I only know what I gleaned from quick glance at their Wikipedia page, which says they have 8.6 million digital subscribers. So the 240 million figure includes people who can run into paywalls, but I’m guessing the NYT might have some content that is isn’t paywalled, which complicates getting a sense of their ‘reach’. Which is why I said I make no claims that it’s a good comparison.
You’re commenting on a newsweek article, a western news media with a readership of 100 million.
There are not 100 million dentists offices. No way that is their readership.
They’re referring to monthly unique visitors on the Newsweek website. Print circulation was around 100k in 2015. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek)
For comparison (I make no claims it’s a good one), the New York Times web site has around 240 million monthly unique visitors. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times)
Does that include all the visitors blocked by their paywall?
Edit: I’m referring to NYT.
I only know what I gleaned from quick glance at their Wikipedia page, which says they have 8.6 million digital subscribers. So the 240 million figure includes people who can run into paywalls, but I’m guessing the NYT might have some content that is isn’t paywalled, which complicates getting a sense of their ‘reach’. Which is why I said I make no claims that it’s a good comparison.
and how many of those are bots?