[tvn]

If Sulzberger carries through on his idea, he will likley be in for a rude awakening. Few can be expected to pay for access to the Times biased news reports.

The fact is that the Times 's Internet service is supported by advertising with little additional cost. Any subscription income would be an attempt to skim off additional revenues. However, as non-paying users drop so will ad revenues, causing a net loss to Sulzberger & Co.

[Captain Peter Blood]

I for one will not pay for the Times. As it is I only read the obituaries and the Editorial Page and if I have to I can do without both.
Punch and /or Pinch can just suck a cactus bush for all I care.

[Texas Eagle]

Great idea, Pinch. Do everything you can to reduce the number of people who view your site. I'm sure your advertisers will love you for it.

[handy old one]

Does this fool want to charge for free public libary use to make money for quality reading material??

[Boundless]

See also:

New York Times Mulls Charging Web Readers
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1316236/posts

[Beckwith]

Hell, I won't even fill out their registration form, much less pay for their biased news reporting.

[billorites]

Are people familiar with the neat little site called Bugmenot?

I find myself using it frequently.

[Torie]

It won't work. The WSJ provides unique financial services that the NYT does not.

[NativeNewYorker]

Sulzberger is a moron. The insiders here in Gotham all know this. He is pissing away his family's crown jewel, but he is able to control the firm's board, and can't be dislodged.

[BobL]

Let's look at the pros and cons of this:

Pros:
(1) Users should pay - and they should pay more at peak times (whoops, sorry, that's what the toll road crowd wants for our freeways - wrong thread).
(2) Maybe some money will be made. There are always corporations that will pay, even if there are few idoits dumb enough.
(3) Maybe some loses will be avoided
(4) As mentioned elsewhere, the paper-version national edition can be canned. For people who still must somehow get their hands on the NYT words - the electronic subscription will be there only option.
(5) Others, like the LA Times, may follow. Then us freeloaders will have to pay to read their great literary works. (( like heck we will ))

Cons
(1) It will likely totally flop - the WSJ can get away with it only because they have excellent journalists and an outstanding editorial page (although some of that is free).
(2) The NYT will no longer have any real influence outside of its print edition - meaning that it becomes just another left-wing local rag - rather than a left-wing national rag.
(3) The free Internet version allows the NYT to reach many, many, more people in the middle, thus giving the NYT the chance to pull these people left.


The decision...

My prediction is that con #3 wins. The NYT will look at its mission to socialize the country trumping profits, just as CNN and the other left-wing TV networks do - giving Fox and wide open audience.

[Waco]

1st JOKE of 2005. 1/08/05. Snore

[Hildy]

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

ROFLMAO!!!!!

[big bad easter bunny]

The National Enquirer is not for free, why should their site be?

[Owl558]

I'm for anything that helps put the NYT out of business.

We should write them and tell them what a great idea it is and that we would be happy to pay for their news!

[HAL9000]

I expect most on-line newspapers will charge for access eventually. A standardized "micropayment" system could keep access affordable for most users.

[Edit35]

It's about time the NYTimes.com starts charging money??

After all, with all that great fiction I'd gladly pay twice what I pay now just to have their stories (and I emphasize the word stories) available at my beck and call.

No, make that three times. Yep. I'll gladly pay thrice what I pay now just to have access to their stuff.

I might even pay four or five times as much as I do now, just to make sure I never miss anything....