Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New York Times Ends Its Paid Subscription Service

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the ding-dong dept.

The Almighty Buck 169

Mike writes "The New York Times has announced that it will end its paid Internet service in favor of making most of its Web site available for free. The hope is that this move will attract more readers and higher advertising revenue. 'The longer-term problem for publishers like the Times is that they must find ways to present content online rather than just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper. Most U.S. news Web sites offer their contents for free, supporting themselves by selling advertising. One exception is The Wall Street Journal which runs a subscription-based Web site. TimesSelect generated about $10 million in revenue a year. Schiller declined to project how much higher the online growth rate would be without charging visitors.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great! (5, Funny)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648453)

Now we can actually read all those articles that are lined from Slashdot!

Re:Great! (1, Troll)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648641)

Do they have articles? I thought they were just a teaser website. Oh well, they can't be very good, or I would have read one of their articles by now. I wonder if there is anything interesting on the front page of Wired...

Parent is a TROLL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20649617)

Mod parent accordingly, thanks.

Hey Shieldw0lf! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20649643)

When will you learn to stop replying to the FP in order to gain karma?

I understand the system that you are using...reply to the most direct, earliest reply of the earliest reply (and on) of the FP in order to keep your post from being pushed down into the page. That is obnoxious.

Re:Great! (4, Interesting)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649127)

***Now we can actually read all those articles that are lined from Slashdot!***

You could have anyway. Registgration is free, and if you get your back up about that, it'll take you about five minutes with Google to find a publically posted login and password that will work.

What's more important maybe is it sounds like they have opened up the archives. Maybe now if you want to find out about how good a job Donald Rumsfeld did in his first term as Defense Secretary in the Ford administration or want to track down details on CDCs suite against IBM, you can do so without spending a fortune.

Of yeah, and now I think we can read the columnists. that's a mixed blessing for sure, but Krugman's economic views are widely respected and it's annoying to have to wait for someone to break copyright and post them elsewhere.

Re:Great! (1, Informative)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649351)

What's more important maybe is it sounds like they have opened up the archives.

Hmm, looks like they are "open" if you want to pay $4.95 per article. They give you a very brief, incomplete abstract but if you want the whole article, you have to pony up.

Re:Great! (4, Informative)

krelian (525362) | more than 7 years ago | (#20652301)

According to TFA the archives from 1987-Present and 1851-1922 (public domain) are going to be free.

Re:Great! (1)

ebs16 (1069862) | more than 7 years ago | (#20652381)

RTFA. The articles aren't free until Tuesday at midnight.

Re:Great! (0, Flamebait)

gb506 (738638) | more than 7 years ago | (#20650407)

but Krugman's economic views are widely respected

you forgot the "/sarcasm" tag there, vtcodger.

Re:Great! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20650633)

I call bullshit.

Krugman's economic views are widely respected, whatever smears you've accepted to the contrary.

He's authored major econcomic textbooks, not to mention a great number of other often-cited economic papers - cite some substantial objections to these works based on the merits, or get the hell over yourself.

Re:Great! (1)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 7 years ago | (#20650721)

but Krugman's economic views are widely respected

you forgot the "/sarcasm" tag there, vtcodger.

What I forgot was to add, "by those who know something about economics."

Re:Great! (1)

dryueh (531302) | more than 7 years ago | (#20651199)

What's more important maybe is it sounds like they have opened up the archives. Maybe now if you want to find out about how good a job Donald Rumsfeld did in his first term as Defense Secretary in the Ford administration or want to track down details on CDCs suite against IBM, you can do so without spending a fortune.

First term as Defense Secretary in the Ford administration? How about reading an article from last week? The NYT archives its articles insanely fast --- I put out a weekly news bulletin mailing for my job, and referencing/linking to NYT stories is, in most cases, a bad idea. Nevermind that most people are, as the OP mentioned, unwilling to go through the free registration process for available articles.

Registration-free article (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648457)

You can get the article here [nytimes.com] .

Re:Registration-free article (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648577)

*chuckle*

Gave me a good laugh to start the day on :)

Hope they open the archives (4, Insightful)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648461)

If they opened up the archives, their website would instantly become *A LOT* more useful.

Re:Hope they open the archives (4, Funny)

CortoMaltese (828267) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648527)

If they opened up the archives, their website would instantly become...
...slashdotted!

