Why should Krugman et al be free?

[edhopper]

I know a lot of DUers are upset about the NY Times now charging to read their Opinion pages. Some seem to think this is an attack on their "right" to information.
First, since when has any newspaper been obliged to offer what they publish for free, I know many who use the web think all content is theirs by right, but that's not the way the world works. For a company to expect people to pay for their product, whether it's corn flakes or op-ed articles is called capitalism.
Second the Times is NOT doing this to make money from the web. By allowing people to read it's online version it has lost buyers of it's paper edition. THIS has cost them. The Times makes it real money with all those high end ads in the print version. A loss of print readership is a loss of ad revenue. If people must pay for the online stuff, many will just buy the paper. If you notice print subscribers get online access for free.
So stop wining! I'm sure there will be enough copies of Krugman and Herbert floating around the web for free. And remember, you do not have a divine right to all information at no cost.

[SteppingRazor]

1. And -- here's an idea -- why not subscribe to the Times?

Relatively speaking, it's a damn fine paper.

[Stephanie]

3. I cancelled my subscription due to all the LIES by Judith Miller

and David Brooks that they so cavalierly endorsed. They won't get my money anymore, and I am a long time subscriber. I don't pay to be lied to. Now they are going to lose my "eyes" too, as an online reader of certain columnists. They can stop counting me when they set their online ad rates. This move is counterintutive and they are going to suffer more losses as a result. It's a stupid move.

[SteppingRazor]

6. David Brooks is a columnist...

He's entitled to his opinion, isn't he?

Although, I must agree on the Judith Miller front. Still, I did say "relatively speaking." And indeed, compared with most of print journalism the Times and the Post are still among the best papers in the country -- it's just that the standard across the board is lower than it used to be.

[Stephanie]

9. David Brooks is a spokesmodel for the neo-cons

He doesn't just write his own "opinions" - he's there to sell the neo-con agenda to a broader audience. Brooks started at the Weekly Standard under William Kristol. Kristol heads up PNAC. Brooks is not just your everyday conservative columnist. He's there with a purpose. A nefarious, disastrous purpose. I'm disgusted that the NY Times employs him.

[SteppingRazor]

12. OK. But...he's a columnist.

In fact, one could make the argument that having him there serves a useful purpose in showing how ridiculous his arguments can be -- and I'm sure we could both cite several of his columns as examples. It's a bit like a KKK rally in that sense.

And speaking of KKK rallies, that group still has every right to hold them, hateful as they are. If the NYTimes is interested in presenting every side of a political argument (and they certainly should be) and if the neoconservative political philosophy is currently relevant (and it certainly is, what with them being in power) then I'd argue that the Times certainly should have a representative of that political philosophy in its op-ed section.

The New York Times has no place being a liberal mouthpiece. I expect the paper to present both sides of an argument, and having people like Brooks in the op-ed section does that. I'm not saying I like him or his beliefs, but I do think he should have the right to express them. And if a paper is interested in presenting all sides of an argument -- as it should be -- then he should be able to express them in print as well.

[Stephanie]

22. The "both sides" argument is a fallacy

I want to see reporting, even by columnists, that is based in facts. Publishing lies under the notion that it is just a differing opinion is what got us into this mess.

And speaking of KKK rallies, I do not pay to subsidize their costumes. Why should I pay the Times to give cover to the neo-cons?

[SteppingRazor]

25. I agree that invented facts should be subject to retribution...

Brooks certainly deserved to get much more than a slap on the wrist for his exaggerated distortions. His Red State vs. Blue State columns that were skewered by Sasha Issenberg spring immediately to mind (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102382/sidebar/2102392/). But while I certainly believe that journalists -- even opinion columnists -- who blatantly lie should be fired, I also think the nation's leading paper ought to have conservative voices in the op-ed page.

Whether or not David Brooks ought to be that voice is certainly up for debate, I more than agree. But I don't agree that people who represent similar political viewpoints should not be in the op-ed pages -- yes, even neo-cons.

[Stephanie]

33. I use the term neo-con very specifically

Not as a generic for "conservative" as we see sometimes lately. I don't know how well-acquainted you are with the exclusive clique of neo-cons who have been running our foreign policy since 2001, but they are to blame for most of the mess we're in. I can list their names if you like. Neo-con refers to a small, exclusive group of manipulators in the Pentagon, AEI, and the PNAC. Brooks sells their program. It's inexcusable. It has nothing to do with representing a "conservative" viewpoint. It has to do with selling a pack of lies in order to achieve foreign policy goals that are fantastical, idiotic, and catastrophic. Don't confuse David Brooks with William Safire or Bob Dole. I am not arguing that the paper shouldn't have a conservative columnist. I am specifically citing David Brooks and Judith Miller as LIARS, and shills for the neo-cons, whose LIES caused me to cancel my subscription to the NY Times.

Thank you very much, I'll be here all week, be sure to tip your waitress.

