Slashdot Mirror
NY Times To Charge For Online Content
Hugh Pickens writes "New York Magazine reports that the NY Times appears close to announcing that the paper will begin charging for access to its website, according to people familiar with internal deliberations. After a year of debate inside the paper, the choice has been between a Wall Street Journal-type pay wall and the metered system in which readers can sample a certain number of free articles before being asked to subscribe. The Times seems to have settled on the metered system. The decision to go paid is monumental for the Times, and culminates a yearlong debate that grew contentious, people close to the talks say. Hanging over the deliberations is the fact that the Times' last experience with pay walls, TimesSelect, was deeply unsatisfying and exposed a rift between Sulzberger and his roster of A-list columnists, particularly Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd, who grew frustrated at their dramatic fall-off in online readership. The argument for remaining free was based on the belief that nytimes.com is growing into an English-language global newspaper of record, with a vast audience — 20 million unique readers — that would prove lucrative as web advertising matured. But with the painful declines in advertising brought on by last year's financial crisis, the argument that online advertising might never grow big enough to sustain the paper's high-cost, ambitious journalism — gained more weight."
Oh well, I just won't bother reading it then. I will read www.bbc.co.uk or www.telegraph.co.uk or theregister.co.uk or www.zeit.de or cnn.com or slashdot.org or www.dailymail.co.uk or and the list goes on.
You were significantly less full of crap than other newspapers. We will miss you. :'-(
I dont know the details but does any one else have a macabre interest in whats going to happen to the NY times.
New York Times files for Bankruptcy..President is befuddled heard commenting why wouldn't people want tp give us their money, we're not CNN or Google News, were the New York Times!
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
i'll miss you. then again, i'll have a lot more free time.
The New York Times can make an effective paywall because they hold the rights to columnists that share opinions that are nationally relevant. Local NY city news is covered by other papers, so they need exclusive content like the book reviews and bestseller lists.
WSJ has business opinions. Nobody's going to pay for press releases restated, or the S&P 500 values... but reviews and opinions are still worth something.
Can your local paper do that when your local TV station has a newsroom covering the same topics and also posting to the web for free? Nope. I don't really care what's going on in local high school sports, and that's about that's exclusive to my local paper.
Newspapers provide an important role in our society, particularly the larger papers such as this, the Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc. I never appreciated this more than when I lived in Arizona several years ago and realized, not to diminish the efforts of the good folks of AZ, but the quality of material was just not quite the same. With more and more newspapers just printing press releases and less original content, this becomes of great concern, and should for everyone who lives in the US, as papers often go out on their own to investigate political corruption, businesses acting unethically, etc. For the larger newspapers, this results in things such as Watergate, etc.
I am not a big fan of paying for any online subscription, and to contradict myself I am not sure I would for this (I pay for a regular Boston Globe as my own attempt to try and keep the journalist machine going), but somehow, I still wish for them to be successful. Like their own struggles, I have no idea what the obvious answer is. If you value similar, I am not saying pay for the NYT, but I recommend finding something you are willing to put a few dollars into every month, even if its just your local Sunday paper.
These days, I get all my news from either FARK, Slashdot, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, or The Colbert Report. So, with the New York Times going to a pay site, it just means that none of the aforementioned sites that I keep an eye on will link to them anymore, so they'll eventually die off. The same thing happened with the Wall Street Journal, too -- they're not even on my radar anymore (Thanks, Rupert!)
I honestly don't know what they are doing to cut costs - but if they believe they are becoming a "global newspaper of record" - then maybe they ought to cut ties with New York. I'm sure doing business in NYC ain't cheap - do they really need an entire building in midtown Manhattan? I could see an office - something like what they presumably have in DC - as a place for reporters who are literally on the local beat to do officey type things. But I'm willing to bet that the business of running the paper could be done just as well from the booneys as in the middle of the big apple for a whole lot less. Sure. you'd lose some die-hard manhattanite employees, but nobody's irreplaceable - especially when the world is changing as fast as the publishing world is...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It obviously depends how much they try to charge, but I'll probably sign up for this. I really like reading the NYT (I actually live in NYC) - they provide an incredibly valuable service, which at the moment they basically give away. Realistically, though, I don't really buy the things they advertise. Half the time when I'm reading their site, it's on a computer with adblock installed so I don't even *see* the ads they have up. I was all about the "everything should be free" movement when I was a student, but now that I have a job, I don't mind compensating people for their work. Especially if the alternative is a world where the only 'news' comes from crappy bloggers that can't spell or do legitimate research.