Re:Hope they open the archives (5, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648669)

If they opened up the archives, their website would instantly become *A LOT* more useful.

There are such things as libraries, though. The San Francisco Public Library, for one, offers access to a complete online newspaper archive that includes the New York Times in addition to many other papers. The deal is, you have to punch in your library card number to access it. After that, though, you can read, save, and print all those articles that the Times purportedly keeps under lock and key.

The fact that most people don't even know this makes me fearful for the future of libraries.

Re:Hope they open the archives (4, Insightful)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648757)

The fact that most people don't even know this makes me fearful for the future of libraries.

Of course, the fact that most internet users don't live in the US and so can't walk into a a US Public Library to access the New York Times archives may also help make the online archive useful ;-)

Re:Hope they open the archives (1, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649507)

You should fear for the future of public libraries. Their very existence flies in the face of our entire system of intellectual property. If it weren't for the fact that public libraries are venerable institutions to which we have become accustomed, the RIAA, MPAA, publishing companies, and the entire IP-Industrial complex would have killed them off long ago.

As it is, they are a lovely working example of the power and value of the collective and proof that government can work. Republicans hate libraries.

I love libraries with all my heart and soul. I live near the wonderful Harold Washington Library and I still get happy inside by just walking through their doors. Libraries are living laboratories of socialism in the belly of the profit-driven beast.

God bless libraries.

Re:Hope they open the archives (0, Flamebait)

EatHam (597465) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649547)

As it is, they are a lovely working example of the power and value of the collective and proof that government can work. Republicans hate libraries.
Ah yes, and they also want to pave the streets with puppy blood instead of asphalt.

As it is, they are a lovely working example of the power and value of the collective and proof that government can work. Republicans hate libraries.
You may want to visit a library some time to do some research on what a library is. It's a community resource to be sure, but socialism? I mean, it's obvious from your post that you love both libraries and socialism (though one wonders if you were so well read, how would you become a socialist...), but really. Maybe you've just overdosed on some poetry books and are working through some hyperbole fetish?

Re:Hope they open the archives (4, Funny)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649593)

He says that libraries are proof that government can work and you label him a socialist. Well done, Mr. Carlson!

Re:Hope they open the archives (2, Insightful)

saforrest (184929) | more than 7 years ago | (#20650133)

(though one wonders if you were so well read, how would you become a socialist...)

Orwell was pretty well read too, and he was a socialist to his dying day.

Re:Hope they open the archives (0, Flamebait)

EatHam (597465) | more than 7 years ago | (#20651987)

Orwell was pretty well read too, and he was a socialist to his dying day.
Orwell was known to only read fantasy though.

Re:Hope they open the archives (1)

Der Einzige (1042022) | more than 7 years ago | (#20652551)

Obviously you've never read Orwell's literary criticism.

Re:Hope they open the archives (5, Funny)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649751)

I love libraries with all my heart and soul. I live near the wonderful Harold Washington Library and I still get happy inside by just walking through their doors. Libraries are living laboratories of socialism in the belly of the profit-driven beast.
You and I must be polar opposites. I actively refuse to step foot in a library anymore and haven't been in one in over 15 years. My wife still goes to them to check out books on various things, but the few times she's tried to get me to go I've stopped at the front door and turned away and sat in the car. There's just something that feels illegal about letting people borrow books, CDs, and DVDs for free. If I do that I'd get arrested, but a library can do it under the protection of the police like some kind of organized crime racket? Fuck that. I'm probably one of the only people in the country that went through college refusing to buy used books too since I felt they were screwing the publishers by reselling the books. When I did a research paper on anything I'd just buy my reference material from Amazon.com or the book store instead.

Re:Hope they open the archives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20650529)

When I did a research paper on anything I'd just buy my reference material from Amazon.com or the book store instead.

Just out of interest, what did you do with them when you'd finished with them?

Re:Hope they open the archives (1)

tony1343 (910042) | more than 7 years ago | (#20652743)

Your point is valid, but I'd just like to note that us Americans don't actually have to go the public library to access newspaper archives. It can all be done remotely through the public libraries website. Maybe I am mistaken, but I would think most people interested in the New York Times are actually American.

