Called me unsurprised that The New York Times is mulling putting the web version of its newspaper on a paid subscription basis similar to The Wall Street Journal. If this happens, what will the WaPo and the LAT do? A chess game between newspapers may ensue. And what will this mean for blogs? It may be another opportunity for us, if we can find ways to finance and thus expand our endeavors while remaining a free portal to the news.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Roger: in what way would an on-line version of the NYT be different from the bird cage liner it already is? I don’t buy the NYT now and certainly wouldnt spend any money for an on-line version. I will have to mull the consequences of any on-line version of the NYT on the blogosphere, but at this point I think the blogosphere has already established its credibility with any thinking person; viz the Mudville gazette article on Abu Graib down thread. You dont get that kind of coverage in the MSM and, I suspect, never will.
It’ll certainly cut down on all those nasty people fact-checking them.
Oh well.C’est la vie.If this happens I won’t be paying to not read something that I rarely if ever read now that it is ‘free’
This is actually an admission of defeat not of strength,and is another milestone in the collapse of the MSM monopoly.
If everyone who truly ‘despises’the media would cancel ALL their subsciptions,and refuse to pay for on-line sites,the MSM would be hurt where they cannot afford to be hurt.
Say I have an idea — why not organize an internet group that reads this propaganda so that everyone else does not have to?You know sort of like 1 hero taking 1 for the team by suffering through Andrew Sullivan so that the rest of us don’t have to.That way we all keep up with the latest lunacy but don’t either have to read it directly OR support the enemy.
I’m reminded of the time Michael Kinsley (then editor of Slate) remarked how difficult it was to get people to read on-line, then in the next breath mentioned that they were considering becoming a pay site. Hey, if you can’t give it away, forget about charging for it!
Doesn’t something like BugMeNot.com render this moot, or do they have an enforced policy against posting registrations for pay sites?
If there are some serious bloggers out there who would like to investigate such a consortium of “readers,” I’d like to talk to them a la dougf’s idea. I already subscribe to the WSJ online, but groan at the prospect of the NYT.
I question the strategy here. Given the importance of advertising to newspapers, why not make the content free and drive as much advertising revenue as possible?…then supplement it with special paid content areas, possibly something not available in the normal print publication. But first, get the on-line community as regular readers.
Money quote:
N.Y. Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. was quoted in the article as saying: “It gets to the issue of how comfortable are we training a generation of readers to get quality information for free. That is troubling.”
Pinch should by all means begin charging an exhorbitant fee for the online Times, thereby (in the near term) limiting the ruthless fisking that his rag gets daily in the blogosphere.
The man’s a genius. In the face of declining bird cage circulation, he kills his only upside.
I am shocked and awed.
ìHey, if you can’t give it away, forget about charging for it!î
I consider the New York Times similar to the 750 pound prostitute with buck teeth and bad breath. How much is she willing to pay me?
David Thomson:
Guess I don’t need to watch Letterman, your comment has me howling !!!! Thanks
If the NYT starts charging it means I will never read it as opposed to only occasionally reading it. I don’t want to pay money to become annoyed. I can get that for free.
I wonder if they will charge for their editorials.
Well, the problem is that the whole rest of the media feeds off the Times, and if you want to go back and fisk an article how will you get it? I guess you can a la carte it off lexis nexis, but it is a lot easier getting it for free. Their info will still be out there, but harder to criticize. That part I don’t like.