Judy Miller's NY Times will start charging for Web content. Are you buyin'?

[farmbo]

NEW YORK The New York Times announced (May 16th) that it will start charging for some online content, beginning in September.

The new, premium level of membership will be called TimesSelect, and participants will have exclusive access to Op-Ed and news columnists on NY Times.com, easy and in-depth access to the paper's online archives, and early access to certain articles on the site, among other features.

Home-delivery subscribers will automatically receive TimesSelect membership. For non-subscribers, it will cost $49.95. <snip>

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000921325


The New York Times--the once-proud "Grey Lady"-- wants to charge us (their web customers) fifty bucks annually to access their expanded services, starting in September.

This is, mind you, the same New York Times that has, of late:

1) Used its front pages to orchestrate an Administration- backed campaign of lies and deception on Saddam's non-existent WMD during Bush's Iraq war run-up; and,

2) Fought Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's July 2004 subpoena of Judy Miller on frivolous or non- existent legal grounds which effectively delayed the play-out of the Plume-gate story for one year, or,in case you're keeping track, until after the election; and,

3) Is presently attempting to portray Judith Miller (she of the secret jail house meetings with John Bolton) as a modern day Joan of Arc for her refusal to disclose the identity of high Bush administration officials who illegally revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent and her world wide network of intelligence sources.

I don't know about you guys...but I AIN'T BUYIN'!!!

Are you?

[shraby]

1. What would be the object of buying?

I have better uses for $50.

[farmbo]

3. It's a quandry...I need my Krugman, Dowd and Rich -fixes...

But I hate to reward those knuckleheads for protecting Karl Rove.

[AlCzervik]

8. i'm gonna really miss Frank Rich.

[Spazito]

2. Nope, it is amazing they think they can charge for distributing

bush propaganda but, then again, I bet it will be the few actual news reporting instead of news creating articles and fair columns that will be the ones they charge for while the bush propaganda will continue to be free on-line.

[Swamp Rat]

4. Nope. Never. n/t

[Stephanie]

5. Interesting that what they are withholding is the Op-Ed

They know that's the only reason we would buy - Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich.

[flordehinojos]

6. i am not buying.

[Benhurst]

7. Gosh, I'd really love to subscribe; but somehow my credit

cards got maxed out after I contacted my new lawyer in Nigeria who is handling an unexpected inheritance for me from a distant cousin I had never even heard about.

I'm quite sad about this, because I love everything Judith Miller writes.

When my millions from Nigeria come through, the first thing I'll do is subscribe to The New York Times' new service.

[farmbo]

13. Damn... I just sent my bank account number to the same guy!

:eyes:

[napi21]

9. NOPE! If the article is important, I'll hear it on cspan WJ.

It's bad enough I have to pay for my local papers, but it's the only way to get the really local stuff that never hits the local TV news.

There are quite a few news websites that do this already though. WSJ does, I think, and several others that I've heard or read excerpts from but encountered a subscription requirement when I went to read the entire article.

[wtmusic]

10. The Times is not just Judy Miller

Read today's Frank Rich column, "The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan", or anything by Paul Krugman.

You're picking the most conservative columnist from the most balanced and well-written daily in the country, if not the world.

I subscribe the weekend NYT so I don't know if that makes me eligible, but I'd probably pay anyway.

[stillcool]

11. not me...

i have to save to fill up my gas tank.

[TahitiNut]

12. $49.95??? Hell, that's more than a tank of gas! No way.

:evilgrin:

[jim3775]

14. I was barely reading it when it was free

I only read the occaisional Krugman coulmn.

[iconoclastic cat]

15. Nope. I'll get around it.

[acmejack]

16. NO!

Like the opeds but not enough to pay $50!

[immoderate]

17. the question remains....

How can a business survive if they give away their product?

Considering web proliferation and availability, I think they would do better to charge $10 a year. I think they'd make more money that way.

--IMM

[Clark2008]

26. They don't "give away" their product.

Ads pay for the service, just like in the regular hard-copy newspaper.

You couldn't pay a staff of reporters, advertising salesman and support staff on the cost of the actual newspaper a day, so it's always been the revenue generated by ads that pays for the product.

I won't be spending $50 a year to read these opinions. Besides, I'm sure they'll be posted somewhere else by someone with access. You can't stop free speech on the net.

[immoderate]

33. That's true.

But they still have a right to charge for their service. How about $6.95?

--IMM

[Clark2008]

34. Oh, yeah. They do have the right to charge for their services.

I was just saying that they don't HAVE to.

And, yeah - a price much cheaper than $50 would be better. They won't get too many takers for that amount.

[farmbo]

37. Point taken...but is their "product" deteriorating...?

...due to their unwillingness to take risks by bucking the Bush administration on national and world desk stories?

Are they so afraid of getting kicked off of Air Force One that they are routinely spiking stories like this:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/bush-bulge.html

days before the presidential election, the New York Times killed a story about the mysterious object George W. Bush wore on his back during the presidential debates, journalist Dave Lindorff reveals in an exclusive report on this week's CounterSpin, FAIR's weekly radio show. The spiked story included compelling photographic and scientific evidence that would have contradicted Bush's claim that the bulge on his back was just a matter of poor tailoring.