I'm perfect in every way, except for my humility.
Didn't they try that before.
They built it and nobody came.
I didn't bother reading it until it was free.
Reading for a fee, I'll skip it again.
There is more than enough free content and they aren't producing enough interesting content.
So, if they now will be behind a paywall, while other media are free, how are they going to convince us about their objectivity? Or why should people pay them?
Chalk this up to the same bad management decisions that got Jayson Blair bylines in the paper. On the Internet, people seem to be largely unwilling to pay for access to content. They figure they pay their ISP already, so they should have access to whatever they want. Whether this is a valid argument or not is up for debate. But the bottom line is, if content providers like the New York Times aren't willing to offer their access to their content for free (usually via an ad-supported model), there's always a dozen other content providers that are willing to provide free access to equivalent services.
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
Good point. Propaganda should be free. No way I want to pay for that.
The "New York Times" (NYT) also publishes content that is quite good (but is not as good as the content from the WSJ). The NYT will also succeed at charging for its content.
The good things in life are not free. Reporters, columnists, and editors work hard day and night to produce the high-quality content at the WSJ and the NYT. We Slashdotters should not expect that they work for free. Certainly, most Slashdotters will not work for free.
On a side note, a newspaper like the "Sacramento Bee" will not succeed at charging for content. It is mediocre and is not worth any price.
First they came for the free news sites and I said nothing.
rewriting history since 2109
Who would pay money to read Tom Freidman, the Mustache of Understanding?
Tell you what, though, I get the Sunday NYT delivered to my door every week. I almost quit when they stopped having a separate Books section, but I knew I'd miss the puzzles too much.
Anyway, how else would I get my subliminal liberal marching orders from Comrade Soros? I tried watching Fox News for a while but found myself gaining weight and wanting to do oxycontin. When I asked my wife to wear hairspray and librarian glasses and say "you betcha!" during sex, I knew I had to do something about it. Fortunately, there are liberal re-education camps called "libraries" where you can learn to break the Fox News habit.
After I stopped watching Fox News I lost the weight, and my wife was willing to sleep with me again, but hell, I still want to do me some of that hillbilly heroin.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The NYT will also succeed at charging for its content.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already try this and find it a dismal failure? I seem to remember I stopped reading any of their articles some years ago when they began some stupid restrictions on access.
The three posts I'm seeing so far all assume this will be the death knell of the Times. But the alternative if nothing changes is for the Times to piss all its money away until it closes its doors in bankruptcy. There has to be a happy medium. Somebody has to try to find it, and that's what the New York Times is doing now.
mrphoton says he'll read www.bbc.co.uk instead. That's all well and good, but the BBC is supported by British taxes, while the New York Times is a private newspaper. There's a strong tradition of separation of media and government in the U.S. and it isn't likely to ever change. But some have proposed operating newspapers as nonprofit organizations, which may be a close compromise. In that arrangement, newspapers would essentially be relying on government to leave them alone, by not charging them taxes. Where their operating expenses would come from, however, remains an open question.
To me, charging subscription fees for access to content makes a lot of sense. One of my favorite publications, The Economist, has always had a pay-wall around most of its content. And while advertising rates for magazines have been dropping across the board, subscriptions to The Economist have actually been climbing in the last few years. Why? Cynics say it's because people want to look intellectual by carrying around a copy of The Economist that they actually never read. People who subscribe to The Economist say they do so because of the marked differences between it and other, more traditional newspapers: The Economist prints zero celebrity gossip, and it never fiddles around with stories about car crashes or green gardening. It has a global focus. Its stories are well-researched, thorough, and not dumbed-down. In other words, if I'm going to pay to have someone deliver a stack of printed pages to my mailbox every week, The Economist will bring me far less wasted paper.
It's also mentioning that The Economist does not print any bylines for its articles. So to Tom Friedman's complaints, cry me a river. Do I subscribe to the New York Times because I want an informative, timely, in-depth news resource, or do I subscribe because I like to read so-called rock star columnists? Personally, I don't even read Tom Friedman's column, because his books have been massive disappointments. Talk about overrated. So should a guy like Tom Friedman be allowed to hold an entire news gathering organization hostage to his own ego? Tell you what, Tom: If you're such a public treasure, start a blog. Surely the people will flock to it. Or could it be that the only reason anybody read your column at all was because of the New York Times, and not the other way around?
