NYT readers are interested in full articles and vetted analysis, not a bunch of scattered information from unknown sources, even if they're more immediate.
All you're saying is you don't like NYT/WaPo because you don't read quality journalism.
This is precisely my point. NYT competes with WaPo. Not with Twitter. If Twitter stopped existing, you still wouldn't go to the NYT. Because it's a totally different product category.
What you're doing is containing NYT in a niche category of "information for people who believe journalists product high quality information". In this niche, your point would stand true; someone who believes legacy journalism produces accurate and unbiased information is unlikely to even consider twitter.
For the larger mass, its simply not true, and the above niche market is a constantly shrinking one.
If Twitter implodes, people go to Threads/Mastodon/etc. They don't go to the NYT.
I'd agree with you on that
Revenue at the NYT has grown between 8% and 16% yearly each year over the past 3 years. That's simply not what happens to a business that is in decline or being replaced.
But go ahead, believe in your personal narrative all you want that somehow Twitter is replacing the NYT, despite all economic evidence and usage data to the contrary.
i.e. its more difficult to advance a specific narrative or agenda by the private equity owners on millions of people versus a handful of reporters who have to obey their editors