Thread by @oliverdarcy

New: The New York Times says it is not planning to pay for Twitter verification:

"We aren't planning to pay the monthly fee for verification of our institutional Twitter accounts," a spokesperson tells me.

"We also will not reimburse reporters for the verification of personal accounts," The NYT spokesperson adds to me, "except in rare instances where verified status would be essential for reporting purposes."

The Los Angeles Times also says it will not pay for Twitter Blue, noting "verification no longer establishes authority or credibility."

Here's an internal note from managing editor Sara Yasin that went out to staff.

BuzzFeed a no on paying for staff's blue checks: "As an organization, we will not cover fees for individuals to keep their blue checkmarks moving forward. There are several reasons for this, but one outweighs them all: a blue checkmark no longer means the handle is 'verified.'"

POLITICO also tells staff: "In the future, a checkmark will no longer mean you are a verified journalist. Instead, it will simply mean you are paying for benefits such as longer tweets and fewer ads. POLITICO will not pay for you to subscribe to Twitter Blue."

Vox Media also rejects the notion of paying for a checkmark on Twitter, per spox: "While Vox Media will take advantage of legacy account verification when provided to our brand accounts, it will generally not pay for employees to keep or gain Twitter verification."

"The Washington Post will not pay for Twitter Blue service as an institution or on behalf of our journalists," a spokesperson says. "It's evident that verified checkmarks no longer represent authority and expertise."

CNN: "As of right now, we do not plan to pay for Twitter Blue subscriptions for either our brand or individual accounts, except for a small number of select teams who need this verification as an essential part of newsgathering and reporting."