"The New York Times assigned three editors to this story and had it scheduled to run five days before the election, which would have raised questions about the president's integrity," said Lindorff. "But it was killed by top editors at the Times; clearly they were chickening out of taking this on before the election." <snip>

[immoderate]

40. Has been for a long time.

During the seventies I read the Times avidly, and I noticed that about half the stories were about environmental disasters. One day, all of those stories just disappeared. And I don't think the environmental accidents just stopped. I think they ceased to be the "paper of record."

During the Vietnam war it became obvious that the Times and other major newspapers were the tools of the establishment (to coin a phrase.) I can never take the term "liberal media" seriously.

There is a service the Times performs for us, most notably, giving us Krugman and Rich and an occasional news piece. I just think it's better that papers continue to exist than not. And if their economics indicates a charge is needed, they have that right. Fifty bucks sounds like too much though.

--IMM

[Divernan]

18. I look to the NYT for many areas beside political content.

I could get all of the columnists from other sources, because they ARE syndicated. Frankly I think any print media is stupid to make their content available free on line. Journalism is a very low salaried field and still papers are struggling to survive. I have a friend whose husband delivers papers on a huge morning route in Harrisburg, PA (state capitol). Part of his job is to put the papers in plastic bags to protect them from the elements. The newspaper has always provided the bags to him. Recently the paper told its deliverers they would have to pay for the bags themselves.

As to accessing the NYT, I can't think of any alternate source of so much news in so many areas - the arts (particularly reviews of new books, movies, plays and special museum exhibits), health, transportation, education, sports, weather, environment,travel, etc., ect. I am intelligent and educated enough to spot the political spin that may come through in any of these areas, and discount it. The LA Times competes, but has a West Coast focus, and I'm an East Coast person who loves New York City and visits there several times a year;.

[seemslikeadream]

19. Why, when I can get Fox for free

[farmbo]

27. Lovely picture of our girl Judy!

LOL

[tomg]

20. Like most, I'll miss Krugman, Rich and Dowd.

But I won't miss the others. I kind of figured it was just a matter of time before they did this.

[kliljedahl]

39. Just Dowd & Herbert for me.

They're already charging too much for the crosswords, isn't that enough?

[Loge23]

41. Dowd & Krugman are syndicated

I get their columns (albeit a day or two late) in my local rag. You can get Rich with a Sunday only sub.
Of course, our intrepid posters usually post them anyway!

[Imagevision]

21. I sincerely hope that Ms. Miller spends New Years in jail and then some!

Judy's ole man recently stated that she is having the time of her life? Well, isn't that special...!

[asjr]

22. That stinks! If I have extra money I buy groceries or

give to DU. My hometown newspaper just started doing that (a small paper) and I told them it wasn't worth it. They can keep their Republican news.

[Webster Green]

23. I won't even take the time to register for the free stuff.....

No way I'm going to pay!

Fuck the New York Times!

[EST]

24. No, don't think so.

That fifty bucks will do a whole lot more good if I send it to Doctor Dean.

The sheer arrogance of the modern pundit's assumption that only they, in their own private god house, have any slant on the big picture and their obvious contempt for their consumers has me pretty bummed with all "media."
I like being able to surf around on their site but du is worth far more and would put the bread to better use. I'll go read al Jazeera or UK for an honest, more factual treatment of the world news.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

25. Too much free information available to be concerned about it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I'm not buying!

There's almost always a discarded NY Times lying around my local coffee shop, so why pay for something I can get free, or, if there's an article I really want to read and no free paper lying around, just pay a dollar for on an occasional basis?

[City Lights]

29. Not buying.

Buh-bye, NYT.

[SmokingJacket]

30. I'll just have to wait for Krug's and Rich's books to come out.

Pity; they'll be losing a huge amount of their readership -- but it's just commentary, not news, so it's worth waiting for.

I buy the Sunday Times, can't cough up much more for them.

[ruggerson]

31. I didn't realize it was "Judy Miller's" NY Times

I thought it belonged to the public and the Sulzbergers.

[farmbo]

35. Look at the lengths they'll go to accommodate her:

When they did their mea culpa on the WMD stories, they didn't even use Judith Miller's name. No other NYT reporter would have dodged that bullet.

Then they write goofy, glowing editorials about her that totally overlook the elephant in the room-- the national security implications of her covering for an administration felon.

Now, she meets secretly with John Bolton in the jail house, and they pretend it never happened.

Yes, I'd say its "Judy Miller's NY Times" until the editorial staff starts showing some independence...and spine.

[WiseButAngrySara]

32. Barf! No Way...almost 2,000 dead and 1,000's wounded, and 100,000's

of innocent Iraqis dead as a result of their panderings or out right cover-up? Let Miller swim in their blood for all I care.

[Mr Rabble]

36. not a chance.

[natrat]

38. SCREW YOU NYT and Wall Mart

traitors,money grubbing scum