Re:Hope they open the archives (2, Insightful)

RESPAWN (153636) | more than 7 years ago | (#20650205)

There are such things as libraries, though. The San Francisco Public Library, for one, offers access to a complete online newspaper archive that includes the New York Times in addition to many other papers. The deal is, you have to punch in your library card number to access it. After that, though, you can read, save, and print all those articles that the Times purportedly keeps under lock and key.

The fact that most people don't even know this makes me fearful for the future of libraries.
There are also such things as underfunded back-woods county libraries that don't offer this level of access. Yeah, I know. My fault for living where I do, but the rent's cheap. The point is: by opening up their archives to the internet their content can be accessed by a MUCH larger audience than before. Not everybody lives in large US metropolitan areas with properly funded libraries.

Some of us live in the next county where the funding just plain sucks.

Re:Hope they open the archives (1)

gambolt (1146363) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649095)

From the mid 80s onward is now freely available

Re:Hope they open the archives (5, Informative)

MissP (728641) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649105)

"If they opened up the archives, their website would instantly become *A LOT* more useful."

Sigh. But not to this crowd, who can't be bothered with reading beyond the headlines. From the FA:

Starting on Wednesday, access to the archives will be available for free back to 1987, and as well as stories before 1923, which are in the public domain, Schiller said.

Re:Hope they open the archives (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649239)

Boing Boing says [boingboing.net] they will open up their archives. "...But the Times has also upheld the principle of public access to the public domain, and is opening its archives from 1851-1922, all of which are in the public domain. Archives 1987-present, though copyrighted, will also be freely accessible."

Link to the NYTimes article. (5, Informative)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648477)

In addition to opening the entire site to all readers, The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge, as well as those from 1851 to 1922, which are in the public domain. There will be charges for some material from the period 1923 to 1986, and some will be free.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/business/media/18times.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin [nytimes.com]

Thank God (4, Interesting)

Mad Martigan (166976) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648491)

I used to read the Times Editorial page once, twice, sometimes three times a week. Until Times Select. Then it was, "Krugman? Friedman? Who?" Putting the content behind that wall made the Times' columnists practically irrelevant. For better or worse, the Times has some of the most talked-about columnists in the country, and their importance evaporated almost instantly when the unwashed masses (me) could no longer read them. I, for one, am more than happy to look at a picture of a car or a book or whatever a few times a week if it means (in some small way) invigorating the national conversation.

Re:Thank God (3, Informative)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648541)

Then it was, "Krugman? Friedman? Who?"

Thankfully Friedman has been available on Youtube. [youtube.com]

Re:Thank God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20648603)

Krugman and others were usually on truthout [truthout.com] (bottom right). Thank god NYTimes stopped that silly shit.

Re:Thank God (1)

VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648695)

[The Times' columnists'] importance evaporated almost instantly when the unwashed masses (me) could no longer read them.


So, now that the unwashed masses again will have access, will their importance, erm, un-evaporate?

I think there's a good chance of that, and I, for one, will be furiously refreshing the opinion page come midnight. ;-)

Re:Thank God (3, Funny)

Daedone (981031) | more than 7 years ago | (#20652415)

i believe the word you are looking for is condense...

Re:Thank God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20652671)

I'm going to make it a point to start refering to any kind of a revival as a condensation.

Re:Thank God (1)

chartreuse (16508) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648707)

Putting the content behind that wall made the Times' columnists practically irrelevant.
You say that like that's a bad thing. There's not a few people who'd be willing to pay to keep the likes of Maureen Dowd, David Brooks and Thomas Friedman out of the public discourse.

Re:Thank God (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649727)

I subscribed so I could read Dowd. There is no one as catty who pulls if off as well. To me, Jeb Bush had little to do with the election of 2000. Dowd and the brown suit stuff she wrote were the most important factor. Friedman's warmongering has been very influnential while Krugman's free trade agenda has likely done more to cause environmental damage worldwide than just about any other single thing. The position of these writers provided by the newspaper with all the news that fits is quite important and worth a read. Who do you think would pay to keep them unread?

And... (1)

Rix (54095) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648751)

I'm happy to filter a picture of a car or book with Adblock for the same.

Re:And... (1)

BiloxiGeek (872377) | more than 7 years ago | (#20650243)

Careful there, some folks will think you're nothing but a dirty thief, stealing those articles without viewing the inane ads that go along with them.

