NYT is further reducing their number of 'free' articles

[bigtree]

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

on NYT site:

Beginning in April, visitors to NYTimes.com will have access to 10 free articles per month instead of 20.

http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp6128.html?adxc=181564&adxa=295211&page=www.nytimes.com/growl&pos=Left9&campaignId=39UJU


My feeling is that this will mean nothing more than having less folks reading even less of their articles; thus, limiting the influence and visibility of their news organization.

It's a baffling move, to me. Who really needs to pay to hear their slant on the news? Anyway, it's going to be nearly impossible to actually wall off those articles they want us to pay for. Like I said, though, who's going to notice, or care, if we don't read their precious print?


Further, what does this mean to those who can't afford their content? What does this mean for youth who might not be able to afford access to their news? What if all news was limited to those who could afford it? (oh, wait, it virtually is now)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

1. I pay for the Times

.....because they are the only newspaper in America that actually still employees reporters to investigate rather than merely report some rumor on a blog says if fact.

No.....it's worth it.

Why does it upset you so much if you disagree with their political editorial content.

[bigtree]

4. sometimes i agree, sometimes i don't

. . . that really isn't my point. If I can't see their content without paying for it, I'm not really inclined to seek it out.

If you can afford to support the news organization, then, fine and dandy. I'm not a fan of paying for net news. If it's an actual document that they take the time to produce, that I can have and hold, I'm good with that. I'm not personally inclined, though, to value their slant on the news (or anyone else for that matter) to pay for it up front, sight unseen. i think they're presuming too much about the public's view of their importance and relevance. I think ANY news organization that intends for us to pay to see their slant on the news, sight unseen, is presumptuous.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

6. Hummmmm

....you do realize that that is how newspapers have been sold for over a century.

The net is great....and free news is wonderful....but don't think for a second you are getting anything close to independent and reliable first hand resources when no one is paying for it.

[bigtree]

7. you mixed up newspapers and net news

I'll buy a paper, or a book, or a magazine. I just happen think that the net is mostly good for the FREE flow of ideas and information.

It's not that I'm opposed to them charging for it, I just don't see how they'll be able to sustain themselves on that effort. How many folks are going to value a product they can't see, enough to pay for it beforehand/

[Fumesucker]

5. Judith Miller was in the OpEd?

I wasn't aware of that.

[JDPriestly]

9. I like more in-depth reporting like Mother Jones or The Nation.

My local newspaper which shall go unnamed in this post lied to me about the Iraq War then fired one of my favorite columnists. I fired the newspaper.

I think the days of these big generalist newspapers that publish a lot of government published stuff are numbered. They don't do the serious in-depth critical investigation that people want now.

[Lint Head]

2. It will be a shock to their bottom line.

Fewer people will see their ads.

[RKP5637]

3. Yep, I had thought about that too. I thought advertising was a key

money maker on the Internet. I thought the same about Current TV when they stopped allowing streaming of their content on the internet. Their content had ads. I had though that would have been a money maker for them. Same with NBC when they stopped it ... I guess that's why I'm not in marketing for these outfits, I don't get their game plan.

[elfin]

8. I get the Sunday paper only

Right now, that is enough for full online privileges.

[TheCruces]

11. There's a way to get around paying to read articles

1. You can copy/paste the headline into google and read the link from there for free

2. You can hit stop on the page load before it reloads with the block saying you've read too many articles for free.

Even my local newspaper, a shitty thin little rag, expects people to pay for online access now. It's absurd.