The Internet has definitely made any pay service obsolete. The Wall Street Journal is the only major online publication still pushing it and I doubt it can continue to do so for too much longer. There are thousands of news sources and just about all are better than the biased New York Times, the only reason I even use them is to get liberals to even consider a non-liberal position, usually one so bad that even the NYT supports it. If the New York Times goes to a pay service people will have no trouble getting their news elsewhere. I bet plenty of news services would love all that traffic that the NYT would lose.
I disagree. The Internet is just an additional medium. There is PLENTY of room for newspapers, but what is killing them is NOT the Internet. What is killing them is the total lack of content.
I haven't bought a San Antonio Express Snooze in close to a decade, but does that mean I am getting my local news and information from the Net? No: even though I have mysa.com and other such sources, I don't use them routinely. I would be more than happy to buy an Express Snooze, but as long as they have the crappy content that chased me off 8-10 years ago, I will look elsewhere to the radio, television, or the occasional Internet.
The same argument is made by those in the music industry, whining endlessly about how download services are killing them. Not true: the crappy content is what is doing it. But the music industry, as well as the newspapers and magazines, find it MUCH easier to blame the Internet than they do their content. Because if they swallowed the bitter pill and accepted that the content issue is what is doing them in, then they face a much more difficult task: what should they do about it.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! THE HOLOCAUST OF THOUGHT IS DAWNING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Great idea, Keller. Right in the heart of a recession, when people are hoarding their cash, the NYT decides it might be a good time to charge for something that most were getting for free...and can live without. Have these clowns not figured out that they will be cannibalizing their advertising revenue by charging individual readers an access fee? Higher cost to readers leads to declining viewership, declining viewership devalues the ads...meaning advertisers will demand to pay less in the future for the same insertion. Do they actually believe that they'll make enough revenue from subscriptions to offset the inevitable losses in advertising revenue? Time to break out the "Page 3" Girls.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
wants to read the paper. I can't believe I used to enjoy parts of that rag. Between that Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd, the commentary bites, so there's not much left, if you don't live in NY. Even pay sites on the internet are failing, so of course this is not going to work.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
I mentioned to KC Mulville on another thread that I believe they're going to try to use the schools in an attempt to make this work. Their sales department is going to concentrate on convincing school teachers across the country that the content of the New York Times is equivalent to a textbook, and that it should be required reading for all students. The public schools (and, no doubt, many private schools) will agree to that concept and will send the kids home with a note demanding the parents pony up for subscriptions. When a large percentage of the parents objects, the school will just roll "free" subscriptions for all students into the annual budget...and the taxpayer will be on the hook for keeping Pinch & Co. in business. The Marxists always find the public "education" back door to meet their objectives.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
The teachers union (who I think pull the strings) is typical of all unions, ideologs at the top, sheeple at the bottom. They have been "allies of alinsky" for the past 30-40 years. I would not put it past them.
You know, I have never, ever understood why people outside of NY would want to read the NY Times anyway. I was offered subscriptions by phone and I would routinely ask them, back in the day, "But I live in San Antonio. Why would I read a New York newspaper?"
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! THE HOLOCAUST OF THOUGHT IS DAWNING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Do what I do when you receive their mailers. Remove your name and address and send back a little note like "Not a CHANCE" and then weight the envelope down with some pennies or anything heavy that adds about fifteen ounces to the envelope.
These jerks published top secret information that jeopardized our troops and the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I look forward with glee when their Mexican loan shark calls in his money.
...it's not that the poor economy is forcing people to abandon their subscription, it's that the paper sucks, is left wing partisan distortion and a pathetic lying liberal rag, not fit to wrap day old fish in. That's why the NYT is going under.
"What you can not enforce, do not command"
-Sophocles-
The demise of the newspaper is a result of many things - including the internet...
But you can't leave out the fact that those who are intelligent enough to read papers are probably not liberals, and therefore would not waste their time with a leftist propaganda rag like the NYT; and the stupid ones (i.e. your typical Odumbo voter) are too dumb to read anything - they just watch Oprah and MTV to get their "news."
The NYT may be using this as a ploy to 'shut down' conservative internet sites, by 'lawyering' up to bring suit against sites that 'clip' its 'pay-for' content to demonstrate factual errors or omissions without paying for it. Is it possible?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The New York Times is Obsolete
February 4, 2009 - 10:08 ET by PopularTechThe Internet has definitely made any pay service obsolete. The Wall Street Journal is the only major online publication still pushing it and I doubt it can continue to do so for too much longer. There are thousands of news sources and just about all are better than the biased New York Times, the only reason I even use them is to get liberals to even consider a non-liberal position, usually one so bad that even the NYT supports it. If the New York Times goes to a pay service people will have no trouble getting their news elsewhere. I bet plenty of news services would love all that traffic that the NYT would lose.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution
Content, content, content
February 4, 2009 - 12:57 ET by UnsaneI disagree. The Internet is just an additional medium. There is PLENTY of room for newspapers, but what is killing them is NOT the Internet. What is killing them is the total lack of content.
