The New York Times is going to be implementing a new system on their website: The first few pieces you read are free, but after that, they want you to pay up. That’s right. They’re going to be charging for news online because ain’t nobody buying their papers. I thought it was a pain to read the Times online when you had to use your free log-in, but paying for it? I doubt that anyone I know who’s not already a news junkie will be down to do that. In fact, the Times should know that too. Their previous attempt to charge for stories with TimesSelect was a complete failure, as subscribers quickly became unsubscribers and the project was abandoned.
My own opinion on this is a sad sign. I am a writer who finds it annoying that other writers need to get paid. That’s kind of repulsive, I realize that… but that’s also why I’ve found my home on the Internet and intend on staying here. Bloggers are used to getting paid off ad revenue, and if The Huffington Post can offer me an adequate summary on a NYT article for free, you can believe that that’s what I’ll be reading that and linking in my work. Yeah, I value and want to save print media too, but my friends and I can’t do that on our blogger’s salaries. You see the dilemma? What about you? Would you pay a subscription fee to read the Times online and what, if any, publications do you read offline?
Why would I pay to read the NYT when I have so many free news outlets online for free?
Like The Daily What pointed out yesterday, if this totally ridiculous tweet ( http://thedw.us/post/340052153/tweet-of-the-day-oof-nice-one-nyt-if-this-is ) is the kind of stuff the NY Times wants me to pay for, I’ll pass.
I think you mean FEWER intellectual conversations are coming to – oh, never mind.
YOU GET MY JOKES!!!
Tough question.
People have always paid for the *paper* newspapers, so why is it so horrible to pay for a virtual issue? The content is the same if not better. The same people are finding, writing, and publishing the news regardless of which format it comes in. And this nonsense about ad revenue versus subscription revenue…most paper papers have always received both.
Go green, save a tree and some fossil fuels and PAY for the online version. If you value the information and the product, then its worth a price. By not paying for news, you’re not paying for people to bring you the news. Huffington Post will run out of content eventually.
I wonder how many people who resist the idea of paying for their news are buying kindles and ebooks and downloading $1 iphone apps like crazy.
I agree, Karma. NYT is still providing news, right? Why shouldn’t we pay for it?
The only print publication I subscribe to is Christian Science Monitor. I’m not a Christian, and I don’t really know about Chrisian Science but I happened upon this magazine a few years ago and read the whole thing cover to cover. It was filled with really great aticles that were unbiased and informative. I really expected it to be a conservative biased paper but it’s not that at all; plus it reports on news from all over the world on topics ranging from social happenings to science news to politics.
I would never pay for news online but mainly because I’m broke. Although if CSM were to go online only and require me to pay I would.
Check it out people you’ll very pleased with it!!
I get The New Yorker. I have been reading the online Times version since, oh, forever, and I suppose if I have to pay, I have to pay. I’ve been thinking of subscribing to the weekend print edition for a while; I don’t have the time to read the paper in one sitting every other day of the week, and my phone takes up less space in my bag than the paper itself would.
In the end, it probably depends on how much they want to charge. It probably won’t be that much, and lord knows I could cut down on my Dunkin Donuts budget if I really had to.
Not all writers are gossip bloggers…
Some writers are expected to travel, interview, and research to compose an article. I think they deserve to get paid to do that.
and be able to spell. you forgot that one.
I used to buy newspapers every day… about 6 years ago. Now I only subscribe to Time magazine, which is pretty decent, but I get most of my news online.
I always get unnecessarily annoyed at NY Times articles because they want me to sign up. So I don’t even bother.. and I feel really lazy because of that, hah.
I might pay to read really in-depth articles if it was only pennies an article and there was an automatic, easy way to do it. It just so happens that over half of the articles I read online I would regret having paid for because they weren’t interesting enough.
You might want to be careful comparing the “writing” you do here to what one finds in the NYT. Those writers spell check, and proofread, and all those other complicated things.
ZING!
I read the NYT daily and I might pay to get real news. I enjoy the commentary. However, I wish it was a bit more centrist as both liberals and conservatives annoy me.
That’s cool. I’ll just read it when someone reposts it somewhere for free.
Use http://www.bbc.co.uk/news – it’s great for world news.
You are a gossip blogger and very good at what you do, but please don’t ever confuse yourself with an actual print journalist. I’ve made a living at both, and while gossip blogging is harder than it looks, the only thing it has in common with serious print journalism is the alcoholism.
Hahaha–indeed.
A wise dead man once said, “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.” The Times can’t pay the rent and its writers unless it’s making money. If it can’t secure advertisers in its present format, it has to modify things. I think it’s a regional, liberal paper. Maybe it needs to become something else to survive.
As others have said, I won’t pay to read the NY Times. It’s not that good and I have so many other free choices.
Author of this post:
You say you have a problem with other writers needing to get paid for their work as you are happy to subsist on ad revenue.
You then say that on your blogger’s salary you can’t be expected to pay for news.
So do you then expect other writers to live on an income that does not allow them enough pocket money to buy a newspaper online?
Yes, there are other free newspapers. That survive solely on advertisement. Their writers are paid less. Is that the source you prefer for your news? I am handed countless free newspapers on the way to work every day and they are absolute hysterical drivel. If I want to read the news, I’ll cough up the small price for a serious newspaper with customers to answer to, not advertisers.