Ugh, the "national conversation" (2, Funny)

khallow (566160) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648855)

I guess the phrase "national conversation" is enjoying a bit of life. I'll have no part of it. I think of national teenagers wielding national cellphones and sending national text messages to each other with their national thumbs.

From NY to London, how I missed the Op-Ed Page! (4, Insightful)

QuatermassX (808146) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649411)

I left America several years ago to live in London and one of the few things I miss was the straight to the point of dull news from the New York Times and their thought-provoking columnists. Putting a third of the paper - and the most unique elements of the paper - behind a paid wall seemed to be a one-way ticket to irrelevance. I can read wire stories for free anywhere, but the editorial and op-ed pages really do influence the American national discourse - keep them open-access for all to read, discuss (or completely dismiss and ignore).

Re:Thank God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20649621)

Krugman? Friedman? Pfft, you ain't nobody until Mad Martigan knows who you are.

Re:Thank God (1)

grassy_knoll (412409) | more than 7 years ago | (#20650035)

For better or worse, the Times has some of the most talked-about columnists in the country, and their importance evaporated almost instantly when the unwashed masses (me) could no longer read them.


I think you might be onto something.

The WSJ seems to be doing well with their subscription service, but they implemented differently from the NYT; the columns in the opinion journal are free, but news reporting requires subscription ( although the WSJ seems to give some news stories out as well ).

ShhhhhhpppppPLOP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20650717)

That's the sound of a giant big city newspaper's head finally being pulled out of a goatse-sized asshole.

First, Open the archives... (2, Interesting)

JRHelgeson (576325) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648495)

It costs you nothing. You'll increase your ad generated revenue on people wanting to revisit this today's date one year ago.

Second thing is allow commenting on stories, but then you'll be flamed by the readers.

Heaven forbid the old gray lady figure out why people don't read her pages any more. We've been trying to clue her in for years now.

Re:First, Open the archives... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649075)

It costs you nothing.

Because bandwidth and server maintenance are free.

Re:First, Open the archives... (1)

JRHelgeson (576325) | more than 7 years ago | (#20652639)

Because bandwidth and server maintenance are free.

The already have the infrastructure built up to provide the content, yet they charge for the content. If you pay the price, you still get to see the ads. Eliminate the fee, you increase the ad revenue.
The incremental costs of increased bandwidth are negligible, actually it is a much desired consequence because that means more revenue coming in from page views.

Too late the damage has already been done (4, Insightful)

imaginaryelf (862886) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648535)

Putting your most influential op-ed writers behind a pay wall is a sure way to make their voices irrelevant in the Internet age.

Re:Too late the damage has already been done (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648689)

Putting your most influential op-ed writers behind a pay wall is a sure way to make their voices irrelevant in the Internet age.

Yeah, really... people sure ignored the hell out of The World is Flat. It was so irrelevant that Friedman's put out, what ... three different editions so far?

Re:Too late the damage has already been done (2, Interesting)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649001)

Yeah, really... people sure ignored the hell out of The World is Flat. It was so irrelevant that Friedman's put out, what ... three different editions so far?

Well, to be fair, the OP's point could be restated that the "pay wall" did nothing to increase their columnist's influence in the wider world, particularly with younger readers. Personally, I think Friedman is an astute observer but an overrated writer who suffers from being overly-excitable with respect to his own ideas.

The Times' decision is a good one. The irony, for me at least, is that I now have it delivered daily. I had high hopes for reading it on-line (this was in the days before the redesign when it was ugly to look at it ), but I shelved that idea. The Times is one of the few newspapers that's worth reading in its entirety, and reading it on-line interfered with that. The limitations of a computer screen are one thing, but cherry-picking articles seems to encourage a less informed, if not insular experience. It's like talking only to people who have the same ideas and opinions as you have -- comforting, perhaps, but uninteresting. I think it's much more valuable to take the time and sit down with and have discussions with people you don't agree with on subjects that have greater importance (or interest) than would appear to a casual observer.

I'm sure they will never be able to duplicate the fun of doing the crossword with a pen (or pencil) in one hand, and your morning coffee in the other, but for people elsewhere in the world who read the paper, I'm sure they don't mind.

Re:Too late the damage has already been done (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649081)

Yeah, but if I really wanted to read Thomas Friedman's writing, I could skip the middle man and go straight to the press releases of companies like Tata and Wipro. That is pretty much what he regurgitates. The man has the critical thinking skills of a fish.....

