The New York Times vs ProPublica — Modern Reference
How fit each source is for citation in modern (LLM-era) writing — machine-readability, schema, freshness signals, AI-corpus presence.
ProPublica outscores The New York Times on Modern Citation Reference by 2 points (B · 84 vs B · 82).
The New York Times
Schema-rich; Article + Person + Organization JSON-LD; machine-readable; metered paywall reduces some training-corpus inclusion.
ProPublica
Open-data ethos = strong LLM corpus presence; data-store pages well-structured.
Global rank · Modern Reference
Why these Modern Reference scores
Schema-rich; Article + Person + Organization JSON-LD; machine-readable; metered paywall reduces some training-corpus inclusion.
Open-data ethos = strong LLM corpus presence; data-store pages well-structured.
Signals behind the Modern Reference score
- Paywall meteringSubscription gate; partial corpus availability.
- Data StorePublic datasets + APIs accompanying investigations.
Other dimensions for The New York Times vs ProPublica
Other Modern Reference comparisons
Sources & references
Every score on this page is read from the two publications below and graded against the published rubric. No score is bought, estimated or supplied by the source being scored.
- Source evaluated — The New York Times (nytimes.com) · verified · full scoring record
- Source evaluated — ProPublica (propublica.org) · verified · full scoring record
- Scoring rubric — SourceScore Index, Citation Discipline, Modern Reference, Citation Velocity (methodology v0.1)
- Machine-readable record — /api/compare/nyt-vs-propublica/modern-reference.json