New York Times CEO Mark Thompson and New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. in October 2013. | AP Photo/Remy de la Mauviniere The New York Times basks in the 'post-election effect'

There's concern within the media industry that the result of the 2016 election could be bad for press freedom. On the other hand, it seems to be good for business — at least at The New York Times, which is enjoying what CEO Mark Thompson described on Monday as the "post-election effect."

Normally, the post-election effect is a bit of a downer, as audience numbers fall back to earth and the news cycle cools off following 18 months of intense campaign coverage. But nothing about 2016 is normal.

Story Continued Below

"We're not seeing that," said Thompson, speaking at the 44th annual UBS Global Media & Communications Conference in Manhattan. "We're seeing, on the contrary, a surge. We expect the lively news cycle to continue in America — and given the events in Europe, beyond America — well into 2017."

Since Donald Trump became President-elect on November 8, the Times has seen a "significant" subscriber increase, according to Thompson, particularly with the web-only subscriptions that have become increasingly important for the Times in face of plummeting print revenues and challenges with digital advertising growth.

Thompson said the Times is looking at 20 percent digital subscription growth in the fourth quarter of 2016 and that it's "getting close to having 3 million overall subscriptions," perhaps by early 2017. The company expects to see 200,000 net subscription adds in the fourth quarter, he said.

As POLITICO reported ahead of Thompson's UBS appearance, the Times has seen a more-than-tenfold increase in daily subscription sign-ups since the election, with more than 10,000 new subscribers registering on some days.

"We’re seeing ... a dramatic increase in willingness to pay for serious, independent journalism," said Thompson.

Why is that?

There are various reasons, but Thompson said the main one has to do with "a very strong belief that politicians are saying things that aren't true and need to be held to account.

"The veracity of political statements is a much bigger thing than fake news," he said. "Public anxiety to actually have politicians held to account, and having professional, consistent, properly funded newsroom holding politicians to account, is probably bigger than all the other factors put together."

