TIMES UP FOR FREE COLUMNS ON PAPER'S WEB SITE (NY Times Charging $49.95/year, Drudge to yank links)

NY Post ^ | 9/14/05 | KEITH J. KELLY

[em2vn]

Have you ever heard of a pop up blocker?

[Rummyfan]

Just whom do they think is going to pay to read them?

[ARCADIA]

You mean people would PAY to read that crap online????

My first thought exactly; and it goes for all MSM. They are becoming irrelevant, and will soon be replaced by blogs and bulletin boards.

[Sam's Army]

I am constantly amazed at the amount of people who make business decisions, but have little grasp of the concept of supply and demand.

Assume you are a consulting service (not a must have, but a nice to have). Business has been flat and/or declining for 5 years. You have a decision to make: Should I raise prices, keep prices the same, or lower them? Does rational thought ever enter the picture? Does the fact that customers have been defecting or reducing their spend make a difference? Should it?

My guess would be that is most NY Times employees were asked, they would say the hypothetical compnay should keep prices flat, or even reduce them so as to keep or even increase customers.

But, when it comes to them, they think people are begging to pay higher prices for the same thing.

[frithguild]

[CT]

Just sent them a mocking e-mail about all the errors in Krugman's regular columns.

Web page for e-mail addresses
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#ases:

[over3Owithabrain]

Yes I have, wiseguy - and it usually works just fine. The Drudge site puts it into overdrive. He throws everything at you on his site to gum up your computer. So his complaints about the "innocence" of the internet is laughable. Plus his site is rehashed Chicken Little crap, with some fey Hollywood gossip thrown in. No thanks.

[Dick Vomer]

Gee that ought to generate..... a couple of hundred dollars of income to the NY Times.... heck maybe even a couple of thousand...bwhahahahahahaha

you know what's so great about this...??????

conservatives don't need to "sensor" or "destroy" the NY Times... once they charge to read it...by-bye... I can see all the college students paying for it (uh-huh).. I can see all the Birkenstock slobs in Seattle paying for it on-line (sure) and all the liberal voters from say.... New Orleans, Detroit, Washington DC and similar ghettos paying for an on-line subscription.... this is hilarious.

In 5 years the New York times will turn into the "Green Sheet"... all personals, local real estate and pets advertising... and all the "great journalist" will call for government funding to guarantee.."freedom of the press" in order to meet their bloated payroll.... I LOVE IT!!!!! roflmao.

[edcoil]

I think if the NYT gets any more expensive and delivers less, we will need to provide government subsidies - you know like health care - it has gotten so expensive we need to have the government pay for it.

[Tribune7]

Bob Herbert,

And New Orleans once had a quarterback named Bobby Hebert. (Just saw that Seinfeld rerun last night)

[dirtboy]

Starting Sept. 19, the New York Times will charge $49.95 a year for online users to access 22 columnists including Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Nicholas Kristof and Frank Rich.

I wouldn't read those idiots if the Times paid ME $49.95 a year to do such. Why would I fork over good money to read bad opinions?

[stocksthatgoup]

The Liberal response..........Add Taxes.......Just Raise Prices.........At Least They Are Being Consistant..........May they Rest In Peace.

[lOKKI]

I think that this is an attempt (perhaps subconsciously?) by the Times to stem criticism.

Almost all criticism of their editorial content and reporting comes from the Blogosphere.

If only those pesky Internet bloggers would stop pointing out every tiny mistake that Krugman and Dowd make, it would save the Times a lot of trouble AND things will go back to the good old days when the NYT was the undisputed arbiter of the truth

(See my tagline)

[ARCADIA]

If only those pesky Internet bloggers would stop pointing out every tiny mistake that Krugman and Dowd make

They can say what ever they want; if we can't hear them, or cite them, it just not relevant. They may as well take their thoughts and bury them in a time capsule.

[metmom]

You mean people would PAY to read that crap online????


I won't read that cr@p online for free. That's why I deleted that bookmark some time ago. They're crazy. There is so much for free online, why would I want to pay for it? They're shooting themselves in the foot.

[andy58-in-nh]

Duracell? I think you meant "Diehard".

[Old Professer]

About a year ago I took him off my homepage; almost never go back.

[em2vn]

I use Stopzillla as a pop up blocker and don't get a single pop up on Drudge. Stopzilla is set to silent so that there isn't any notice when a pop up is shut out.

[satchmodog9]

It's like getting a tax increase. We just get the same failed liberalism at a higher cost.

[an amused spectator]

Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING

Dang! You can't make this stuff up!

I'm kind of agreeing with lOKKI's analysis that the Old Gray Slut may be trying to shut down criticism of their addled, drooling columnists.

Their long-standing policy towards not invoking the phony "copyright infringement" restraints on free speech has been exemplary, especially in light of the actions of the Posties and the LATties in cravenly doing the bidding of their masters (and mistress) in the Clinton White House.

I think that their attitude towards the pay articles will change drastically (at least for sites that aren't of the "correct" political persuasion...)