New York Times Mulls Charging Web Readers

Yahoo News ^ | 1/7/2005 | Martha Graybow

[Born Conservative]

NYT ping.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

And I would pay to read the New York Lies because...?

[Brilliant]

Who would pay to read The New York Times?

[BenLurkin]

They'd have to pay me.

[YouPosting2Me]

People used to pay for "Pet Rocks" so I guess they may as well try to see if people will pay for "Loose Marbles".

[mlbford2]

If it ain't free liberals won't bite. They get all their liberal bile from about 500 different sources(ie MSM) for free. Why would they pay for it? NYT is trying to pad their waining subscription revenue. They would have better luck selling lemonade out on 5th Ave.

[VRWCmember]

One of the paper's biggest rivals, Dow Jones & Co. Inc.'s Wall Street Journal, charges for its online edition.

Big difference. There are actually people that will pay to read WSJ.

[cubreporter]

Not me. Whenever I click onto a link and it says register or pay...I say: No way!

[Boundless]

> Who would pay to read The New York Times?

The current print subscribers, for one.

Note that the LA Times recently dropped their national
print edition.

I suspect the NYT is about to pull the plug on some
remote mkts, but wants to keep the money from those
readers, ergo, subscription web edition.

The NYT is about to discover just how valued they aren't.

Why pay money when you can still get lied and spun to
for free via network TV "news".

[sergeantdave]

Why would anyone pay for birdcage liner?

[Squawk 8888]

The National Post started doing this last year but you can only read it if you're connected. If they made a downloadable version I would have considered it.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"They'd have to pay me."

Heheheh! Me too.

[goldstategop]

Oh good! The blogs will still be free as the Gray Lady goes the way of the dinosaur.

[Willie Green]

There are actually people that will pay to read WSJ.

That's pretty bizarre as well.
They may espouse a different ideology than the Times, but that doesn't make 'em any more "unbiased" or "objective".
In fact, I've become quite disgusted with the disingenous bilge that passes for an "informed opinion" on the WSJ's editorial pages.

[WildTurkey]

In fact, I've become quite disgusted with the disingenous bilge that passes for an "informed opinion" on the WSJ's editorial pages.

I know what you mean. They are pretty anti when it comes to pork barrel rapid transit systems.

[mhking]

"Michael King mulls not reading the Times any more"

[VRWCmember]

They may espouse a different ideology than the Times, but that doesn't make 'em any more "unbiased" or "objective". In fact, I've become quite disgusted with the disingenous bilge that passes for an "informed opinion" on the WSJ's editorial pages.

At least at WSJ the editorials are reserved for the editorial page. Also, the WSJ has at least one token liberal (Al Hunt) to offer some variety of viewpoints on the editorial page.

[Diamond]

I pay to have garbage removed from my house, not to have it brought in.

Cordially,

[ghitma]

Oh I misunderstood. I thought the the Times was going to pay
me to visit their site. Even that would be a hard sell.