[SteppingRazor]

34. Well, of course I'm familiar with PNAC and all that...

I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't have a passing familiarity with the group. For myself, I've spent a lot of time at the Web site (newamericancentury.org) and have read up on a lot of their foreign policy papers.
I find their views repugnant and un-American.
However, as you say, this is the prevailing force that runs foreign policy in this country. Should that voice not be represented in the media, if only to find out the official neo-conservative stance on issues and to hold them accountable where such stand can be shown to have caused harm?

[Stephanie]

36. The NYT hides his affiliations, they print his lies without correction

They present him as an ordinary everyday conservative when he is in fact in bed with those neo-fascist neo-cons. Nobody at the NY Times is holding him accountable, nor are they holding Judy accountable. They have made her a martyr when she is an accomplice.

No, they will not get my money.

[cwydro]

2. you have a point

but I generally read the Times primarily for the Op/Ed and I'm very disappointed.

[Allenberg]

4. Eh, I agree.

If I owned a newspaper, I'd probably do the same. 8 bucks a month including archives access is pretty nice.

[Captain Hilts]

29. I think it's a good deal. And you 'vote' every time you click...

so, don't 'vote' for JTierney.

Fifty bucks a year?
Not a bad deal.

[Lex]

5. Check your local library's site--you can still get it there free probably!

This is, if you have a library card you can get access to all the newspapers through their online resources.

[pitohui]

7. if he wants to be read...

he can charge if he likes but i can't pay for every bit of content on the internet

if there is a fee, i can't pay

we all have limited funds, it is not a matter of whining

i am glad yr funds are unlimited & it is never a prob. for you to pay for sudden increases in prices in everything from content to food to fuel for yr auto

most of us are not so comfortable

[sui generis]

8. oh yeah?

That's not reality.

If enough stupid people charge to read their news, the guy who doesn't charge will still get many more "eyes", which sells advertising, which is the only reason news or any other form of media entertainment exists.

Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

;)

[Demit]

10. Can you prove that? That people who read the NYT online would have

subscribed to the print edition otherwise? Can you prove that reduced newspaper readership is attributable only to the papers being available on the internet? You are generalizing. Save me from the poor-New York-Times-is-losing-money argument. And the straw man attack of people thinking they have a divine right to information for free. You sound like Rick Santorum now.

[SteppingRazor]

16. That's a really disingenuous argument.

Of course reduced newspaper readership is not "attributable only" to content being available on the Internet. But by the same token, it's just as obvious that this situation is at least partially responsible for the loss of print readership. Which drives down circulation. Which drives down advertising prices. Which makes the paper lose money. Not to mention the more direct but less revenue-hurting cause of people simply not paying for the paper.

And why shouldn't the NYTimes try to make money? It is, after all, a business. And what does Santorum have to do with anything?

[Demit]

24. It is not obvious. It is possibly logical, but not obvious.

Show me something that can quantify the number of people who decided not to subscribe to the Times because it was online for free. Until then this claim belongs in the dubious category of things that sound like they could be true, so "everybody knows that" they are. It's more likely that being online gave the NYT more exposure to new eyes--people across the country who already subscribe to their hometown newspaper and didn't really need another whole daily to read, yet liked to tune into what the Times was saying. I think this is the market the NYT is trying to tap.

Print readership has been steadily dropping for the last 15 years, and all the chains have been tearing their hair out trying to come up with magic formulas to bring people back. Even at that, they've been making handsome profits. The NYT is not losing money. I don't mind that they're trying to make money. I used to be in the position of giving it to them, as a subscriber (till I got fed up with their blatant rah-rah Bush shit right after the election). I just think it's a bonehead move on their part. I found out there was life after the NYT stopped being delivered, and so will its former online readers. Making people pay is not going to increase their readership, period.

(The Santorum reference was about his attempt to make people pay for weather information.)

[SteppingRazor]

26. I don't think anyone is saying it will help the NYT gain readership...

What it will do is help them protect the readership they already have -- at least, that would be there view.

As for the rest, you say newspaper readership has been in decline for 15 years -- almost exactly the lifespan of the Internet -- and then you say there's no causal relationship between the two. That's why I think the argument is disingenuous. It should be obvious on its face that the existence of the Internet is at least partially responsible for the loss of readership in print media. Some other reasons for that loss -- cell phones, iPods, video game systems, and any other forms of media that spring to mind.
Newspapers aren't just competing with each other. They are also competing with every other medium for people's time. And as newspapers are not the most efficient means of conveying immediate data (sans any subtext), they're hurting in a world that has so many forms of media. Internet is the largest and certainly most important example, but hardly the only one.
So, I agree that the Internet is not the only reason newspapers are losing readership. But I do think it is the largest part of the greater problem, which is the changing face of mass media.

[Demit]

38. Oh for heaven's sake. You weren't reading newspapers online 15 yrs ago.

In 1990 you were maybe posting to a local bulletin board, when that even worked, but you weren't perusing great gobs of content on the Web in 1990. Shrinking readership was even by then a fact of life, and closed many an afternoon paper throughout the 1980s. And forced papers in dual-newspaper towns to form strategic partnerships to cut costs.

Newspaper reading had been trending down for a looonnng time. In the main, it was the plain fact that younger people weren't reading newspapers the way their elders did. You are overplaying the "causal relationship" between newspapers losing print readers and the fairly recent phenomenon of its content being available online. My arguments aren't disingenuous; yours are uninformed.

[edhopper]

27. Comparing Santorum

taking a service that WE PAY FOR with tax dollars and trying to charge for it is a ridiculous analogy. The Times pays a lot of money for it's columnist and expects to get money in return.

[msmcghee]

11. Some thoughts . .

People read newspapers for two reasons.

One, to get informed about current events.

Two, to get their worldview reinforced.

Current events are available all over the net and on broadcast radio and TV for free - or at least for the cost of listening to some ads. But we don't have to pay for the delivery unless we want to go ad free - like Sirius or MX, etc.

So, like the poster above, what many of us want is the editorials where our worldview gets stroked.

With the radical polarization of politics in the US thanks to the Repukes, we need that stroking now more than ever - and we're generally willing to pay good money to get it.

Notice that they don't put ads in the editorial section.

People buy things for emotional reasons. The emotions are in the editorials, not the news.

The editorials are there to get people to buy the paper and get their emotions stroked - so they'll also glance through the news section where they'll be exposed to the ads.

I can see why giving away the editorials greatly reduces the number of people who would buy the paper (and therefore won't see the ads) - and would really cut into their profits.

[pitohui]

13. well i'm sure not going to pay for editorials

sorry opinions are like assholes we've all got one

[msmcghee]

14. Rest assured the times business managers . .

.. have selected the op-ed writers very carefully to provide exactly the stroking that they believe their market demographics are willing to pay for.

You (we) may not be in the mix. I doubt there's many here at DU who subscribe to the Times print edition - or who will pay for it online. I won't either. Anything that Krugman says that gets me going will be excerpted elsewhere.

But think of this. We at DU have a bigger Jones than most. We get our red meat from Digby, Brock, Blumenthal, Atrios, Kos, etc. Now that's strokin'.

[Mairead]

15. I don't think you understand how it works--newspapers don't sell news,

they rent out readers to corporate advertisers. The news is simply how they attract the readers. Any money they get from the readers is pure gravy.

[SteppingRazor]

17. Yes, but like I said in my above post...

Less readers means less circulation. Less circulation means lower advertising rates. Either way, the paper loses money.

[brook]

18. I already pay

more than $250 annualy just to read their Sunday edition.(Subscriptions are not a viable option where I reside).

I've read the NYT Sunday edition for more than 50 years - even when living in foreign countries where I paid the equivalent of $15 per issue. I resent their wanting another $50 bucks.

[rman]

19. Some journalists publish their print articles for free -

after they've been payed for the print edition, which covers their expenses just fine. There's no financial loss for any parties involved and the articles get a larger audience.

[gratuitous]

20. Then why can't I pick and choose what I want to buy?

It's all or nothing, and that's certainly not capitalism, it's corporatism. It's why Ma Bell got broken up, and why Microsoft had to quit bundling all their useless, security hole-riddled software together. Why should I pay full freight for the New York Times on the web, when all I want (for example) is Krugman's column?

That, by the way, would be a very useful indicator for the Times businesspeople (that is, if they're serious about this whole capitalism thing, and I doubt that). How many people will pay for Krugman? A lot. How many will pay for Frank Rich or Thomas Friedman? Quite a few. How many will pay for Maureen Dowd? Many. How many will pay for David Brooks?

{Crickets}

I say, how many will pay for David Brooks?

Uh huh.

[BootinUp]

21. Its actually a pretty fair price IMHO

You get access to archives and some of the best op-eds written for less than 5 bucks a month. I will be getting it shortly.

[stopbush]

23. If they're losing subscriptions, why not dismantle the whole website

and go back to selling only hardcopies? Why? Because they're still selling banner ads on the cyber edition.

I like reading Krugman and Herbert, but beyond them, there's nothing in the Times that's worth the fee.

Easily done without.

[trekbiker]

28. I read Krugman here:

http://www.pkarchive.org/

[mattclearing]

30. It's not like NYT has anything that isn't said better and sooner here.

I'd rather give my money to DU, honestly. There are many more gifted writers with excellent points of view here than are on the op/ed page of the New York Times.

[SmokingJacket]

31. It's just that we got used to it...

Of course NYT can charge whatever it wants; Krugman's gotta eat. The thing is, most of the rest of the web is free. So that's what I'm going to read.

It's too bad, but I just can't dish out $50 for every webpage I like to go to.

[JanMichael]

32. He's always free.

Here at the unofficial Krugman page.

No problem.

[Halliburton]

35. it's stupid on their part

I mean they offered the columns to us for free and now all of a sudden they start charging for it. I wouldn't have had such a problem with it if they charged for the columns to begin with. You can't just offer something for free and then start charging for it as soon as it becomes popular.

[edhopper]

37. So

how much do you pay for cable TV every month?:)