« Happy Birthday Michelle Obama
Clinton, Bush Dismiss Talk Show Hosts’ Politicization of Haiti Earthquake »
NYTimes Ready to Charge for Web Access
That according to Gabriel Sherman at NYMagazine:
One personal friend of [New York Times Chairman Arthur] Sulzberger said a final decision could come within days, and a senior newsroom source agreed, adding that the plan could be announced in a matter of weeks. (Apple’s tablet computer is rumored to launch on January 27, and sources speculate that Sulzberger will strike a content partnership for the new device, which could dovetail with the paid strategy.) It will likely be months before the Times actually begins to charge for content, perhaps sometime this spring. Executive Editor Bill Keller declined to comment. Times spokesperson Diane McNulty said: “We’ll announce a decision when we believe that we have crafted the best possible business approach. No details till then.”
Sherman says the betting is the Times will go with a metered system. Readers will be able to sample a number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. Read on for much more in the full report.
I paid before. I’d pay again.
13 Responses to “NYTimes Ready to Charge for Web Access”
Anyone know how much they are going to pay us to read it?
They need to just ask liberals for donations. That is basically what this would be anyway. At least they are going down with a fight.
Remember what happened the last time the Times tried to charge with Times Select? Pretty much no one did, so, what was in Times Select, like Krugman and Dowd, was ignored. Heck, you folks on the left wouldn't even pay for them. If the Times does this, folks will get their news elsewhere on the Web.
Newspapers have always used advertising as a source of income, are the people now running the NY Slimes so incompetent that they cant figure out an advertising formula. I will watch a 15 second ad. I won't pay a dime for an article,opinion piece, ect.
[...] NYTimes Ready to Charge for Web Access (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Just a two cent's worth: For those interested, you may want to Google Rupert Murdock and see how the lay of the land of New$ is being directed. TMV has carried several articles about his big push to charge for all his holdings, which are many. NYT is bleeding. They've been trying to get rid of Boston G, and no buyers. Boston G was filled with crack investigative reporters.
I'd be willing to pay papers that do deep and honest investigation. But for most of their puff pastry…. Makeup, hair tips, predictable analyses, movie reviews, gadget reviews, legislative updates (which are rarer than rare). No. Had Times Select. Stopped it. Breaking News is ever available at newspoint where news is occurring. Amd ,amu elsewheres. The quality of what was offered at Times Select was beaten by many others, and was offered gratis.
It's odd to watch the big newspapers with their high salaried folk looking for advertisers, then watching the weekly alternative papers who have had their dips too, but remain strong and fresh and filled with ads (free on street and online) and who are way ahead in format and way deep in investigative work.
(Here the alternative paper consistenlty breaks investigative stories of subsance (like Rocky Flats, for instance) that the dailies then rag-tagged along on afterward. But the crown went consistently to the alternative press. The dailies didnt have the leadership, insight nor the ambition to dig. THey pay for that sloth now) There's a model NYT cant seem to grok. Just my two cent's worth.
Our daily paper in Denver, just this week, front page headlines: top of page: Breast Milk Bank faces Shortage/ Tyke New to The Trail (Stock show). Below fold: McGwire was juiced/ Farewell, TV Remote. All front page on a Tues.
They usta be a contendah
There are so many places to get news. The US isn't the only country that has “media”. The dark lord of FOX news can do what he wants. I'll just go elsewhere.
I'll pay for good journalism. I just won't pay for the junk found in daily papers. I'll also make sure to avoid anyone that makes a deal with Murdock. If that means deleting my yahoo account then so be it.
you said it well shannonlee, and esp about news sources outside country as well. I read ten different countries' news online most days. Some of my favorites are out of Asia) Astonishing depth, often. And of course, lot and lots of differing points of view, some sort of funny points of view sometimes, but all help to broaden understanding and thought.
The NYT ain't worth the price to get condescending drivel from those who know better. Or rather think they do. Sulzberger & Keller are doing to the NYT what Zucker is doing to NBC—all three are libtards and couldn't run a corner grocery well, let alone a large corporation.
At least Murdoch knows how to make money and lots of it!
I don't know anything about the news business. I'm a receiver not a sender. I’ve had two bad brushes with reporters. One a WSJ reporter who was a jackass and a freelance journalist that some people I know want to kill, and, I don’t blame them because he deserves it.
Dave are you inside a boca burger?
[...] Joe Windish at Moderate Voice: I paid before. I’d pay again. [...]
“At least Murdoch knows how to make money and lots of it!”
Actually, Dave, there's quite a point made here, though the lefty critics I heard this weekend only were able (to comprehend) or willing (to admit) the superficial part of it: that the Fox “empire” now makes more money than lightweight-lefty CNN and other cables, plus the old-fashioned media majors combined. (At least, that's what was said on “Ring of Fire.”)
The liberal media left a vacuum and turned off many Americans with its bias to outright propaganda behavior ages ago (in addition to its frequently poor quality of information and presentation, aside from its liberal politics). Rush Limbaugh filled a vacuum and more (by providing conservative commentary in addition to reviving an obsolescent medium, AM radio), and the Fox people apparently took notice. They have bias, but it's no different than the long-standing liberal bias of the rest of the media, often more bias, in the other direction (these liberals in the field, as well as lefty political activists and lefties who have an interest in politics, particularly revile Fox as a “traitor” or “heretic” for going against the “correct” direction of obvious slant that otherwise exists), and they filled a huge void that was created by the media's leftist bias. It has proven to be a success, as any observer of mainstream America who is dispassionate would have easily predicted.
Meanwhile, I don't worry about the liberal-elite, Dem-flagship New York Times (often earning scorn and derision and anger because of its liberal and Dem politics) choosing to charge for access. If it believes it's still of value, or that there are enough liberals who are faithful to it, it will be a success. (It already took a risk and actually has advertised its weekend print edition on television, already.)
Look at it this way, too: It's imitating News Corp. As Reagan said about the Dems after 1994, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Meanwhile, the one media outlet that wanted to be “daring” and edgy by being even farther left than the liberal media in general, MSNBC, with a political lowlife, Olbermann, and far lefties like Schultz and Maddow who are popular, but mainly on the left fringe, and more importantly (with Olbermann and the like) are insisting on being farther-left (perhaps to capture the youth market) are doing what? With the mainstream, they are a huge turnoff politically. With their other programming, notably the teevee comedy shows? They are failing, currently. Let's see if Comcast corrects some of their mistakes.