Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New York Times Exploring how to Charge for Content

Posted by timothy on from the frog-boiling dept.

Mr. Christmas Lights writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times is mulling subscription for Internet Archives. It doesn't appear that the free (but subscription required - BugMeNot to the rescue!) ability to read NYT articles less than a week old would change. However, instead of paying $2.95 per article for stuff that is more than a week old, one idea being floated is an annual fee of $49.99 for unlimited access to anything in the last year." (More below.)

Mr. Christmas Lights continues "The WSJ has been pretty successful with their online subscriptions - over 700,000 people currently pay $79 ($39 if you get the print edition) a year for full online access of the last 30 days of articles - the story above happens to be in their public area. But they are a notable exception, with media organizations struggling to charge for News now that it is widely available for free on the Internet. For example, Slashdot recently discussed the AP's plan to charge members to post content online. Will the "GoogleZon" end up replacing the 4th Estate as depicted in the entertaining and informative 8 minute EPIC video?"

5 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well, I for one... by Zphbeeblbrox · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    You can not be serious. In recent past several of their journalists have admitted to making up stories and plagiarism. The NYT sucks as a news source. NO wonder they are having revenue problems.

    --
    If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
  2. Why pay for inacccurate, biased news? by Nova+Express · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    There was once a time when The New York Times carried the ring of Absolute Objective Truth. That day is long passed.

    Not a day goes by that bloggers don't uncover factual errors in the NYT, and the Times longstanding liberal bias has only become more pronounced over the last four years. The fact that even their theater, architecture and fasion critics feel a need to insert left-wing commentary into their pieces tells you how pervasive liberal bias at the times has become. Even the occasional good story they do must be considered inaccurate and biased until proven otherwise.

    20 years ago my roommate and I had a subscription to the The New York Times, even though we lived in Texas, because the local paper was so bad. Today, I seldom bother to read a NYT article for free unless someone sends me a link; I'm certainly not going to pay for it. Why should I, when I have hundreds of papers willing to supply me online news for free?

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Why pay for inacccurate, biased news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      I don't know which fucking idiot modded your post as flamebait, but you stated the truth. Leftists can't stand the truth. Slashdot is overrun with leftists.

  3. Substitute "liberal" for "legitimate" by Nova+Express · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    "To make the timelines as 'legitimate' as possible, we are encouraged to use NYT articles."

    Correction: "To most easily make the timelines accord with our liberal preconceptions, we are encouraged to use NYT articles because they most closely agree withour own biases."

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  4. RE: parent=fox apologist by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If you mean me, I'm not. I don't watch Fox News, don't go to the website for it, don't care about it.

    However I think it's hypocrtical to attack Fox News for it's slant when CNN, Reuters, BBC and whomeverelse are just as slanted.