Posted on 01/17/2010 7:20:41 PM PST by Texas Fossil
New York Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website, according to people familiar with internal deliberations. After a year of sometimes fraught debate inside the paper, the choice for some time has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system adopted by the Financial Times, in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
The New York Times is total propaganda. Even worse than AP. (Always Propaganda)
How long do you think they will survive in the model they are in? With or without charging the on-line users.
Doesn’t affect me. Never read it anyways.
This could be a good thing. Who would pay for such a biased pile of disengenuous bile on a daily basis. It could speed the demise of a once great paper that is no more.
You mean their readership isn’t small enough already?
Sounds like the last nail in the coffin — start charging people for something that they got for free.
Also, do their competitors charge?
Who is going to pay to read their crap?
“and the metered system adopted by the Financial Times, in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system.”
In a few months, Pinch will be scratching his head wondering why no matter where they set their meter level, no one ever actually reaches the paid point.
The only people who need the NYT to do their jobs are other liberal “news” outlets.
It’s a good thing. NYT will need to discover what readers, not advertisers, are willing to pay for. Leftist editorializing may not make the cut.
Well, not “nobody”, I guess. There is that gay/metrosexual crowd on the television ads for the “weekender” special subscription. Pretty fickle and trendy crowd to depend on as part of ones business plan, I'd say. May as well print the late city edition on mauve paper.
I agree totally with your accessment of the difference in the WSJ and the NYT.
Another model that works is the Investors Business Journal. Good people. Fine organization.
ROFL, are they serious? I’d pay to NOT read it.
I'll keep my money....
You keep the "change"!
Bye, Bye Miss American Pie,
Drove my Chevy to the Levy
But the Levy was Dry.
What will I do, what will I do?
I know, I’ll wrap my body in explosives, go down to Times Square and demand that everyone buy my newspaper.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
The pay model may postpone the bankruptcy for six months or so. It’s a shame because the Times has the infrastructure to be a great paper, but frittered away their gravitas and credibility with their comically biased editorial policies. Pinch has bankrupt the company for the benefit of Paul Krugman and a few of his other editorially dogmatic pets.
Back in the 1950’s the Norks and Chi-coms brainwashed American POW’s for free.
Now the NY Times wants Americans to pay for the privilege of being brainwashed.
Kewl! Let them keep their lies private. This is a Good Thing!
It will hasten the NYT’s demise. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.