New York TimesSelect content will be freed; Columnists, Times insiders lobbied for wall shut-down

[DeepModem Mom]

NY Post: TIMESSELECT CONTENT FREED
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....

While other online publications were abandoning subscriptions, the Times took the opposite approach in 2005 and began charging for access to well-known writers, including Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Thomas L. Friedman. The decision, which also walled off access to archives and other content, was controversial almost from the start, with some of the paper's own columnists complaining that it limited their Web readership.

In July, The Post reported that insiders were lobbying to shut down the service. After two years, however, the move to do away with TimesSelect may have more to do with growth than grumbling inside the paper.

The number of Web-only subscribers who pay $7.95 a month or $49.95 a year fell to just over 221,000 in June, down from more than 224,000 in April.

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

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

1. This is excellent news! Thanks for posting! eom

[snappyturtle]

2. Finally. Thanks! n/t

[Cassandra]

3. Hallelujah!

I've been able to see Krugman, usually, by finding websites that the Times had not yet threatened, or by peeking in the paper at a friendly newsstand (and I get the Sunday edition in actual paper, so I get Frank Rich) but I would like to read Cavett and some of the other columnists they have and I'll be damned if I'll pay them when their news coverage has been so worthless.

[bryant69]

4. That is good news

I look forward to reading Krugman again.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Cassandra]

7. Enjoy until the oppression is lifted...

http://wealthyfrenchman.blogspot.com/

[n2doc]

5. Yea! Of course, since most of the good stuf was available free

one way or another, it was foolish for them to keep it up.

[PearliePoo2]

6. weird

I was wondering about this just this morning.
I suspected their columnists were complaining about not getting on-line readership.
I'm surprised their "Select" program lasted this long.
Good news.
Rec.

[Robbien]

8. Just what we don't need, more Tom Friedman

The only column from NYT's that I miss is Krugman's

[Buzz Clik]

9. Hm. You mean I don't have to pay to ignore Maureen Dowd?

woohoo

[Captain Hilts]

10. Why should creative content be free? Will U-2 CDs be free soon? Paintings?

How else can you vote with your dollars?

[spanone]

11. why pay to hear an opinion? it's not like i've been jonesing for maureen dowd

[nancyr]

12. it's about time.

That was a brainless idea from the start. Glad to see they finally saw the light.

[madinmaryland]

13. Wow!! Now I can read David Brooks for free!!1!!

NOT!!1!!

At least I won't have to wait until someone posts a link on DU now to read Krugman and Bob Herbert!

[Beelzebud]

15. LOL thats kind of what I was thinking. :)

[gratuitous]

14. Mr. Sulzberger, tear down this wall!

Let my Krugman go.

Uh, you can keep your Friedman and your Brooks. Neither one of them has published an original thought since . . . well, ever, really. And if you can get someone to pay you money to read the same old, same old, more power to you, I'd say.

[madokie]

16. the original intent I think was to make it more difficult for bloggers to post these

writers written word, the election is over so they don't need it anymore. methinks