Times Select Wall Is Coming Down...

[zehnkatzen]

Source: New York Post

By HOLLY M. SANDERS

August 7, 2007 -- The New York Times is poised to stop charging readers for online access to its Op-Ed columnists and other content, The Post has learned.
After much internal debate, Times executives - including publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. - made the decision to end the subscription-only TimesSelect service but have yet to make an official announcement, according to a source briefed on the matter.

The timing of when TimesSelect will shut down hinges on resolving software issues associated with making the switch to a free service, the source said.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/seven/08072007/business/timesselect_content_freed_business_holly_m__sanders.htm

---

It'll be nice not to have to read Paul Krugman via bootleg.

Stupid idea, anyway.

[RamboLiberal]

1. Yay - I agree

I did subscribe because I wanted to read Krugman, Rich and Herbert. Funny thing is they never charged me again after the first sign up fee.

[givemebackmycountry]

2. It was a stupid idea - and I'm sure it will be history soon.

What every newspaper needs right now is READERS not dollars.
More readers = more dollars anyway.

[Wilber_Stool]

3. I wouldn't mind paying

a reasonable amount to read the paper. After all, they deserve revenue for the work they do. Charge less, more readers. If they go under, we get nothing. I forget how much they charged but I do remember it was ridiculous.

[youngdem]

19. They charged $7.95 a month to read Thomas Friedman & Frank Rich

:crazy:

The Luddite who decided this in the first place in the face of the ENTIRETY of the internet news organism running EXACTLY the opposite way should be fired, then forced to learn C++.

I would ONLY read Thomas Friedman to avoid waterboarding, and I sure the fuck ain't paying for the privilege of having him piss in my skull.

They get revenue by bombarding you with ads. And, in the pay version, you still get a face full of ads, so you are effectively paying twice. Then, you have to consider assets like Judith Miller, Tom Friedman and others are certainly getting money from their government and foundation handlers.

The OLD New York Times I would have certainly paid to read, and did many times. However, the propagandistic drivel that passes for reporting today in the NYT is of no value at all to the reader.

[quiet.american]

4. Dare I admit I paid the 8.95/month?

For Bob Herbert, Frank Rich and Paul Krugman.

[zehnkatzen]

6. Hell, I would've, I've I'd had the money. n/t.

[Warpy]

8. I did too, but only after my inheritance kicked in

I still don't have a Salon membership.

[clixtox]

10. I wouldn't ever pay a nickel...

To read the lies, obfuscations, propaganda and complete bullsh2t published everyday in the ruling classes "newspaper of record".

While the NYTimes has been often referred to as an example of the "liberal" press, it has never been liberal in anything except their propensity for misleading their readers.

I fondly recall an award winning periodical published from 1/1990 - 12/1994 called "LIES OF OUR TIMES", that catalogued the multitude of BS that the NYTimes published and never would admit or correct.

[davekriss]

15. I'm with you, clixtox

However I was a regular reader of Krugman when it was free.

[KoKo]

18. Agree...but they put their best Columns (liberal leaning) behind the Firewall

to cut us off! Didn't work for them...they capitulated. The stuff Dems wanted to read they couldn't or wouldn't pay for so now they have be open it up! Good News!

[Hippo_Tron]

24. The news section did a horrible job like the rest of the media in the lead up to war

Largely thanks to wonderful reporters like Judith Miller.

The op-ed page, on the other hand, does have some great liberal columnists, Paul Krugman in particular.

[EST]

5. This is good to know.

Do you think Murdoch will buy it up to keep liberals from getting it?

[splat]

7. Keep liberals from getting what? The New York Times???

NYT just put some content and their top columnists behind a pay wall, unless you subscribed to the print paper.

It's not a free-floating thing Murdoch could buy.

[kcass1954]

11. The only thing Murdoch needs is the one thing he can't buy... Credibility. n/t

[EST]

13. Actually, I had run through the implications of a change in policy

at the nyt and what it might mean, if anything, in editorial policy. Added in were the claims made about whether or not it was a liberal or conservative organ, and how far Murdoch might go to control conversation.

After posting, I realized that I had only posted the final thought after a lengthy, rambling conversation with myself. It really didn't make much sense but I decided to leave it up, anyway.

[hlthe2b]

9. Yeah.... about damned time.....

I have no problem supporting good journalism, but damn-- 8.95 per month to read a couple of columnists?

[madrchsod]

12. about time...

it was a really was a stupid idea

[hedgehog]

14. I'd be very willing to pay for a good newspaper.

I just haven't found one yet that's worth the effort to pile up the old copies for recycle, let alone set aside time to read it!

[wellst0nev0ter]

16. God, Do I Have To Be Subjected To The Maunderings Of

Maureen Dowd and Thomas Friedman and the self-congratulatory wankings of Kristof again?

Haven't those bastards done enough damage already?

[KoKo]

20. Krugman and Frank Rich and Maureen (when she sticks shiv's into Repugs) are good reads.

[KoKo]

17. HA!!!! They CAVED! Put their Best Writers behind Firewall and are Suffering!

Great NEWS!!!!

[depakid]

21. My guess is that a lotof people just stopped reading the Times online

I know I did.

[BootinUp]

22. I paid 50 per year

for that. Thought it was worth it.

[Fredda Weinberg]

23. Me2 n/t

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

25. Yay! This means other papers won't follow suit

And I too will be happy to read Krugman and Rich in a more timely manner.

[MilesColtrane]

26. I like newspapers and grew up reading them...

...but, it's time for the ink stained wretches to admit that they are in their final throes.

The owners of most papers have never shown their ability to understand the internet and how they could fit into it.

I remember Belo backing this happy horseshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuecat

In a futile attempt to compete with TV news and the internet, most papers dropped their word count and added color pictures, when they should have gone the other way and increased coverage of hard news.

[mcscajun]

27. Perhaps not...

'NYT' Not Confirming End of TimesSelect Pay Status -- But Borrell Thinks They Should

By E&P Staff

Published: August 07, 2007 2:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Despite an alleged scoop in the New York Post today, The New York Times is not confirming -- or for that matter, denying -- that it will end the pay provision for its closely-watched TimesSelect service.

New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis declined to confirm or deny that TimesSelect was being yanked, but did point out that it has steadily grown since it launched in September 2005.

Still, she would not say what the future of TimesSelect would be: “We continue to evaluate the best approach for NYTimes.com.” When asked if the service would be altered in any way, she said “that I can’t answer. We are certainly doing a lot to make it better.”

The Post had reported: "After much internal debate, Times executives -- including publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. -- made the decision to end the subscription-only TimesSelect service but have yet to make an official announcement, according to a source briefed on the matter."

The rest of the story here.

[Doctor_J]

28. wealthyfrenchman.blogspot.com carried Krugman, Herbert, and Rich anyway

I'm not a big fan of piracy, but fer chrissakes, charging people only to read the anti-administration opinions? Goebbels had to be smiling at that