The success of a subscription program for the Times' Web site will probably all depend on the price they charge for it. Certainly there will have to be opportunities to get stuff for free, as Salon.com has done. Even The Economist offers a 14-day free trial. Even then, the idea that anyone will pay even a fraction of the cost of a subscription to the New York Times just to read one or two articles a week -- or one or two articles a month -- is nuts. Somebody needs to do the hard research to figure out a realistic rate of payment for the content that people actually read. A monthly or yearly subscription fee, when nothing is showing up in the mailbox and you never remember to go and look at the site, isn't going to work.
At the same time, I worry about the concept of newspapers as a public good. Everyone, no matter their income level, is entitled to know what's going on in their government and the world at large. If newspapers close themselves off only to paying subscribers, you force the economically disadvantaged to venues such as TV news. On the one hand, local TV news has been turned over almost entirely to fluff. On the other, cable outlets like Fox News look increasingly like propaganda weapons.
So what to do? I've long tho
Breakfast served all day!
This sounds like a bunch of desperate people. What the news industry seams to have lost track of is that the Internet is a new medium, unlike the printing press, radio stations or tv stations it not a business that
Its seems silly to ignore these differences, and I doubt a successful business can be built, with out these issues being taken into account.
Perhaps some kind of low cost strategy, such as articles being written by free lancers (who would be paid on a commission/bonus only basis). There could then be a reply service which would allow another side to the story, giving the people who read the articles the two arguments to judge for them selves. Putting all of this online and allowing people to subscribe to a topic they find of interest (and delivering a individual paper) to your own home every day/week for a fee. This will give you Google like ability to profile users (address plus billing details) along with more effective targeted adverting. Its a lot more complicated than this but its a start.
Of cause this would open up another can of worms (big media is also about control of information)
...and I don't think it's entirely out of greed. The simple truth is that you can't pay columnists, reporters and other staff unless you have sufficient revenue. If people are abandoning the print version of the paper, and advertisers don't see the return they expect from ads, you lose a lot of per-copy revenue and ad revenue.
The truth is that the old model of "sell a paper for $1.00 a day, collect $XM in ad revenue per year, and your profit is that less your employment and other costs" is going away. Now, quality media outlets are faced with a tough choice. (Yes, I know, we can debate quality, but I happen to like the Times.) They have to choose to provide their content free, while only recouping part of their costs from ad sales, or charging for content and hoping enough people like the paper enough to pay.
I see this causing two problems:
For journalism in general: When are people going to realize that actual journalism, investigative reporting, and other well-researched pieces cost money? Call me an old fogey if you want, but I think this transition we're going through is going to make it much tougher to get well-written, well-research, less-biased content. Look at how CNN has jumped in with both feet on the whole Web 2.0/Twitter/Facebook user-generated content. Some of the well-written stuff actually makes the television news, but the vast majority of it is a garbage dump compared to a legitimate news organization. Can you imagine the historical record of the Haitian earthquake filled with stuff like "OMG OMG teh quakez suX0rz dude" ? That's overblown, but you get the idea... Same thing goes for the reporting of both sides of an issue. Would you rather have a news organization making some attempt to neutrally report, or would you rather have the Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh blogs against the ACORN and ELF blogs? Investigative reporting is even more important, and I'm not talking about papparazzi stalking celebrities. Would Watergate have ever been uncovered without a news organization paying to cover it?
For employment: I've seen this kind of rationalization of every single penny of cost happening over the last few years. Outside of journalism, it happens every day...a software developer in India is 10% the cost of a US one, or we can eliminate this raft of manual processes by automating the whole thing. Some of this is good...I'm glad I'm not a file clerk at a huge insurance company, for example. But, it has to stop somewhere. There are some people who need mundane work. Manufacturing used to provide that, now it's gone. Not everyone can be a manager, or sell things, or manage projects. If you eliminate everyone's job, especially those at the low end of the skill spectrum, you're going to have a lot of unemployed consumers who can't buy your product.
Actually, I think it says in general, the public are cheapskates AND the NYT has a non-viable business model.
