New York Times to charge for Op-Ed Access

[muriel_volestrangler]

The New York Times announced today a new online offering called TimesSelect, which for a modest fee will provide exclusive access to Op-Ed and news columnists on NYTimes.com, easy and in-depth access to The Times's online archives, early access to select articles on the site, as well as other exciting features.

While most of the news, features and multi-media on NYTimes.com will remain free and available to users, the work of Op-Ed columnists and some of the best known voices from the news side of The Times and The International Herald Tribune (IHT) will be available only to TimesSelect subscribers beginning in September. Home-delivery subscribers will automatically receive TimesSelect as part of their benefits. TimesSelect will be priced at $49.95 for an annual subscription.

http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=NYT&script=411&layout=-6&item_id=710365

Damn! Paying for Krugman!

[leveymg]

1. This is one way to mute the impact of the liberal side of the paper

The rudderless Gray Lady continues to flounder and drift closer to irrelevance.

They must be desperate for revenue.

:bounce:

[BattyDem]

2. The columnists are the only ones willing to speak the truth.

Now the truth will only be available to those who can afford to pay. It's just another way to keep the masses uninformed. :eyes:

[Skink]

4. It'll give us a chance to read the rest of the paper....

I'll say one good thing for the NYT, it is a newspaper that is worth buying because it is not wall to wall advertising and they report the facts. But remember Krugman is on Monday's and Fridays so if you have to buy it those are the days.
In San Antonio the Express news has resorted to selling the paper on median strips to people in cars because the advertising is just not reaching enough people. The Houston Chronicle gives it away to students or anyone else free in my complex so they can tell potential ad buyers that their ciculation is very very good. At work we only get two copies of the local paper because no one buys it, they come in to look at it but that is it.

[Eric J in MN]

We can still put excerpts on our blogs (nt)

nt

[Hamlette]

3. oh, the Times should be doing this for free?

actually, I think they should, but of course they can't. And the only people who read the Times online are those rich enough to pay for internet access which is more than twice what the Times is asking.

Yes, it's a bummer. But it had to come. I wish they'd make it more reasonable...like 10 bucks a year. Then all internet uses could afford it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. I know they have a right to charge

but you hope that the web ads bring them enough revenue to make it worth their while putting the whole paper on the web for free. I actually saw this via Andrew Sullivan's blog, and he said it would cut them off from the blogs - they won't link to the NYT so much now, knowing their readers can't follow the links - and the blogs will be even more their competitors rather than allies as a result. He may be right.

The Independent in the UK does this already (including Robert Fisk's news reports from the Middle East), and I read it less online than its competitors.

[RickWn]

5. I'm not surprised

I don't think this is as much a conspiracy to mute the liberal side of the paper's view as it is a practical realization that they are missing out on a huge chunk of revenue. I for one log in there most nights to see what the morning editorials, op-eds and LTE's have to say. If only 2,000 others are doing the same each day (wanna bet there are more)by charging us $50.00 a year, there's a hundred grand in revenue.

I know newspapers are supposed to be one of the most profitable enterprises, but what business manager worth his salt wouldn't bring before the board a plan to charge even the on-line readers just as they do all the other readers.

As for me, I'll be coughing up the toll.

[babylonsister]

6. Well, Rick, I'll be waiting for your copy/paste jobs from

the NYTimes! Welcome to DU! :hi:

[RickWn]

16. Thank you for the welcome!

And you shall have those "C and P"s when my feet are a little more wet. Heck, took a big step a couple of weeks ago and actually risked some
Bold and Italicsemphasis in a post.

Next thing ya know, I'll be Mr. Smilies everywhere with those cool quote boxes not far behind. :hi:

Well, it's gonna be awhile before you see da darn boxes.

Hailing from San Diego, a heavily conservative area of a liberal state, I need a regular liberal fix even if I have to pay for it.

[kaitykaity]

7. No, don't pay. We can get them wherever they're syndicated to.

http:/oregonlive.com is one site that syndicates
Krugman and others. Kristoff was good today in fact.

There are ways aroound this.

[AP]

9. I wish they'd charge for the Editorials page -- I wish they'd charge so

much that nobody would read it.

A good book: The record of the paper : how the New York Times misreports US foreign policy / Howard Friel and Richard Falk (Verso, 2004).

[babylonsister]

10. I don't agree. There are some folks who

actually make sense in the NYT (so far), despite your negativeness. I like Krugman, MoDo at times, and even (slay me) Friedman. And Mr. Rich is gold.

[AP]

12. I'm talking about the Editorials Page (not Op(posite)-Ed(itorialis) page)

And if you need justification for the negativism, read this:


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1844670198/qid=1116305309/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-8183042-8461616?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

[babylonsister]

13. The people I spoke of were part of the editorial page. Please,

do not shoot our messengers. As much as you might have a beef with someone, the folks at the NYTimes sound to me to be voices of reason compared to our fucked up country. Please cut a bit of slack.

[AP]

14. Once again: two different parts of the paper. I'm talking about the...

...unsigned Editorials page.

If you love the Editorials, you and I need to step outside.

I'm not talking about the Op-Ed page. There are some decent Op-Ed columnists. (None of them are particularly anti-neoliberal, but they do better on the Op-Ed page than on the Editorials page.)

[babylonsister]

15. Now I understand. So you're talking about the

unsigned eds vs. the signed opinions. I think the line is sadly not thin, but I'll bet it's angry.

[althecat]

11. This is ridiculous... And a very bad precedent

It will mean we just have to read our op-eds on Truthout.org