Thomas Friedman overestimates his own intelligence (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20649319)

"Thomas Friedman ... has the critical thinking skills of a fish..."

A Jewish fish who argued that the U.S. taxpayer should pay to make Israel more secure. And now Israel is arguably less secure because Israeli and U.S. support for more violence has encouraged destructive people.

Thomas Friedman is a man who thinks he is much smarter than he really is.

Good news everyone! (4, Funny)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648551)

Where do I sign up to read the announcement?

Re:Good news everyone! (1)

Osty (16825) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648831)

Where do I sign up to read the announcement?

here [bugmenot.com]

Capitalism is Dead (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20648591)

Bin Laden is winning?

longer-term problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20648593)

What's wrong with "just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper"? Seems like a pretty good revenue-effort ratio to me. What do they have in mind, a threaded, moderated discussion forum associated with each story? That's an idea, not the solution to a "problem".

Crossword? (4, Interesting)

FlamingLaird (245347) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648615)

The question is whether they're going to free the crosswords. Not to shortz the rest of the paper... but that's what everyone really cares about.

Re:Crossword? (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648945)

Yeah. And they even used to have a solver program that ran on Linux (1997/1998 time frame). I read their stuff religiously everyday until they canceled that.

NY Times crosswords rule. Solving NY Times crosswords on Linux was at least as much fun as WoW.

Re:Crossword? (1)

jefu (53450) | more than 7 years ago | (#20651047)

NY Times crosswords rule.

NY Times crosswords are great, but for sheer mind-bogglingly twisted word fun, the Atlantic Monthly crosswords take the cake. Sadly, they're now only available online (probably due to all those thieving photocopy machine users) and with a subscription to the print magazine.

Fp 3Litch! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20648631)

BSD sux0rs. W4At

Times Reader (3, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648651)

Unfortunately their innovative Times Reader [nytimes.com] appears to be pay-only as of yet.

One would think that there are two sure-proof things NY Times could do to secure large audience for their advertisers.

1. Their image as a respect newspaper, not just NY, not just US, but world-wide. Their journalists are respected, and their content verified, their analysis intelligent.

2. Better presentation than the average site.

Well, Times Reader is that point 2. If they gave me the reader for free, I'll most likely to there for my shot of news and editorials, since it's simply better than browsing a web site.

And hence, the NY Times won't have to compete with the other blogs and sites as much as if they remained free only in-browser.

Re:Times Reader (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20648873)

sure-proof

Isn't Richard Stallman Sure [google.com] -proof?

Re:Times Reader (1)

JeffElkins (977243) | more than 7 years ago | (#20650093)

Unfortunately, it's XP/Vista only. It doesn't seem to work under Wine either.

cya bugmenot (1)

6350' (936630) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648701)

... In other news, the use of bugmenot has drop by ninety-eight percent, and the owners of that website can now be found at West 23rd and Broadway bumming for change.

Bugmenot is dead... long live Adblock Plus (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649743)

I found funny that one tag is bugmenotwins... unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your POV), I am sure the NYT will be a bit disappointing by the differences in the stream revenue after doing this. I believe that the people that would pay for reading the new york times is the same that is going to read it without ad blocking and maybe click on the ads, whereas people that used bugmenot or other means to bypass payment are the ones that will use AdBlock or any other advertisement blocking mechanism.

Well, duh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20648743)

Why do you think Apple has been pimping the NYT on iPhone, it being in fact the ONLY site they showcase WIFI with?

This has been in the works for a while.

MiSinformation now/still 'free'? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20648857)

what a break for US? that's how robbIE was able to start his 'ad' 'business' & catapault IT into part of a major wall street of deceit stock markup FraUD gambull. it would appear to be an ominous trend of the last-gasper payper liesense advertiser fed 'mainst(r)eam mediyahah. yet another opportunity to spew the phoney mindphucking propograndizing hypenosys of the southern baptist life0ciders.

meanwhile, back at the debacle we lovingly call man'kind', yOUR fearful 'leaders' continue to develop more&more cruel & unusual ways to create additional debt & disruption for most of US, while our fellow humans across the water continue to explode by yOUR $hand$.

infactdead corepirate nazis still WAY off track
(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01, @09:35AM (#20433195)
it's only a matter of time/space/circumstance.