Still, in a world built on scientific principles, you need to make the odd experiment. NYT are about to experiment with a metered access system. If the results are worrying, then it's time to experiment with the next business model.
There'll be one of three outcomes: They find one that works again, and it's business as usual, or they'll find that there's no business model available that lets them carry on as they are at the moment, so they'll cut corners until they have a compromise that works.. Or finally nothing seems to work, and they run out of money.
Which is precisely why I (and apparently many others) pay for access to wsj.com. It's something like $8-12/month. That's well worth it to get access to the in-depth content they provide. Sure, I browse other news sites to scan headlines, and I would probably even be willing to pay for one or two more high-quality sites.
What I will not pay for is a web site that does not provide me with original content, like sites that just aggregate the stuff of the wire, from the AP and Reuters.
I also pay for Slashdot by the way - of course most of the content other than "Ask Slashdot" is rebroadcast from other websites - but the original content here is the lively (and IMO worthwhile) discussions.
Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases
What can I say? Citation needed.
I find some of the anti-journalism bias I see on this site to be a little scary. It seems like the kind of anti-intellectualism that allows our society to play right into the hands of propagandists and demagogues, and it's frankly not what I'd expect of the /. audience.
Breakfast served all day!
Huzzah!
Seriously though, it seems that the management's earlier lesson didn't sink in too well:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/09/17/new-york-times-figures-out-the-web-its-free/
I get the "good journalism costs money" argument. However, what this shows is that while it is possible for businesses to make money off internet advertising, the Times couldn't figure out how to do it.
While I doubt we'll ever know, my guess is that their revenue from subscription will be less than that from advertising. If their top tier talent hang around, they will bleed money until they are bought by someone with deeper pockets (who will reverse this dumb-ass decision and start some serious cost cutting). If they walk, then the value of the business will shrink making them an unlikely target. My guess is the latter. The talent will walk. An "indie" Krugman/Friedman/Dowd blog could probably earn enough advertising revenue to support them. The rest will disappear.
If that happens then there will be a REAL shakeup in the old-school media franchises.
Well up to a few years ago my City's bus service was in trouble. In the past 4 years though they have completely turned the service around. In the past 4 years, every price change has been a price cut, while going from being in debt to record surpluses.
They did that by simplifying the costs, making it easier to ride eliminating transfers (Including in seat transfers when the buses traveled between different sections of the city, making it possible that you would need to "transfer" up to 2 times while never exiting the bus) and only charging per ride and passes for unlimited rides for a certain period of time.
Unprofitable routes are now now mostly paid for by businesses on those routes in exchange for having preferential bus stop placement, or having the bus even pull into the companies parking lot at peak times for people arriving and departing.
The NYT could make it easier to pay for the articles (Text a code to a number, and 25 cents is added to your phone bill) Make it so sections covered by other newspapers are free, and have the nitch articles be paid, have all you can learn plans, offer early access to articles to companies in fields the company reports on at a premium subscription rate.
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
I know newspapers have to make a living, and I don't care if that comes out of my pocket. But they seem to be unable to come up with a payment model I can live with.
I access a lot of news sites. No way I can pay a subscription to all them, or even to all my favorites. There has to be some way I can access all those different sources without breaking the bank. But newspapers can't seem to find it. Micropayments seem to be an obvious solution that never goes anywhere. (Yes, I know all the objections. I'd take them more seriously if anybody actually tried it.) This notion of "metered" access sounds doable — if they can keep my recurring costs at a reasonable level.
Of course, they main reason newspapers are so anxious to monetize their web editions: the print editions are losing money hand over fist. Most newspapers have responded by cutting costs. But that means fewer pages, more fluff, less solid journalism. This drives away subscribers, and before you know it they're in a death spiral.
I recently heard an interesting interview with Jim Maroney, publisher of the Dallas Morning News. He's taken quite a different approach:
We have continued to protect as much of our scale of journalists and journalistic resources in this market, adding pages to the paper instead of taking them out. One of the things that we have done is we have gone to our customers and said, look, we need to ask you to pay a greater proportion of the cost of publishing and distributing a newspaper to your home. In so doing, we've reduced our dependency on advertising.
