Just curious, as a news junkie, if anyone is actually paying for access to the New York Times online, or other papers?
Is it worth it, do you think?
Just curious what people are thinking on this topic.
We subscribe to the Sunday dead tree edition, which gives us access to the online edition.
Would I pay just for the online service? NYTimes? sure. LATimes? No. Washington Post? Doubtful. I'd probably be willing to buy an online subscription to one or two newspapers and the NYTimes would certainly be one of them.
Unless they make the subscription cost super affordable a la Datalounge. Then I'd sign up for lots of them probably.
I was paying but then I learned that my mom, who is a paper subscriber, can transfer her free online and mobile access to a family member.
I think it's worth it, but I wish they had just one fee for any form of electronic access. As it stands, if you want to access both the iPad and iPhone apps, you have to pay extra.
Yes and yes. The NY Times is not perfect, but it is still in a class by itself for intelligent accurate news and commentary. Trust me- if you depend on your news of the world on network TV, you will not get nearly the view you get from the times. New Hours and PBS in general does a pretty good job.
As for blogs etc- they preach to their own particular choirs. When someone want to validate their opinion, their is alway "information" available to do so.
I don't read the Times thoroughly, just an article here and there, but more than the new limit of 10 free articles per month. When I reach the limit, I just delete the NYT cookies on my computer and I start from scratch. It's a bit of a nuisance, but it's free and worth it while it lasts.
Our local paper is owned by Dallas based Belo. It has these airs of being an international paper but it really sucks.
Their subscription plans are ludicrous and I won't pay for it.
[quote]Is it worth it, do you think?
People seem to forget that newspapers need to make money somehow in order to pay the writers/editors/photographers who produce all that content.
Web advertising is a source of income, but it's nowhere near what print ads still generate.
I pay for the Times, but I refuse to pay for my local paper, the Baltimore Sun. It's not that it's too expensive; it's that it's *more* expensive than the Times--$3.99/week as opposed to $3.75/week.
I'd pay for the NYT online, but would not pay for my local paper.
Some magazines are bundling print and digital access together (yay) and others are making you pay separately for each edition (boo, that stinks).
I subscribe to the NYTimes iPhone app, which gives full access to the website. I used to pay extra for the iPad app but find the web version is just as good on the iPad.
I also donate to local public radio.
If we don't pay for our journalism, it turns into Fox News.
The New York Times, aside from the journalism, creates really cool and informative interactive and multimedia experiences, which is why I pay for it. Totally worth the price of admission.
If you follow links to NYT articles, it doesn't count toward your monthly (unpaid) allotment. So what I do, because I'm poor, is I follow every single NYT department on Twitter (News, Arts, Food, the magazine -- there are at least 20 different NYT Twitter accounts). Every time an article goes live on the NYT site, the appropriate department places a link on Twitter, and it shows up in my Twitter feed. I read every article I want for free.
Thanks, R9 and R11.
When I bought my Nook Touch I signed up for the Times. Barnes and Nobles has a two week free trial for all their Nook newspaper and magazines.
I really liked reading the Times on my Nook. It's just plain text so I could read the content and not get caught up with jumping to other links. The daily feed was automatically pushed to my Nook early in the morning as long as I had the Nook's wifi on. And it was great to have a daily paper without having it pile up on the coffee table.
I didn't continue subscription as I have to scrimp since I'm unemployed. The only thing I disliked about the setup is that the Nook subscription doesn't allow you to access the Times online. I think it's ridiculous to expect someone to pay full price each for both formats.
For now, I access both the NY Times and LA Times and delete the cookies when I've reached the max limits. I promise once I earn enough to have a comfortable level of disposable income, I'll pay for access.
A legit way to read newspapers/magazines for free is through your public library. My county library offers digital access to a number of research companies that carry dozens and dozens of newspapers and periodicals. All I do is enter my library card number. The format is usually in simple text format so you will not have access to the interactive website version.