previous post:
mynuts won 'off t(r)opic'???
(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30, @10:22AM (#20411119)
eye gas you could call this 'weather'?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8004881114646406827 [google.com]

be careful, the whack(off)job in the next compartment may be a high RANKing corepirate official.

previous post:
whoreabull corepirate nazi felons planning trips
(Score: mynuts won, robbIE's 'secret' censorship score)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, @12:13PM (#20072457)
in orbit perhaps? we wouldn't want to be within 500 miles of the naykid furor at this power point.

better days ahead?

as in payper liesense hypenosys stock markup FraUDs are on their way out? what a revolutionary concept.

from previous post: many demand corepirate execrable stop abusing US

we the peepoles?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they (the nazis) want is... everything. at what cost to US?

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

How to present text info with unblockable ads. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20648919)

Send the text as a gif image. Insert an ad in the middle, or anywhere. Unblockable.

If you're against the war this is very bad news (-1, Troll)

nokilli (759129) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648975)

It means that more people will read their insidious shit. They ridiculed all of us who challenged the 2004 election results. They've been championing the war on Iraq since before its inception. They're cheerleading right now for war on Iran.

And don't even get me started on their coverage of the war on drugs.

But here you all are, celebrating the fact that your generation's Goebbels is about to become even more destructive than it was before.

Re:If you're against the war this is very bad news (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649383)

Funny that the Fox types constantly trot out the NYT as an example of left-wing bias in the media...

Re:If you're against the war this is very bad news (2, Insightful)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649559)

It means that more people will read their insidious shit. They ridiculed all of us who challenged the 2004 election results. They've been championing the war on Iraq since before its inception. They're cheerleading right now for war on Iran.

And don't even get me started on their coverage of the war on drugs.

But here you all are, celebrating the fact that your generation's Goebbels is about to become even more destructive than it was before.

Funny that the Fox types constantly trot out the NYT as an example of left-wing bias in the media...
The NYT does have a left-wing bias, and there is nothing wrong with that. Fox News commentary is right-wing, and again nothing wrong with that. The problem is that they both claim they don't have a bias and people that have the same bias typically cannot see that their media outlet of choice has a bias. If you want to be truly informed, you will get your news from both the right and the left, compare the merits of any differences (including stories they choose to cover and those they choose not to cover), and make up your own mind based on rational thought.

That being said, I don't think the original poster is right wing, he is complaining about the positive coverage of the war in Iraq, the positive coverage for a war with Iran and he refers to Goebbels.

Re:If you're against the war this is very bad news (3, Insightful)

nokilli (759129) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649737)

I'd agree that The New York Times tries to appear to be left wing, and on inconsequential matters it may succeed, but mongering for war the last time I checked was definitely not a liberal persuasion.

It isn't just the constant news coverage citing "unnamed sources" in an effort to implicate this or that group of Muslims in various imagined transgressions, even after they promised to swear off using unnamed sources, it's deciding to wait until after the 2004 election to tell us about Bush's illegal wiretapping, or not telling us about the 9-11 Commission Report citing American support for Israeli atrocities against Palestinians as the reason for the attack, or continually over-reporting acts of violence committed by Muslims against Jews while under-reporting acts of violence committed by Jews against Muslims (did you know that Israelis have killed nearly four times as many Muslims as vice versa? My point exactly.)

When you put it all together -- and by no means is the above a comprehensive list of their transgressions -- a picture emerges of a paper driven by racism and allegiance to Israel above all things, including America.

Everybody goes on about the corporate media when talking about media support for this war, well, here's some news: The New York Times is by far the worst offender in this regard, and it isn't corporate-owned at all! It's a family paper.

Ad Block them. Starve the war machine. Kill the propaganda machine before it succeeds in killing us.

Re:If you're against the war this is very bad news (4, Insightful)

jdfox (74524) | more than 7 years ago | (#20650379)

Only in the USA, where centrism and moderate liberalism are routinely labelled "left-wing", could the New York Times be considered "left-wing". It suits the interests of the corporate media and the political goals of right-wing commentators to re-define terms of political alignment in this way.

The New York Times is indeed right-wing, and Fox News even more so. There are no mainstream left-wing newspapers in the USA anymore.

Aha! Finally we can bid adieu to bugmenot? (1)

jigyasubalak (308473) | more than 7 years ago | (#20648985)

http://www.bugmenot.com/ [bugmenot.com]

Can we?