The typical model for newspapers has been 80 percent advertising and 20 percent revenue from the people who buy the paper. By this time next year, we'll be something closer to 60/40, maybe even 55/45. To date, we're about 80 percent through all of our renewals, and 92 percent of our subscribers have agreed to pay a higher price, and I'm very proud of that. And I don't think we could have done it had we continued to cut our newsroom or continued to cut pages out of the paper.
End result: the paper is debt-free and profitable.
One wonders why more papers haven't gone this route. The answer I come up with is that most of them are controlled by big corporations, which are run by bean counters who know everything about "controlling costs" and nothing about actually providing something of value.
Newspapers are losing money. They're trying to figure out how to get "this Internet thing" to work for them. I know a lot of you have ideas and think that they're good but, to be honest, I doubt most of us here knows the intricacies of newspapers. It's their trade and their business. Let them try and figure it out how to make it work. That's what capitalism is all about after all. Good ideas live and bad ideas die off. Their current business model is apparently not working. Something has to change. If it works, then good for them. If you don't like it, don't pay for it. Not everything that has a price is bad. Until they go around suing people for inflated sums of money, I have no objections to what they're doing.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Good luck with that. It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts. The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases - such lack of objectivity is not something you are likely to succeed in selling online to people in business. People at home will just tune to CNN and FauxNews for their daily dose of op-eds rather than sit in front of a browser to pay for their spoon-fed propoganda.
Computers can reverse entropy.
Have you been reading the WSJ recently? It is full of sensationalized articles that seem clearly intended to push a political agenda. Case in point was their recent article entitled something about how our military drones were 'hacked' by terrorists, a statement which was directly contradicted in the article body. There have been quite a few such articles in the recent past a fact that has caused some die hard WSJ fans I know to reconsider their subscription. Unfortunately you are correct in that they ALSO publish invaluable business news which is what their readers are paying for. However your assertion that the WSJ is somehow about the standard of other new papers in terms of 'op-ed rants being passed off as news' you are sorely mistaken.
Every small town has a newspaper. Most larger ones have several.
This is simply not true.
The Courier Express folded in 1982.
The Buffalo News [owned by Warren Buffet] has been the only daily newspaper worth a damn in Western New York for twenty-eight years.
The one newspaper city has become the norm. The major city without a daily newspaper is a very close at hand.
Good luck with that. It works for the WSJ because the WSJ reports actual news; investors will not tolerate op-ed rants being passed off as news because it would make the WSJ worthless for financial analysts.
As a financial analyst, I call bullshit on that. Serious investors don't rely on the WSJ alone, exactly because it is full of brainless neocon op-eds, and gratuituos deliberate political spin even in its news articles. Anybody with a brain wouldn't rely on it for political/economic coverage, even if it often gets some basic company news right (though even there it doesn't hurt to double-check with the FT, or Bloomberg News, or the Economist or some other more reputable paper).
People have developed this odd belief that anything you see on the internet only took an upload to produce. News has a cost and if papers can't make money, they're going to stop doing it.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
WSJ can be business expensed by a lot of people.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I'll bite. I once had a friend who attended the Northeastern University School of Journalism and not only could she not tell the difference between "news" and "opinion" but could not understand why dividing the two is important. Her thought was people are inherently biased and so a good journalist, rather than elevating stories above one's bias, should tell the story the way one sees and feels it.
Facts seem to be secondary to most outlets these days, regardless of their political leanings.
The NYT (and subsidiaries like the Boston Rag, er, Globe) pass off op-eds as news and ignore stories which don't support their biases
What can I say? Citation needed.
I find some of the anti-journalism bias I see on this site to be a little scary. It seems like the kind of anti-intellectualism that allows our society to play right into the hands of propagandists and demagogues, and it's frankly not what I'd expect of the /. audience.
And on that note, the wonderful thing about NYT opinion pieces (which are clearly labeled as such), is that they involve lucid argumentation and reasonable discussion. They're not meant to be propaganda and they would be very ineffective as such, because tend they argue an issue rather than asserting a point. Most people look for evidence to support, rather than shape, their beliefs. If you're in the rational minority, intelligent discussion is always useful.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
"If the NYT and WSJ can go and stay non-free, it will be a matter of time before the BBC and the Telegraph and the Register and CNN go non-free as well."
BBC - and the equivalents, such as SVT in Sweden, NHK in Japan, and so on - are public broadcasters. They are not allowed to charge for content, nor is it in their interest to do so (they'd not get to keep most of the money anyhow). They, and their websites, will stay open no matter what. I guess NPR in the US would be in a similar situation.
