Slashdot Mirror
New York Times Exploring how to Charge for Content
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?"
They covered this themselves two months ago.
Speaking of bugmenot, am I the only one whom the bugmenot firefox plugin doesn't work for?
If you have a NYC public library card you can access the past year for free via NYPL.org
I'll just search Google News and then reference the cache.
The numbers are in the right ballpark. I pay $35/yr to get access to all of their current and archived crosswords and puzzles. I have no problem paying this amount since I consider it to be of value to me. If you don't consider their week-old online content to be worth X dollars, don't pay them X dollars.
Lit. The People's Paper.
One of the largest newspapers, with a social-democratic (in US, liberal) influence.
... sometimes I fly with the white swan to my Liffey home.
Whenever I see an article that grabs my interest, I print make a PDF copy of it, and then later on I send it to my gmail account with meaning description in the subject line.
Not perfect, but perfectly workable for most.
The NY Times is one of the most reputable papers in the US. But, if you want the paper that most foreigners turn to for impartial, unbiased news, check out the Christian Science Monitor. As right-wing as the paper sounds, it is actually quite impartial (this coming from a liberal).
I'm sorry, but I don't get this attitude. Do people really think that news should be free?
I really think it's you that is in need of a reality check. News is free. If you don't believe check out any of the multitude of free newspapers, whether they be local community papers, to the ever increasing juggernaut that is the Metro.
but they wouldn't exist without paid subscribers.
What you're paying for with a newspaper is the cost of paper, and delivery, that's it. That's why free newspapers like the Metro can exist, because they have very low paper costs, and require the reader to share the cost of delivery. (You have to go pick it up from one of a much smaller number of available locations.)
to see if they are carrying anything like the depth of stories you see in the newspaper
You've got to be kidding yourself if you think that paying for news somehow makes the news any better. I can buy any number of Star/Sun Magazines or National Enquirers, hell the NY Post practically fits this category. (I know, trolling, sorry ;-) ) What makes for good news is the underlying ethic of who's in control at the top. That's it.
I read the Economist, both in print and online, because it's a news magazine that's serious about providing good news. I don't watch Fox News, because I know Fox News is about sensationalist reporting designed to increase viewership with the end result of pushing an agenda.