I pay because I can afford it, and I'm not a freeloader with self-serving excuses.
r14, no you are only a self serving asshole.
My local paper in Little Rock is quite expensive,over $100 a year, but you get online free if you take the Sunday paper for much less. It's not a great newspaper, but I haven't lived here that long, so I think I need to keep up with current events. I prefer the online subscription.
I second r1, I like having the Sunday paper. Having access to the rest is a bonus
My two local papers charge after ten look-ups. When I search their sites through DuckDuckGo.com everything is free all month.
No R15, you are an asshole serving itself on a traffic cone.
R14 is a cunt. I'm a Times subscriber, but even I think the pay wall is a bit ridiculous. Maybe if executives stopped getting golden parachutes!
I like the LA Times, but not enough to subscribe.
I did see where they give you on-line if you subscribe to the weekend paper, and it's dirt cheap. I might gift someone a subscription and snag the online for myself.
R16, I assume you're talking about the Democrat-Gazette. It's horrible, but apart from the Arkansas Blog from ArkTimes.com, it's all there is.
Can someone explain to me why the stock of Facebook, with its ten year surplus of lame photos, etc., is worth $33/share right now while the stock of the NY Times, with its more than a century of sometimes extraordinary journalism, is only worth $6.50 a share?
R24, traditional newspapers are dying and The Times's revenue is down by nearly 1/3rd over just the past five years alone. The paywall is helping mitigate the losses from print advertising (both line and display ads, but particularly the former) somewhat, as is increased online ads and massive increases to the daily print paper costs, but it has yet to stop the bleeding. Facebook, OTOH, has nearly a billion users, over half of whom visit the site daily, as well as ad revenue that's healthy and growing very quickly.
R24, it could be that casual perusal of the NYT archives over the last century shows how spectacularly wrong they have been on so many issues (WMD, anyone?) that only a fool would take their articles with more than a grain of salt.
If you're not willing to spend a dime for news, then you shouldn't bitch about the poor quality of journalism. Ultimately, you get what you pay for. Good journalism costs money to produce. It can't just be given away for free indefinitely.
R27, it's not about poor journalism- many blogs are far more in depth and honest than the NYT- it's about the blatant propaganda that all corporate media outlets breathlessly and credulously report simply because it A) conforms to their limited worldview, and B) comes straight from some government official.
That is why they are dying, and being replaced by smaller, more nimble and truthful news sites.
It's not whether or not you pay for it, r27, it's the expensive, unfair and greedy policies around paywalls, particularly the NYT that piss people off.
I think they realize this by having loopholes (like r11 mentions) and not closing them.
This whole one fee for each device bullshit is what got the recording industry in trouble.
Yes. If people don't pay for it, then they can't pay their employees. Then there won't be a newspaper.
hmm there is a loop hole and you can read any article at any time. But the problem is, if I let you know, they will close the loop hole.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune will move to a three-day-a-week print schedule in the fall.
Out of curiosity, when subscribers pay to read the online versions of newspapers, do they get the privilege of not having a screen cluttered with advertisements?
[quote] many blogs are far more in depth and honest than the NYT
Ah, yes. The good ol' "We don't need newspapers or TV news because we can get everything we need from bloggers" argument. What a load of bullshit. You want to know where bloggers get most of their ideas and information from? Newspapers like the New York Times.
R33 - I get a few ads on the NYT website, but not very many.
[quote]The New Orleans Times-Picayune will move to a three-day-a-week print schedule in the fall.
Did they intentionally make sure their new website sucked before they made this decision?
I subscribe to the Times on paper because I am an Ancient Old One who's just used to reading papers that way. If it ever went paperless I would probably subscribe just because I know it costs money to produce good journalism and I want to support it.
R34, if you truly believe that (and I suspect you are too intelligent) then your media sources are extremely limited.
Sure, many blogs use NYT articles as a base for their articles, but usually just to show how ignorant or ill-informed the author is about the subject.
R34 is 100 percent correct.