And the more papers go non-free, the larger the readership - and the advertising revenue - at the remaining free ones.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Well , their suicide sets a good example for a dated corrupt media. A good idea defended by the founding fathers and others was reduced to a shallow meaningless lie of propaganda for government, liberal causes and big business. What doesn't evolve as necessary, dies as superfluous tripe. It won't be missed.
It won't die. It's too important to the ubiquitous propaganda effort required to keep Objective Reality subdued down to a mere nagging thought at the back of everybody's mind. My guess is that this NYT thing is a ploy which fits somehow into the whole internet crackdown which has been brewing in the wings. (The Obama White House, being just one player, is preparing some pretty crazy legislation to be unleashed on the world stage.)
Somewhat more real news comes from places like http://www.democracynow.org/ --Which while it doesn't touch certain things, is a helluva lot less doped up than the NYT.
-FL
There are many, many examples, but here's a personal favorite: back in 2002/2003, the Times ran 95 stories in nine months on the supposedly big controversy involving the Augusta National Golf Club, which didn't admit women as members. When the time came for the big demonstration against the club, about 40 people showed up. I humbly suggest that so many stories about such a minor controversy is good evidence of a political agenda driving news coverage.
As for ignoring stories that don't fit their biases, readers of the Times were probably surprised when Van Jones resigned, because until then there hadn't been any coverage of the controversy.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Open Source killed my software revenues (consulting)
Open source products actually make consulting easier for most people -- there are products the customer / consultant have actually heard of, and they can be implemented much sooner than a custom solution could be scoped, coded, tested and deployed. Now if you're doing old-school custom software what's killing you isn't necessarily open source, it's the internet. Having customers able to easily locate, choose, and download an application that meets their needs makes the idea of software customization -- in a lot of situations -- obsolete.
That said, I've been programming for a very long time. I saw the change coming and embraced it. If that's not your thing then so be it, but you should know the reasons and they are not "open source". It's not some dark voodoo, it's instant gratification, available for everyone. Blame the internet, blame competition, but many people are making money with Open Source software and I'm one of them.
If a car analogy helps you, it's like the local car dealer keeping the local prices high for years because there weren't any other choices around, and boom! CarMax moves into the next town. Local people now have choice. Why would they want to use the local car dealer? If you can't answer that, then you (as the local car dealer) will be forced into another career choice. You must provide added value that the customer will not only understand, but will pay for. CarMax isn't the problem, it's that you are still running on an antiquated business model that provides no value proposition for the consumer. CarMax just provided the catalyst for your customers to understand they are no longer without options. Blaming CarMax only shows you don't understand the problem.
I dont do this often, but this comment is spot on and needs to be modded up - and I seem to lack any mod points!
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
This isn't Flamebait. We're talking about why media is failing these days, and this is absolutely relevant.
Currently Fox news is #1 and this is what they're serving up for the public. It's unethical, misleading, and just plain flat-out wrong. And currently (if the numbers mean anything) this is what the public actually wants.
This should scare the absolute crap out of you.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
CRU being hacked and proven to provide false data, never reported by NYT.
Because the stolen e-mails proved no such thing. But since you request: Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research
Rush Limbaugh being misquoted and slandered, never reported by NYT.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. His opinions are not news. Similarly, if I call Rush a doodie-head that's not news, and if some other media organization misquotes Rush it's not news. But since you asked, here is the New York Times topic page for Rush Limbaugh. Find me where he was misquoted and slandered by the Times and you may be onto something.
The list is COUNTLESS
You've almost counted to one so far. You're doing well, don't stop now.
you just don't know about it because you are too ignorant to look up more than one source of news
Based on your own preferred source of news entertainment, I'd reckon the list of my sources of news would be beyond your comprehension.
Breakfast served all day!
It wasn't "classy libs" that chose to use the term "teabag" to describe the actions of sending teabags to Obama, hold "teabagging" parties and the like. The clueless choice of term was quite rightly mocked, and this carries no sembleance to the results of your "thinking". As soon as you can point to official "buttfuck" parties held by Liberals, where they "buttfuck" right wingers, your "thinking" will accidentally appear insightful.
Perhaps that is what you're hoping will happen? Quite a coup if it happens, I say.