A thought on the New York Times online costing money now

[WilliamPitt]

My humble o: It's worth the $50. Pretend you've gone back in time a few years and actually have to pay for a subscription to get a paper delivered to your house. I haven't done that in years.

I'm frankly amazed it has taken papers this long to charge for services. No one stays in business for long giving things away for free.

I'm not thrilled, but I'll pay it. The NYT wire services are top notch, and the columnists are well worth the pennies a day it'll cost to get them.

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Less than a buck a week!

[still_one]

2. even judy miller?

[WilliamPitt]

4. Don't think she's writing much these days

but Rich, Dowd, Herbert, Krugman, etc. are worth it.

[still_one]

10. It is definitely worth it for the choices you have named

[hfojvt]

30. at least you mentioned Herbert

usually, it is Krugman, Krugman, Krugman. It sorta bugged me that just now my usual Monday reading of Herbert and Krugman suddenly cost money, but I could still read David Brooks for free.
I probably would put Kristof ahead of Modo, but it is rare for me to read either of them. Since I registered on DU, alot of my time is spent reading and writing on these threads.

I always figured that the free lunch would not, could not last, but at this point I can still read "The Nation" and Altercation for free, and Ted Rall's essays, etc. There is more free reading than I have time for. Too much free reading for me to pay for the Times, although I am sure I will miss HK for the next ten Mondays or so.

[Stephanie]

3. If they want me to pay then they can eliminate the ads

The price of my home subscription probably about covers the cost of paper, printing and delivery. The actual production of the news, reporting, etc. has to be covered by ad sales. I will not pay for the NY Times. They have spent the past five years lying to me, from the stolen election to Judith Miller's WMD fairy tales. They want me to pay to read David Brooks? They can bite me. They will go from the paper of record to the paper of irrelevance.

[NYCGirl]

6. I believe if you have a home subscription you can get the online version

(all of it) without payment. You might want to check on that.

[Agnomen]

8. Yes you can

[Stephanie]

15. I cancelled my home subscription months ago

Too sickened by David Brooks and Judith Miller and Elisabeth Bumiller.

[NYCGirl]

5. I'm not thrilled either, but I guess I'll pay up. I pay for Salon (but

then they don't have a print edition). Newspaper sales are plummeting, much of that due to their online presence, so I understand why they have to do this — I just wish it were a little less expensive.

[Agnomen]

7. Oh well, back to my old method

of reading my neighbors' NYTimes before they pick it up off their door mat.
But seriously think I'll pay the $50 - canceled my home delivery when NYT became available on the internet, and at least there are no newspapers to dispose of w. on-line subscription.

[pitohui]

9. well i won't pay it

i can't pay a buck a week for every website i visit, sorry

there are lots of news sources that are free

most of more merit than the new whore times

[skooooo]

11. Many libraries provide online access...

...to newspapers and magazines, if you have a library card.

[Stephanie]

20. thanks!

My NYPL card is going back in action.

[KoKo]

29. True...and I live near a library. But, Millions don't live near libraries

who now read many newspapers online from all over the world. Libraries are only a solution to those who live near one. What about those who are disabled who now have a chance to be well informed? What about the elderly who have no transportation?

That's why this is such bad news unless "Bulk Subscriptions" to all online newspaper and magazine feeds can be worked out. :shrug:

[skooooo]

32. You don't have to be "near" one..

..to get a card and access the stuff online -- I would think. Probably many libraries would even send you one through the mail.

[kath]

33. But skooo said that "many libraries provide ONLINE access to newspapers

and magazines" - so that eliminates the proximity and transportation issues.
Will have to check out if my library system provides this. I've been able to access the catalog, reserve and renew books online for many years (which I *love*), so maybe they provide this as well.

[skooooo]

34. i'd be interested in what you find out..

It makes me curious how many people have access to these subscriptions via public libraries...

Look for databases like "Ebsco" or "ProQuest." There are a few others, but those are the big ones.

[swag]

12. Atrios makes a point about the WSJ's earlier, similar move:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_09_18_atrios_archive.html#112713301562310200

"By putting its internet operations behind the wall the Journal has made itself much less culturally relevant."

It will be interesting to see if anything of genuine quality will fill the newly created in-box and blogo void, formerly filled by the daily swirl of "most emailed" and most excerpted/linked stories by Krugman, Rich, Dowd, etc.

A good opportunity for some reasoned, liberal folks from other outlets to step up and fill the opinion and analysis gap. Will some good ones step up?

[KoKo]

13. $50. for online is outrageous. No paper or printing costs involved.

The online sites of the Newspapers should get together and offer "bulk subscriptions to their online readers.

Something that most folks can afford. With all I read online if they all charge $50 how would I afford such a thing. How would most of us afford it?

I even advocated to Skinner that all the liberal bloggers should work out a deal where they get together and buy online subscriptions when the newspapers and magazines go to subscription only. The Newspapers would be happy for the steady income and it would make it affordable to all.

A small fee could be charged by the bloggers for that service.

