Why do people even submit nytimes links when the article is completely unavailable? Can anyone actually read it or are we just supposed to debate about a vague headline?
You can go to archive.is, web.archive.org, etc. and enter the URL of the article to get a readable copy of it. This does not require a NY Times subscription. It works for many other sites too. (Once you get the archive link, you can post it in a comment to save other people the extra clicks.)
(Three people have already posted comments with links to archived copies of this article.)
Comments
Why do people even submit nytimes links when the article is completely unavailable? Can anyone actually read it or are we just supposed to debate about a vague headline?
You can go to archive.is, web.archive.org, etc. and enter the URL of the article to get a readable copy of it. This does not require a NY Times subscription. It works for many other sites too. (Once you get the archive link, you can post it in a comment to save other people the extra clicks.)
(Three people have already posted comments with links to archived copies of this article.)
Personally I've ready about the case elsewhere so I have the context. Others have subscriptions. Others use archive sites.
With js off, many news web sites will let you see the first few paragraphs.
I too wonder.