I haven't bought a San Antonio Express Snooze in close to a decade, but does that mean I am getting my local news and information from the Net? No: even though I have mysa.com and other such sources, I don't use them routinely. I would be more than happy to buy an Express Snooze, but as long as they have the crappy content that chased me off 8-10 years ago, I will look elsewhere to the radio, television, or the occasional Internet.
The same argument is made by those in the music industry, whining endlessly about how download services are killing them. Not true: the crappy content is what is doing it. But the music industry, as well as the newspapers and magazines, find it MUCH easier to blame the Internet than they do their content. Because if they swallowed the bitter pill and accepted that the content issue is what is doing them in, then they face a much more difficult task: what should they do about it.
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! THE HOLOCAUST OF THOUGHT IS DAWNING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Great idea, Keller. Right
February 4, 2009 - 10:19 ET by fitzfongGreat idea, Keller. Right in the heart of a recession, when people are hoarding their cash, the NYT decides it might be a good time to charge for something that most were getting for free...and can live without. Have these clowns not figured out that they will be cannibalizing their advertising revenue by charging individual readers an access fee? Higher cost to readers leads to declining viewership, declining viewership devalues the ads...meaning advertisers will demand to pay less in the future for the same insertion. Do they actually believe that they'll make enough revenue from subscriptions to offset the inevitable losses in advertising revenue? Time to break out the "Page 3" Girls.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
They are so arrogant, they believe everyone
February 4, 2009 - 10:23 ET by thebutlerdiditwants to read the paper. I can't believe I used to enjoy parts of that rag. Between that Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd, the commentary bites, so there's not much left, if you don't live in NY. Even pay sites on the internet are failing, so of course this is not going to work.
Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke
I mentioned to KC Mulville
February 4, 2009 - 10:46 ET by fitzfongI mentioned to KC Mulville on another thread that I believe they're going to try to use the schools in an attempt to make this work. Their sales department is going to concentrate on convincing school teachers across the country that the content of the New York Times is equivalent to a textbook, and that it should be required reading for all students. The public schools (and, no doubt, many private schools) will agree to that concept and will send the kids home with a note demanding the parents pony up for subscriptions. When a large percentage of the parents objects, the school will just roll "free" subscriptions for all students into the annual budget...and the taxpayer will be on the hook for keeping Pinch & Co. in business. The Marxists always find the public "education" back door to meet their objectives.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill
Fitz, that is a scary thought............
February 5, 2009 - 05:49 ET by old croThe teachers union (who I think pull the strings) is typical of all unions, ideologs at the top, sheeple at the bottom. They have been "allies of alinsky" for the past 30-40 years. I would not put it past them.
Why read the Times?
February 4, 2009 - 13:00 ET by UnsaneYou know, I have never, ever understood why people outside of NY would want to read the NY Times anyway. I was offered subscriptions by phone and I would routinely ask them, back in the day, "But I live in San Antonio. Why would I read a New York newspaper?"
"THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!! THE HOLOCAUST OF THOUGHT IS DAWNING!!!" - Nevermore, "Bittersweet Feast", from This Godless Endeavor (2005)
Do what I do when you
February 5, 2009 - 00:22 ET by ReaganRuledDo what I do when you receive their mailers. Remove your name and address and send back a little note like "Not a CHANCE" and then weight the envelope down with some pennies or anything heavy that adds about fifteen ounces to the envelope.
These jerks published top secret information that jeopardized our troops and the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. I look forward with glee when their Mexican loan shark calls in his money.
NYT just doesn't get it...
February 4, 2009 - 10:59 ET by Lord Erond...it's not that the poor economy is forcing people to abandon their subscription, it's that the paper sucks, is left wing partisan distortion and a pathetic lying liberal rag, not fit to wrap day old fish in. That's why the NYT is going under.
"What you can not enforce, do not command"
-Sophocles-
The demise of the newspaper
February 4, 2009 - 11:12 ET by mattmThe demise of the newspaper is a result of many things - including the internet...
But you can't leave out the fact that those who are intelligent enough to read papers are probably not liberals, and therefore would not waste their time with a leftist propaganda rag like the NYT; and the stupid ones (i.e. your typical Odumbo voter) are too dumb to read anything - they just watch Oprah and MTV to get their "news."
Perhaps they do 'get it'.
February 4, 2009 - 12:40 ET by Mark_for_SenateThe NYT may be using this as a ploy to 'shut down' conservative internet sites, by 'lawyering' up to bring suit against sites that 'clip' its 'pay-for' content to demonstrate factual errors or omissions without paying for it. Is it possible?
To know and not do, is to not yet know
People aren't paying for
February 5, 2009 - 00:09 ET by ReaganRuledPeople aren't paying for their content now. Hence the financial crisis and flagging subscriber base. And that ain't gonna change!
The "New Yecchhh Slimes CHICKENS .. HAVE COME HOME .. TO ROOOOOOOOSSSST!"
The Internet pretty much renders most print media dead, no?
February 5, 2009 - 00:53 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Newscorp to buy NYT
February 5, 2009 - 07:52 ET by Sergeant ROCKThat's what should happen. And make Bill Kristol or Brent Bozell the top guy. Talk about adding insult to injury?
Bolton/KEYES 2012