Frankly, except for Krugman, Dowd and Rich...the NYT's is a propaganda sheet if you live outside and don't need their local news, fashion and advertising. WaPo has turned into a rag for the most part, also. A few columnists but the rest are stenographers.

[skooooo]

14. ..or you could just support your library.

[gollygee]

18. Or delivery expenses

I agree completely. I used to work at a newspaper. Well, I've worked at two newspapers. The subscription cost was basically the delivery cost. Advertising paid the rest.

I assume they still have online ads.

[mcscajun]

23. The NY Times is already considering such a plan...

...to offer their Select content to web site operators at a fee, and split profits with them.

[KoKo]

28. That would be the way to go...If you know more

about this could you PM Skinner? I hope all the sites I read will get together and do something.

We know they are all going to go eventually to subscription only..but it's just prohibitive for the readers to pay this individually.

[Village Idiot]

16. Too late for NYT.

I stopped reading it in early 2003, for obvious reasons. Anything published there is usually available elswhere, for free.

Without spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, or bias.

[KoKo]

19. Stovepiping articles from Administration or Corporate Wall St. Types

now passes for "investigative journalism." I think NYT's and WaPo don't understand how irrelevant they are except for their "columnists."

[Mizmoon]

22. I will never forget the "SUV's" edition of the NY Times

I saw it on the newstand, glanced at the cover story and saw that it used "SUV's" for the plural of "SUV" all throughout the story. Geesh ...

[zanne]

17. I cancelled my subscriptions when I went online.

I can't afford both.

[mcscajun]

21. They're offering full access to the NY Times Archives with Times Select

If you like (or need) to do research, having the NYT archives available at a single cost, rather than the usual $2.95+ per article, is a bargain. Their archives go back over 150 years.

And only the Op-Ed columns are restricted content (so far).

[swag]

24. Laura Rozen is frustrated

The NYT Select thing is a total catastrophe. We have been subscribers to the print edition of the NYT for a hundred years. But that paper subscription has no correlation to a login and password that you could use to login to Times Select. (Anyone else have the problem of a couple household with about 12 email addresses between you over the years? Who knows what one we subscribed with. Besides, we subscribed over the phone, or however it was done back in the early 90s. This must be the case for a healthy percent of Times' subscribers!) Have been on the phone with the NYT for 20 minutes who are overloaded with calls of people similarly frustrated. All I can say is, for this amount of frustration, it is tempting to cancel one's subscription to the NYT altogether. Update: And after 25 minutes on hold, the line went dead. Do I have to call back to cancel the subscription or can I do it online? Update II: I have an idea for the Times. How 'bout making the print-subscriber login for Times Select based on your subscription phone number? Since that is how you notify them about an undelivered paper, etc.?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002640.html

[zalinda]

First of all, papers do not make money

selling papers, not in a real sense. That money goes to the people who distribute the paper. Where the real money is, is in the advertising. This is the same with magazines. If a publisher says he has 50,000 subscribers, he doesn't charge the same rate as one who has 100,000 subscribers. Even your free hometown newspapers keep track of a distribution rate, so they can tell their advertisers how many people their ad can potentially reach, and charge accordingly. Now, on line papers like Salon, have to charge money, since they can't charge as much for ads, since they don't have the same sort of coverage. Remember, newspapers can have an entire page covered in ads.

The fact that NYT online is now costing money, is because they probably have lost quite a few real world subscriptions, as people are reading more on line. This is an attempt to pump up their subscription stats. I predict that their hits will go down dramatically.

zalinda

[madame defarge]

25. Question...

Is it just the progessive columnist that are behind TimesSelect?

If so, is that because their opinion is worth it (a resounding yes, IMHO) or is it because the paper wants to prevent people from viewing the progressive opinions?

Also, DailyKos has today's "pay" columns up for free: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/19/9204/84219

[WilliamPitt]

31. All the columnists are behind TimesSelect

[burythehatchet]

26. If the New York Times had managed to retain a shred of

integrity (outside the editorial pages) when confronted with the Iraq war debate, I would gladly pay.

[K-W]

27. I wont pay myself, but I respect that it costs them to create content,

and I dont think there is anything wrong with them charging.

[quisp]

35. Screw the NYT...

if you're going to pay for something, pay for salon.com

everything on NYT is available elsewhere a day or two later.

[Mairead]

36. The NYT is not on our side. Why support them in their opposition to us?

Their 'liberalism' is nominal at best. How many times have they lied and lied and lied ...and then, when it's too late, played the mea-culpa game? ('Oh we were so bad (slap wrist) we must do better') How many times since 1980? I've lost count.

How many more times will they play us for fools before we wise up?

[wakemewhenitsover]

37. Check out NewsBank

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/Homepage/?p_action=doc&nb_id=J69G5FBVMTEyNzEzNDYwNi40NzA4MTU6MToxMjpuY2RtaW51dGVtYW4&p_theme=current

[yorgatron]

38. at least the print version is useful.

you could wrap fish with it,or wipe your ass.

[KoKo]

39. Kick...for those who can afford it...or use their "local libraries....n/t