It depends on the blogs, r34 & r39.
Many of the original blogs were started by people in specific fields, therefore the factual accuracy and historical context were at or close to the level of a major newspaper.
In fact, some of the bloggers had a journalism background.
Once blogging became a) a trend and b) a profit-driven "new media" industry all the money vultures and narcissistic 'mommy blogger' types flooded the net.
The MSM used these latter groups to try to de-legitimize blogging in general because it cut into their revenue stream, and sometimes scooped them out.
Aviation, Government policy (US) and law are topics who have always had great bloggers.
Yes, it's most worthwhile to pay for news you can get elsewhere on the Internet. What makes the NY Times even better is the fact, that the news on the site is at least 6 hours behind a quick search on Google.
Can't beat a bargain like that.
Defenders of the dinasour dead tree medium have lost their minds.
Can you imagine this being the lede in the NYTimes?
Bloomberg is reporting on the insider trading trial of former Goldman Sachs board member Rajat Gupta.
Called to the stand at the start of the trial were two current Goldman Sachs board members, who were also on theboard in 2008 when Gupta was on the board. The impression given was that during the height of the financial crisis in 2008, GS CEO Lloyd Blankfein conducted a number of hurried conference calls with the directors:
“There were a very large number of meetings called on very short notice,” typically by telephone, William George, an independent Goldman Sachs director and a management professor at Harvard Business School, told jurors in Manhattan federal court. “They included a range of things.”
George’s testimony focused on Blankfein’s briefings to the board in September 2008 as Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed...George told jurors that Blankfein’s board briefings, or “posting calls,” came midweek and on weekends that September, and sometimes twice on a Sunday. Directors had barely two hours’ notice before they had to dial in...
In other words, these were very critical calls, not likely to contain much chit-chat. Blankfein was disseminating important information, which makes this part of the Bloomberg report very enlightening:
As early as Sept. 14, Blankfein told his board about the Federal Reserve’s talks about Lehman, the risk that American International Group Inc. might fail and Goldman Sachs’s own liquidity.
What was the Fed telling Blankfein about Lehman that was so important that he told the board about it? It clearly sounds like information that would allow GS directors to make more informed decisions about the financial climate. Lehman filed for bankruptcy the next day, Monday September 15, 2008. This makes the information Blankfein gave the board about Lehman critical.
Now, some guy in middle America may not know what to do with such information on a Sunday, but Goldman Sachs is a global giant that could easily trade off such information in European markets long before U.S. markets even opened on that Monday.
This, thus, leads to a series of very interesting questions:
What did the Fed told Blankfein about Lehman?
What did Blankfein tell the board about Lehman?
And what trading did GS conduct before markets officialy opened on that Monday?
I read the Washington Post. It's still free. I glance at the NYT, but frankly, I can't afford to subscribe.
R34, care to defend your position?
>>>Yes. If people don't pay for it, then they can't pay their employees. Then there won't be a newspaper.
You are right. The NYT especially needs all the money they can get when they give their shitty CEO a $15 Million golden parachute
Fuck all of them
R47, if they don't pay him, how can he get access to all these powerful criminals in the government so they can tell him "off the record" how he can make money from the taxpayer? If he doesn't know months beforehand that Raythoen, or GE, or ADM is getting a big fat new government contract then how can he trade on that inside information?
The NYTimes is a valuable asset to the power elite in getting the propaganda into the minds of the little people, and therefore should be cherished.
The CEO was a woman, and the payout was $23.7 million, according to an article in New York mag.
Him, her, it- a parasite is a parasite...
I'm willing to pay up to about $20 to $30 per year for any one website. Above that, it's just not worth it. All of the "news" will filter down to other sites anyway. Any topic or article of importance will eventually be accessible.
The newspapers are going about it the wrong way. What they want is eyeballs. The more eyeballs on their sites, the higher they will be allowed to charge for ads.
What do you want...ten thousand people paying $100 a year or 100,000 people paying $10 per year? I'd want the latter, because you'll be able to charge higher amount for your ads which has a greater amount of subscribers.