OK, but its nice to have the option (4, Interesting)

AaronLawrence (600990) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649045)

Personally I like to have the option to pay for no ads. As I do on slashdot (mind you the slashdot cost is very low).

Although these days there is less point paying for a single publication/site. NYTimes seems good, but as a non-citizen it was never enough to pay for...

Re:OK, but its nice to have the option (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649295)

Personally I like to have the option to pay for no ads.
Doing that may or may not be a good idea for an ad-driven business like the NY Times.

On the one hand, they might make more money.
On the other... they would have less eyeballs to offer their advertisers, which means less money.

If there isn't a big difference in profit, it's usually better to think long-term & keep your big advertising partners happy. You'll ultimately make more money that way.

Worthy of Turning Off My Adblocker (5, Insightful)

LotTS (967274) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649065)

I do not believe all information on the internet is supposed to be free (in terms of price). Wayyy back in the 90's before the internet was mainstream I had a paid subscription to NY Times, even though they were 2-3 times more expensive than my local paper, because I felt the quality was so much greater and was willing to pay for that quality. The newspaper still had ads from revenue back then, but I still had to pay for it and was willing to do so.

Fast forward to today and I still believe that - the news quality of a NY Times piece is still premium quality, but the difference now is that the news is 100% paid for by advertisers. My conscience is making me turn off my browser's adblocker plugin when I go to NY Times's website now.

Re:Worthy of Turning Off My Adblocker (2, Insightful)

solferino (100959) | more than 7 years ago | (#20651181)

Why not go all the way and just arrange for a lobotomy operation?

Re:Worthy of Turning Off My Adblocker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20652405)

"But our projections for growth on that paid subscriber base were low, compared to the growth of online advertising,"
So you two can play on even terms?

Newspapers had an advertising model for umpteen ye (2, Insightful)

simplerThanPossible (1056682) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649163)

Then along comes the internet and they say "subscription model!"

scratches head

From article:
The Times will also make available its archives from 1987 to the present without charge

Times Reader, Archives, Ad Free (3, Informative)

qazwart (261667) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649421)

Just wanted to reply to some people:

1). "The archives should be free"
The archives for the last 20 years are now free. Those over 60 years (public archive) are also free. The ones between 20 to 60 years ago are the only ones you get charged for.

2). "I'd pay extra for ads free/The TimesReader should be free"
The TimesReader is still a charge for service, but it contains no ads. This is probably why it isn't free. The big problem is that it is "Windows Only", so Linux and Mac users can't use it. (Yes, I know you can run a Windows emulator, but that's not the point!).

About a decade ago, the idea of paying for your webpage with ads and actually make money seemed silly. "That would never happen." "IIt was a dot.com pipedream". Now, as the New York Times discovered, subscription services are simply not as profitable as ad supported websites. TimesSelect made money, but not as much as if the content was free. Plus, now that it is free, Google searches are more likely to include New York Times articles.

Any bets when the Wall Street Journal will drop its subscription service?

Um...why? (4, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649505)

"The longer-term problem for publishers like the Times is that they must find ways to present content online rather than just transferring stories and pictures from the newspaper."

Why?

For chrissakes, no matter what you think of the paper as a journalistic entity, nor what you think of its editorial decisions, nor what you think of its columnists, it really is the newspaper of record for the United States.

They have an extraordinary breadth of content. Why can't they just "copy stories and pictures from the newspaper"? If anyone in the media business would be able to generate bulk traffic (read: advertising $$) from sheer content without any particular bells and whistles, it would be the website that simply mirrors the staggering amount of content from the NYT.

Add to that a searchable archive of the NYT going back to the beginning, and I frankly can't think of a single media outlet in the world that could match it for comprehensive historical information on daily events pertinent to the United States.

Huge content, daily updates, impeccable credentials - yeah, who'd imagine THAT could draw significant pageviews?

Re:Um...why? (2, Interesting)

Foolicious (895952) | more than 7 years ago | (#20651529)

I'd go even one step further and say that I -WANT- the online and print versions to be the same or similar or at least have some sync or unified feel to them. I dislike seeing a headline in passing or hearing about an article on the radio and then getting online and not being able to find it because the print and online versions of newspapers are so different. I don't know if I'm in the majority or if I'm weird, but that's what I'd prefer.

