1 posted on
11/30/2005 8:29:10 PM PST by
CAWats
To: CAWats
Probably buried as business expenses...
2 posted on
11/30/2005 8:32:09 PM PST by
Buck W.
(Yesterday's Intelligentsia are today's Irrelevantsia.)
To: CAWats
People would buy plaid polyester leisure suits if you offered them for sale. So what?
3 posted on
11/30/2005 8:32:27 PM PST by
ElkGroveDan
(California bashers will be called out)
To: CAWats
Could these numbers be harder to disprove than circulation claims of the regular old newpaper?
To: CAWats
The hard core liberals want the NYT. It doesn't matter to them if they have to pay for it or not. They need to feel superior to the rest of us by being a NYT reader.
To: CAWats
I'd expect the NYT opinion pages to get more shrill as they aim to please this paying audience. It will become even more an echo chamber for a small and dwindling crowd.
To: CAWats
numbers of readers are paying for online content that used to be free. Two, twelve and zero are numbers.
12 posted on
11/30/2005 9:00:49 PM PST by
Hank Rearden
(Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
To: CAWats
Another critic is Mickey Kaus, a well-read blogger who writes a lot about the media. He says the paper is shooting itself in the foot by charging for columns. He says the columns were influential because anyone could read them for free online. If fewer people read them because of a subscription fee, then these columnists will be less influential.They sure carry a lot of weight around here! /sarc.
14 posted on
11/30/2005 9:14:32 PM PST by
SouthTexas
(What part of NO don't you understand?)
To: CAWats
ANYONE could still read Maureen Dowd for free on the Internet if they put a little (very little) effort into it!
To: CAWats
The Slimes has implemented this service in a very clever way. They have a photo for each feature and present a tantalizing title which makes you want to click it. If 5% of people pay for it, they will make a mint.
To: CAWats
The Slimes has implemented this service in a very clever way. They have a photo for each feature and present a tantalizing title which makes you want to click it. If 5% of people pay for it, they will make a mint.
To: CAWats
So liberals pay now for content they can read for free in the print edition? Liberal content no one cares about? Yeah, right. Yawn>
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
21 posted on
11/30/2005 10:32:27 PM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: CAWats
You have a lot of people stuck on stupid if they are paying for something that a simple search will bring up free. Most of the articles are featured on other newspapers are are on line for free.
I like it, personally, since it limits readership and their views get buried.
23 posted on
12/01/2005 4:58:07 AM PST by
KeyWest
To: CAWats
If the content had any value, it might be worth something.
24 posted on
12/01/2005 5:00:58 AM PST by
MortMan
(Eschew Obfuscation)
To: CAWats
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson