NY Times to start charging for internet access to Op/Ed and top

[tx_dem41]

news columinists...

The end of the world is nigh.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?dateid=38488.5334650116-835440638&siteID=mktw&scid=0&doctype=806&property=symb&value=&categories=&

Realize this means Krugman's column.

[asjr]

1. Damned SCLM!

[mcscajun]

2. The good news is you can get Krugman's column elsewhere

http://www.pkarchive.org/

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/

[Ouabache]

14. thanks for those links good to know

now I can unsubscribe from nytimes daily newsletter cause I am not paying for the occasional time I do follow one of their newsletter links. (about once a week)

[ultraist]

3. That really sucks!

from OP link:

NYT.com to charge for Op-Ed, other content as of Sept (NYT) By Carolyn Pritchard
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The New York Times Co. (NYT) on Monday said that, starting in September, access to Op-Ed and certain of its top news columnists on the paper's NYTimes.com Web site will only be available through a fee of $49.95 a year. The service, known as TimesSelect, will also allow access to The Times's online archives, early access to select articles on the site, and other features. Home-delivery subscribers will automatically receive the service, the NYT said.

[wicket]

4. LAME!

I hope http://www.bugmenot.com has a way around it.

[Stephanie]

5. They've just made themselves obsolete

They should join the new media, not struggle against it. The internet means free access to news and information for all. If they want to remove themselves from that they have shot their own foot.

[mcscajun]

6. They've only removed some content from the "Free" 'Net...not all of it.

And the Internet doesn't automatically mean "...free access to news and information for all." You're going to be seeing a whole lot more of this as the years go on. Ain't nothing free, not even DU. Somebody always has to pay; sometimes it's us.

I already support DU and Salon.com with $$.

[Stephanie]

8. Partially relying on support is not the same as barring access to those

who don't pay. I can access Salon for free by viewing an ad. I can read DU for free. The NYT has made money online selling ads and many other things. But cutting off access to those who don't pay is the wrong move, businesswise, IMO.

[mcscajun]

9. Time will tell whether it's the wrong move or not.

:shrug:

[hunter]

7. Jeez. I don't read them because then I'd have to register.

Why on earth would I pay? They are not even worth a throwaway email address.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. Even the New York Times.

(Lights match, tosses it out, runs...)

:evilgrin:

On Edit, I see it's time to buy myself a star again!

[tx_dem41]

10. I never understand why people have this dislike of registering

at a newspaper site. I setup a special email, and it never gets spam other than one email a week possibly from the newspaper, and I signed up for the newsletter that comes with the email.

[mcscajun]

12. Me neither. I've registered at newspaper sites here and abroad...

...IF I want to read them regularly. If it's a site I'm only going to visit once in a great while, then www.bugmenot.com is the answer. :)

[hunter]

13. I have far too many "special" emails.

Sometimes it's difficult to remember who I am. (Too many passwords!)

If I can create or use any identity, why should the New York Times or anyone else care who I am?

[tx_dem41]

20. Because its accepted practice...

that these help set advertiser rates. Whether the methodology has holes in it doesnt matter, if its the accepted practice.

Me? I would rather not go to the trouble of going to bugmenot and cutting and pasting URLs all the time (or keeping track of 50 or so username/password combinations).

Again, I have never received a spam email on an email addy that I used to register for a newspaper site.

[DrDebug]

11. Good

Newspapers which charge for content will get less and less of exposure. Remember that it is not the subscriber charge which brings in the bucks but the ads, so less exposure means less revenue and less importance.

[im10ashus]

15. It's a shame!

But there are ways around it. Get 10 friends to put in $5 each and share the password. Most of the op-ed pieces are emailed and so they will be on message boards and the like. Still, they make a ton of money on ad space on the internet (damn those pop-ups) and in print. They should not be charging for online access.

[kliljedahl]

16. Looks like we've got until September

But DAMN, that's the first place I go to online after DU. I used to subscribe to their crosswords online when it was $9.95 a year, but when it went to $19.95 I said "Fuck it". They've just lost one online reader as of September.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[shanti]

17. this was to be expected

the local fishwrap is losing money, and the internet is a great place to point fingers. they WILL get their money!

[tx_dem41]

21. I'm not arguing with their right to make money.

Heck, they're a corporation. There's nothing wrong with doing it. I'm only questioning whether its the correct, business decision.

[question everything]

18. Will see. A couple of years ago LAT was charging for its Calendar section

and last week reversed this.

[DemBeans]

19. aw, hell

I'll bet we'll still get Judith Miller's crap for free, though. They won't charge for propaganda.