tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207980.post112748076169049890..comments2007-04-17T10:07:46.495-04:00Matthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06623287283750399460noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207980.post-1127734438966433162005-09-26T07:33:00.000-04:002005-09-26T07:33:00.000-04:00

I hadn't thought of the Wall STreet Journal, but you're right. As an on-line news source, it is less than useless. No one bothers even going to the website, except maybe subscribers. I've already decided I'm going to cancel the subscription to Times Select before my fourteen days are up on October 4th. It just isn't worth it, and the potential negative effects of encouraging such behavior

Matthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06623287283750399460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207980.post-1127658447737365002005-09-25T10:27:00.000-04:002005-09-25T10:27:00.000-04:00

You only have to look at the Wall Street Journal to see how walled gardens are hurting that paper. People don't link to the paper because of the paid archive, so traffic to the paper's online site drops. The Times is in for a world of hurt if they stay with this strategy.A better idea I've heard floated about is to make the archives completely open and have something like a Google keyword ad

Zesmereldahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04300385856690033629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207980.post-1127606416761243372005-09-24T20:00:00.000-04:002005-09-24T20:00:00.000-04:00

I can't make up my mind. On the one hand, I see the perspective that I should not encourage more news sources to charge for information. On the other hand, I buy print newspapers occasionally and I think nothing of paying for my news in that format. I pay for cable TV, which includes news. Why should on-line news be free? And fifty dollars a year isn't very much, and it does include access

Matthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06623287283750399460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207980.post-1127520830648112582005-09-23T20:13:00.000-04:002005-09-23T20:13:00.000-04:00

It's an interesting, complicated debate, one that gets newspapers either all greedy or high and mighty. I could get all windy here....I prefer the approach of being a tightwad and not paying. I doubt there's anything that I wanted to read so badly that I would pay for it. At this time. It's hard to say where sites with a paper equivalent will eventually go. There's the argument that more people

Mel B.http://melissa.wiese@gmail.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207980.post-1127500326007599222005-09-23T14:32:00.000-04:002005-09-23T14:32:00.000-04:00

I don't know what's the best response. My guess is that the NYTimes' charging for access to the editorials will drive down their traffic considerably, and as aresult cut into the ad revenue they generate on their site. But I guess someone over there must have considered that and decided it was worth it.I'm at least waiting to see if people don't regularly reprint the editorials somewhere else.

Scrivenerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05922358016805022637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5207980.post-1127481836679041582005-09-23T09:23:00.000-04:002005-09-23T09:23:00.000-04:00

I would vote for a non payment. You are simply encouraging the times to deny information as you already imply. I'm not worried, really, about this though. If the NY Times falls behind, someone else will step in as the free news source--hopefully a more radical news source.

proservativehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988662562633675453noreply@blogger.com