Give me all your money instead of nasty "NYTMike."
I get cranky, but my real point with the New York Times is that if you like their product give them money, but don't give them money because you think it's your civic duty to do so. Giving money to the New York Times for the sake of journalism is like giving money to Harvard for the sake of higher education. Maybe they both do good things, maybe they are both in the net good institutions, but even though they like your money they are the last ones that actually need it. I mean give it to Princeton instead of Harvard (don't give it Princeton, either, but you get the point). Still if you like the crosswords or whatever else, pay the bill.
That doesn't mean you should give it to a dumb blog instead, but even a really shitty right wing local newspaper is probably going to cover issues that wouldn't otherwise get covered. Someone should tell you about the plan to close the local elementary school at least. Mainstream national news coverage from big media institutions isn't going to disappear. Less mainstream less national coverage (especially the latter) will. "I pay for journalism because it's important" isn't a wrong idea, but the New York Times is the wrong place to funnel this sentiment.
