the beginning of the end of Internet news ??

[welshTerrier2]

make no mistake about it, corporate America does not like the blogosphere ... if they can't "monetize" what we do here, it's just plain un-American ... there's just a little too much freedom and democracy going on here for their tastes ...

the latest little salvo comes from those who believe only they can provide "all the news that's fit to print" ... starting Monday, the NY Times will start charging for online content from their top columnists like Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd ... i, for one, will miss them ...

source: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001097356

Come Monday, Sept. 19, fans of New York Times columnists Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, and David Brooks will have to break out their credit cards. Sept. 19 is the launch date of TimesSelect, a new subscription service designed to diversify the newspaper's revenue stream beyond traditional Web site advertising.

The popular Op-Ed columnists are the main selling point behind the $49.95 a year subscription. (The service will be free for the paper's home delivery subscribers). The paper's news, features, editorials, and analysis will remain free, as will interactive graphics, multimedia, and video. <skip>

But the move is not without its risks. The Times is likely to see a drop-off in page views, which advertisers covet, at least initially. But if successful, the move could embolden other publishers to begin experimenting with limited online subscription models. <skip>

He added, commenting on "free" falling: "If the Times' idea catches on, this really could be the beginning of the end of the current state of Internet news."

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Small consolation: the new NYT site is free for subscribers to the print

edition

[ClassWarrior]

2. Yeah, until no one subscribes. Then it'll be back to the same ol' same ol'

NGU.

[BlueJac]

3. No one should pay!

[Seansky]

4. Well, if the effort to shut down file sharing trends (i.e. Napster)

is an example of what they could accomplish, I'm not worrying. The Internet will change the MSM, not the way around. The underground Internet users/masses are more powerful than the MSM can imagine...

That's why the networks are so desperately trying to adapt (I bet my money on their failure)

[babylonsister]

5. I read about this months ago, so it's not new.

The NY Times is watching out for their own interests, but I don't think it will last long either; I'm not paying, and will find other ways to get/read their articles.

[splat]

6. File-sharing is always possible

RIAA won't sue us for liberating Friedman and Dowd. It only takes one copy...

Who's setting this up?

[npincus]

7. way too fucking expensive... how elitist

I will read my op-eds for free at the supermarket (across the street).

[niallmac]

8. copy/paste n/t

[FredStembottom]

9. The internets is like a river

It flows around, over and under obstructions.

This plan is like putting Krugman in a mayonnaise jar and tossing it in that river. We'll just flow on without him (I will miss him, though). In time, opportunities for PK to leave the jar may emerge.

I hope those opportunities take the form of all kinds of alternative plans to _pay_ wonderful columnists (and musicians and movie makers) for their wonderful work.

So let's hope that PK can be freed from the NYT jar - but not assume he will work for free either.

[onehandle]

10. CNN's "pay" video service worked so well.

This will last a year. Tops.

[Julius Civitatus]

15. My thoughts exactly

I'll give it a year. Tops.

If the NY Times boards were more "web-savvy" than they are, they would consider a more dynamic business strategy, like the one that Salon.com has been successfully implementing for the last couple of years.

In Salon.com, subscribers get access to everything, and they also get goodies and extra perks. Non-subscribers still can access their content with a "day-pass" if they are willing to sit through a commercial.

This simple, elegant solution has done wonders for Salon.com. I can't fathom why the NY Times has not even considered the idea.

[KyndCulture]

11. One blogger who paid will post and viola, it's everywhere...

I've never paid for salon but I sure read a lot of articles.

[KyndCulture]

12. FYI Krugman's column runs in the MPLS Strib too..

which is free...

[peacetalksforall]

13. FUN! Krugman and Dowd are mentioned as two of three. Two

that the right wing don't like to read are the 'popular Op-Ed columnists ' who are 'the main selling points behind the $49.95 a year subscription'.

Perhaps mentioning these two was the choice of the person from E and P who reported the news - but it is fun just the same.

[Julius Civitatus]

14. This is a bad move for the NY Times

Only a few will subscribe. The vast majority of NY Times readership won't.

I suggest a model similar to salon.com: subscribers get access to everything... non-subscribers get a "day-pass" if they sit through some commercials. This business model brought Salon.com from the edge of collapse, and they are now doing fairly well.

[applegrove]

16. I don't blame NYTimes so much. They have to pay their reporters so

why are we getting their product for free? I mean - it is a pain but really - I am used to paying to read magazines & the like.

What worries me is that the corporations may not like us thinking for ourselves & discussing issues. When MSM acts like paid monkeys - we all show up here in droves. And I don't think they wanted it that way.

Yes I agree any time we think or feel and someone is not making money of that - well they see that as a crime of sorts. They'll just have to learn that emotion is not just for GOP elections & television ads. Sometimes..we feel things. Part of the problem I guess, with us being alive and all. I'm sure they'll try to find a way to fix that too in the end.