: rickl at April 15, 2012 1:23 PM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.
HOME