bunny planet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:11 AM
Original message |
Anybody know how to read Frank Rich's new article without subscribing |
|
I don't want to give the NYTimes any of my money again. I subscribed to the paper for years but cancelled earlier this year because of their shameful war mongering (a la Judy Miller) and refusal to print anything that truly questioned this administration, except on their editorial page. Seems they now know that the only thing worth reading in their rag is the editorial page and they're going to make us pay for it. Any hints from the computer savvy?
|
wryter2000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:11 AM
Response to Original message |
|
You can register to read it online for free. I've been doing that for years.
|
applegrove
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. Lately - it is not so free. |
ChairmanAgnostic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. right. it is now pay per view |
|
I am about to cancel my paper subscript. to them for a variety of reasons.
|
wryter2000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-25-05 10:22 AM by wryter2000
I've been reading it lately. I wonder if I still can. Dang. Don't other papers often reprint pieces?
|
DrZeeLit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
19. Not any more. Subscribing to NYT's Times Select is relatively inexpensive |
|
I decided to do it. I've used the free NYT connection for many years, avoiding payment to the writers I happen to LOVE (Krugman, Herbert, sometimes Dowd....and others).
Newspapers are having problems. I don't want them to cut good writers -- or any writers. We need to support the arts.
I think it will cost me $49 for the entire year. Not really a burden. I hope papers like the NYT can continue to publish a wide range of opinions.
|
Champion Jack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:12 AM
Response to Original message |
bunny planet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. unless any of those people have the new Times Select service those |
|
log-ons will not work. I already have my own log-on account, I can now only access the news portion of the paper, not any of the editorials. Someone had a tip on DU the other day about bypassing the pay only service, just can't remember what it was.
|
Kathryn STone
(229 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
XanaDUer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:13 AM
Response to Original message |
miss_kitty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:19 AM
Response to Original message |
7. I'd say go to a coffee shop and find an abaodoned copy |
|
I am registered-butdon't pay. I did not realise they were charging for that shit now.
|
wellstone_democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:20 AM
Response to Original message |
8. later today it will end up posted somewhere for free |
|
all those that say something interesting end up "out" in public by those who happily disperse "Select" for free to annoy NYT. Just wait a bit---I haven't missed a thing I want to see this week as it ends up linked to a blog or something. Just give it a few more hours.
I'm not paying to support Tierney and Brooks in particular and if that means I have a delay in my Krugman viewing or wait a day or two even for a decent Rich column---its worth it.
|
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. "I'm not paying to support Tierney and Brooks in particular" |
|
Tierney really is an embarrassment- even worse than David Brooks (and that's saying something).
The Times made a huge mistake with this, though I don't feel sorry for the likes of either of those two. Good riddance.
Krugman & Rich will find other outlets.
|
wellstone_democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. even Tierney's picture |
|
on that site screams: "I'm a poseur! I'm a second-rate wanna-be-celebrity-writer!"
hilarious pic actually with the whole "deep thinker" fist on chin, if only he wasn't going for a glamour expression it might have worked. He is the lightest of lightweights.
|
roseBudd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:24 AM
Response to Original message |
10. Try truthout.org they have been posting Krugman, Dowd & Herbert |
bunny planet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. did that already, it's not up yet. I'll check again later. |
CatWoman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 02:29 PM
Response to Original message |
Cha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. Thanks! Good Address to |
|
have and thanks to John Tabin, too!
|
wakemewhenitsover
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-25-05 03:36 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Smirking Chimp will have it by tomorrow probably. |
bunny planet
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-26-05 06:37 PM
Response to Original message |
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 09:26 AM
Response to Original message |
20. Here's another place you can try |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 09:38 AM by rocknation
But no doubt the Times will be leaning on them eventually: http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWebCharging to pay for editorial and giving the news away free reeks of censorship and feels a little redundant. :headbang: rocknation
|
displacedtexan
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Oct-06-05 10:17 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Oct-06-05 10:17 AM by displacedtexan
I post the back doors I learn about each week in the DU Blog Box column (on the homepage each Friday morning).
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:37 AM
Response to Original message |