Usually not, but this one surely is. It's 90% direct quotes and paraphrase from the primary source, adding nothing of value; and it elides the incredibly relevant letters exchanged between Bezos et al and AMI.
I think it's a pretty great example of how to blogspam and it's somewhat tragic that the NYT is resorting to blogspam for clicks.
What's the New York Times supposed to do for their readers? Not publish anything? De Becker, AMI and Amazon were asked for comment and declined. Besides, only a few paragraphs from the story are quotes from the blog post.
Yes exactly that. It's proof though that they're just an entertainment rag looking for eyeballs.
Do some digging, find out more context, get relevant legal precedents, or any precedents for this kind of action. Reference Gawker case, all of the stuff that talks about WHY this is important.
They basically just reposted Bezos' letter but in their own words with some of his quotes thrown in.
I'm sorry, but how else would you write about this story? Is the NY Times just supposed to not cover it? The story is literally the post by Jeff Bezos, which they link to first in their article.
In the context of the NYT, this isn't blogspam. This is news; they're reporting it; of course they're going to quote the article. In the context of HN, though, yeah, it kinda is. Why link to the NYT's rehash when the original is available (and has already been shared on HN)?
It's literally a front page article on the most influential newspaper in the country, and it will be in the physical newspaper tomorrow morning. How is that "blogspam"?
And there's a huge difference between a neutral third party reporting on something and just seeing one first-hand account of something. With your logic anyone reporting on Trump is just committing "blogspam", with his tweets being the beginning and end of the truth.
I think it's a pretty great example of how to blogspam and it's somewhat tragic that the NYT is resorting to blogspam for clicks.