[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.

[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.

[goldstategop]

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

[mhking]

"Michael King mulls not reading the Times any more"

[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.

[Noachian]

... we training a generation of readers to get quality information for free.

Quality information? Sez who?

[ken5050]

The business model for the web is still evolving...the poitns made re the NY Times don't reanslate in all cases.

I subscribed to the Washington Times National Weekly for years...I loved it..great source of conservative news and views. I didn't renew it in 1999, when their website was really rnin gwell..because I got everything there, and more besides, and instantly, and FREE..I wrote the publisher a letter thanking him, explaining why I wasn't renewing, and offerign to donate my subscription cost to the paper's in-house charity..got a nice reply back discussing the evolving busiess model..

The WSJ, and Barron's..are unique.both have like 95% of sales by annual subscription..delivered to home.office..the genius was to offer the website for a reduce cost to subscribers...both publications , over the years, have saved lots of money by moving much statistical pages to the website only..indeed..it's probably a waste of time for the WSJ to print ANY stock tables now..everyone has the stuff available on line..in many different formats..the big probalem for the WSK is that much of the revenue is derived from print advertising in the papers...that doesn't translate well into the website yet....people..."read" it differentl..you can't just browse over the whole page, like you do with the paper...OTOH..if you eliminated paper, and distribution, and printing costs completely..you'd save big $$$.. Barron's should be completely on-line..but they'd lose a fortune in print ad revenue....still..it's coming soon..

[TheForceOfOne]

Nice try, you can pay me but I still wouldn't read it!
These guys are getting desperate.

[taxesareforever]

Come on NYT admit it. Michael Moore is reading your drivel free and you want him to pay.

[bert]

Charge the readers..... yeah that's the ticket.

Rush does it..... why can't we.

[Publius6961]

They can mull all they want.

If I have to "sign in" I won't read it for FREE!

[Agent Smith]

The old pink whore (formerly the old gray lady) trying to strut her suff in the free market cauldron of the internet?

LOL, this should be really rich! FRANK RICH!, that is!

SCHADENFREUDE ALERT!