Flailing away in the tar pits...
1 posted on
07/09/2009 6:02:43 PM PDT by
abb
To: 04-Bravo; aimhigh; andyandval; Arizona Carolyn; backhoe; Bahbah; bert; bilhosty; Birch T. Barlow; ..
2 posted on
07/09/2009 6:03:19 PM PDT by
abb
("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
To: abb
Nothing is wrong about charging for online content. Of course, you have to be selling something that people are willing to buy. The NYT is selling nothing that qualifies.
3 posted on
07/09/2009 6:06:31 PM PDT by
norwaypinesavage
(Global Warming Theory is extremely robust with respect to data. All observations confirm it)
To: abb
They will QUICKLY see how cheap their liberal audience really is.
5 posted on
07/09/2009 6:07:11 PM PDT by
devane617
(Republicans first strategy should be taking over the MSM. Without it we are doomed.)
To: abb
I won’t even register for free to read an article.
6 posted on
07/09/2009 6:09:11 PM PDT by
Bahbah
(Only dead fish go with the flow)
To: abb
The New York Times is testing a price point of $5 a month for access to nytimes.com, with a 50 percent discount for print subscribers.
They already tried this, charging for access to the likes of Maureen Dowd. Nobody bought it. Live on ad revenue like everyone else and try expanding readership by not being a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.
To: abb
Wrong?
That’s not the question. The question is whether folks can get their news elsewhere for free.
If they can, then they’ve no need for those who charge.
10 posted on
07/09/2009 6:16:05 PM PDT by
xzins
(Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends those who seek His help.)
To: abb
Liberals won't support their own propaganda mill, because liberals always want someone else to pay their way.
More front page lectures on how privileged whites should pay more because they are guilty should really bump up gross for the Times.
They could call the campaign "Say you're sorry to Karl Marx".
11 posted on
07/09/2009 6:17:19 PM PDT by
Navy Patriot
(The Golden Goose doesn't exist that Marxists can't kill.)
To: abb
I read it at least three or four times a week, and there’s no way I’d pay to subscribe online. If I paid for a print subscription, I’d be even more pissed if they asked me to pay for the website.
12 posted on
07/09/2009 6:18:19 PM PDT by
Arguendo
To: abb
This is something they should have done from the beginning. I can’t believe they’ve held off for so long.
To: abb
* I think it is wrong for The New York Times to charge anyone for access to nytimes.com. For any normal business, it would be an economic issue.
But, for the New York Times, it's a moral issue.
14 posted on
07/09/2009 6:21:37 PM PDT by
okie01
(THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
To: abb
"The New York Times is testing a price point of $5 a month for access to nytimes.com..."Nope, they're gonna have to pay me a LOT MORE to access their claptrap. Even more, if they expect me to read any of it. And they don't have enough millions to make me believe a word they write.
Might as well forget the whole thing...
15 posted on
07/09/2009 6:28:04 PM PDT by
DJ Frisat
(How's that change workin' out for ya, Obama voters?)
To: abb
Put unslanted just the facts news in your paper, and you’ll be surprised what will happen to your subscriptions, providing you have destroyed every bit of your credibility by now. (Which they’ve done with me)
16 posted on
07/09/2009 6:29:06 PM PDT by
DoughtyOne
(_Resident of the United States and Kenya's favorite son, Baraaaack Hussein Obamaaaa...)
To: abb
HA....go ahead and “charge”.....see who buys....
To: abb
lol. TAR PITS. i LOVE IT.
Yeah, go ahead and charge, slimes. please. you’ll see how much demand there is for your brand of CRAP.
20 posted on
07/09/2009 6:38:44 PM PDT by
Recovering_Democrat
(I'm SO glad I no longer belong to the party of Dependence on Government!)
To: abb
21 posted on
07/09/2009 6:52:48 PM PDT by
Chode
(American Hedonist - Obama is basically Jim Jones with a teleprompter)
To: abb
It will drive readers away.
To: abb
Uhhhhhhh.......why, no. No, it is not wrong to charge for online content (or whatever constitutes content when it comes to the NY Times).
Be bold, NY Times. Charge, charge, charge.
We're behind you all the way.
26 posted on
07/09/2009 7:44:28 PM PDT by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all. -- Texas Eagle)
To: abb
If they raise that, and send me $10 a month, I might consider subscribing.
: )
27 posted on
07/09/2009 7:45:30 PM PDT by
Publius6961
(Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
To: abb
Is The Times getting nervous?
28 posted on
07/09/2009 7:48:29 PM PDT by
YHAOS
To: abb
Selling our country’s secrets is wrong. Selling lies is wrong.
Oh let’s just skip to the chase... NYT’s continued existence is wrong, period.
29 posted on
07/09/2009 8:15:49 PM PDT by
Gator113
(I live in "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." Imam Obama told me so.)
To: abb
The Times is obviously confused. They are stating the question incorrectly. What they should be asking their readers is.."If you were to pay $2.50- $5.00 per month for unlimited access to the NY Times websites, would you also be willing to continue paying several hundred dollars a year additional to receive a hard copy of the paper, most of the time delivered to your home or office on time?"
30 posted on
07/09/2009 9:08:26 PM PDT by
ken5050
To: abb
Why pay for lies when you can get them for free?
32 posted on
07/10/2009 7:25:37 AM PDT by
indylindy
(Anyone dumb enough to have voted for him deserves what they get.. No Pity!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