Finally (1)

wizardguy (245100) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649681)

I used to love reading Maureen Dowd before this whole Time Select Stuff. I hope at least the editorial content is available , because whatever the NYT does ( all the news that is fit to print ) they do have some good talent in the editorial dept ( no matter whether you agree or disagree with their opinions)

Does this mean they're on their way out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20649739)

Who was stupid enough to pay for that garbage before now? They've lost a lot of credibility recently and therefore lost readers.

Paul Krugman -- Available Again (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 7 years ago | (#20649839)

The best part of this change is that Paul Krugman's columns will now be available again. He's the guy who beat up on Bush the most. Very smart guy and pithy as hell. This is a great change.

The best way to improve subscription (1)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 7 years ago | (#20650223)

The best way would be to tame the PURE VERTIGO that comes out of this paper. It's so one-sided it's obscene. Why do some papers think it important to sell to only one half of the populace?

I guess people weren't paying for propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20650577)

so now they'll give it out for free.

and (1)

MrCopilot (871878) | more than 7 years ago | (#20651009)

And there was much rejoicing.

Times is Desperate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20651085)

The Times, like many papers, are struggling to find a way to make money in the digital world. The current share price is half what it was 3 years ago. They are losing money hand over fist and have negative cash flow.

They have got to do something to build the brand back up. Given that they own a significant chunk of NY real estate, TV stations and other real property, I wonder if they could be a target for a takeover and breakup. Their market cap is only $2.8 billion.

Google Bot count drop? (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 7 years ago | (#20651557)

It would be very funny to see the stats on the hits their site gets from google bots. I bet over time it drops off as people turn off or do not re-set their google bot browser setting in Firefox.

About time... (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 7 years ago | (#20651659)

...when I first signed up for my NYTimes account back in 1999 all the articles were free - or at least the same group they just made free. (Perhaps the ones that are not free now are so because they are not guaranteed to be on-line and someone has to type them in?) I was a little annoyed when they started charging access for anything older than 2 weeks - it made a good chunk of my inbox (where I stored my daily e-mails from them, that includes headlines, etc.) irrelevant.

Fortunately for me, they did this after I left college, as I used that portion of my inbox for a number of class assignments regarding current-events. When I needed to turn something in, I could search the my NYTimes folder for some articles and pull out stuff easily. Paying for the content on a per article basis would have made the work a lot harder, and I probably would not have used them as a local paper would have been a lot cheaper. (And keeping daily papers around in a dorm room would have been a nightmare.)

So, for that brief time of doing that they got a long time reader - and I do forward articles to friends & family. So they get a lot of advertising from me too. Now I can once again rely on providing URLs instead of having to provide the article when I forward articles.

Now if they - and the rest of the publications industry - would get their editors to do their job and start catching the grammar and spelling errors that are so prevalent, especially in the on-line editions. (Suffice it to say, due to some of the grammar and spelling errors, I hope they are only on the on-line version...though that is not likely.) It just doesn't reflect well on such a major publication.

archives (1)

ebs16 (1069862) | more than 7 years ago | (#20652179)

The NYTimes archives have been available to university students for the past few years through other services which purchase the data from the Times. It really is an amazing tool. Every page of every NYTimes article is SCANNED in (ads included) and converted into readable, searchable, plaintext. I hope that they their offerings are implemented well...

NY Times nearly strangled itself (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#20652191)

It is my top net news site due to its original content. That would have been one of the few online services I would have paid money for had it gone to a full subscription business.

However, I felt it was stupid to go halfway. People would pay fro all-or-nothing, not half-and-half. They basically cut 2/3rd the audience of their more interesting columnists like Krugman and Friedmen. I dont agree with them, but liked their insights.

Hopefully Murdoc will liberate the Wall Street Journal soon too.

Library journals "disappearing" too (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#20652313)

I'm am concerned that scientific journals in university libraries are disappearing. I used to love to browse the current issues on open shelves, but libraries are increasingly subscribing to all-electronic editions. In many university libraries this now requires student enrollment or being an employee to read these.

I find this ironic, because the modern system of knowledge is contructed on open publication, replication and repudiation. Only the professorial "elite" will have access. Further ironic becasue the Net was supposed to make libraries available everywhere.

adblock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20652491)

Good thing I'm using Adblock Pro...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?