That's a good point, r51, but aren't demographics also a huge factor that would negate the sheer number effect?
There are many examples from TV (Harry's Law being the most recent) where series with large viewerships were cancelled because they had very, very low target demo numbers.
The coveted group, 18-49, have never paid for content their whole lives (literally) or won't out of principle.
Thanks, R11! I opened a Twitter account years ago to keep up with earthquake news because I live in Calif, but I've never used it otherwise. Now I've just "followed" 45 different writers at the NY Times & have already received a free article from a food writer about the glories of rhubarb! Like you, I'm poor -- I'd gladly pay for the real newspaper &/or their web content if I could afford it, but maybe this will be a good way to read the parts that interest me for free (at least until they start charging for Twitter....).
If you are a news junkie it's probably worth it, or if you like all the NYT special section stuff. And, of course, the idea of paying to support the work that goes into creating the content.
Everyone knows that you can get all of the NYT content for free if you really want to.
So, it really depends on how much you want that content, how easily you want to get it, and how much you care about paying as matter of principle.
R40, please tell me the name of a general-interest news/sports/features blog -- something that would roughly replicate a daily newspaper -- that actually generates even 20 percent of its own material.
R55, use Google for "general interest" news- most good blogs focus on serious issues in economics, finance, foreign policy, etc. and leave the Kardashians to Datalounge.
So, R56, you can't.
"All of the "news" will filter down to other sites anyway"
As long as there is some entity to start it the trickle down. Jeez, think about your statement.
R58, many sites like AmCon, CounterPunch, LewRockwell, DKos and AntiWar are run by poorly paid editors and volunteer writers, but produce far more insightful and truthful articles compared to NYTiimes.
In an era where ANYONE with a blog, a phone or a twitter account can break the news and interested parties can provide details, the need for old media dies.
Pay walls are dinosaurs trying to survive a world they don't understand.
A friend told me to get to pay sites through Google or DuckDuckGo, but they know who Iam. How do you avoid paywalls?
All of you cheap bitches who refuse to pay a dime for news: How do you expect a news organization to pay its writers and stay in business? If paywalls aren't the answer, what is? And don't say advertising because online advertising only draws a fraction of the revenue that print advertising did. Do you really expect a news organization like the Times to hire top-notch journalists, send them all over the globe, and then give away all the news for free? SOMEBODY has to pay for it.
The Desperate Scum (desert sun) in Palm Springs is trying to start a paywall. Tooooo fucking funny. There is NOTHING in that amateurish, poorly written, incredibly boring paper that anyone would pay to read online. I seriously think it is put out by high school journalism rejects.
Don't forget about the educational discounts for NYTimes digital subscriptions. I work at a university and pay just $7.50 for smartphone acces every 4 weeks -- well worth the money for unlimited reading on Windows Phone 7.5.
God, I can't wait until the NYTimes is bankrupt and gone.
Pravda has nothing on that piece of shit paper. Anyone who gives Paul Krugman money to post his bullshit needs to go bankrupt.
There's a rumor that Michael Bloomberg wants to buy The Times when his mayor job ends as an addition to his radio, TV, and magazine empire.
I just now realized that the UK paper The Sun is now a paywall. Fuck that shit. That's just going to make people read the Daily Mail instead.
No I don't and would not pay for the NYT.
It's not good for the news - remember how long it took to cover OWS, didn't send a reporter to the Manning trial, didn't get to Snowden until after the guardian and the post.
Their columnists - Friedman, Kristof, Keller, Bruni et al are banal, or are there just to give a silly rightwing view regardless of their quality like Douthat and Brooks.
On Iraq it was wrong as was obvious to most people. There's no investigative journalism that springs into prominence.
Ok i suppose it is fine as a lifestyle publication on where to eat and what to wear but there too it's behind the curve.
So what it offers is not enough for me. I stopped reading it regularly some years back.