- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,532
- Points
- 273
Can't say I don't see this coming but still bit sad when reading their announcement today. It is probably the site I visit most after quantnet.com.
Nytimes.com to charge for viewing next year
- Thread starter Andy Nguyen
- Start date
- Joined
- 6/6/08
- Messages
- 1,194
- Points
- 58
Fear not. Google will find a way around it.
They certainly need the money, and at the end of the day, good journalism isn't cheap. I'd rather see a public-funded open-source model for journalism, but our politicians are only as honest as the journalists keep them, and this is one way to help pay their salaries.
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,532
- Points
- 273
Google may but what about you, me and the Joes. Has Google helped you read premium articles on WSJ without paying the fee?
Eugene Krel
sunmulA
- Joined
- 3/3/08
- Messages
- 399
- Points
- 28
you generally have access to huge range of newspapers and other resources through a school library.
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,532
- Points
- 273
And if you are not a current student, it does cost money, does it not? In the form of alum membership fee and/or library fee?
Eugene Krel
sunmulA
- Joined
- 3/3/08
- Messages
- 399
- Points
- 28
usually a $1 annual donation to the schools fund works.
- Joined
- 6/6/08
- Messages
- 1,194
- Points
- 58
1) See WSJ article headline
2) Type headline word for word into Google
3) Read premium article for free
Any questions?
- Joined
- 5/2/06
- Messages
- 12,532
- Points
- 273
LOL. How To Read The WSJ For Free Online
WSJ was an bad example but do you think when NYT decides to go this route, your everything-is-free world will last?
WSJ was an bad example but do you think when NYT decides to go this route, your everything-is-free world will last?
- Joined
- 6/6/08
- Messages
- 1,194
- Points
- 58
It's not just my world. But yes, I think anything with a marginal cost of 0 to reproduce will be dragged inevitably toward Free.
- Joined
- 2/7/08
- Messages
- 3,261
- Points
- 123
Also works for FT. Of course if everyone does this, the paper will collapse and then there will be no content at all ....
---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 AM ----------
Ain't no free lunch in this world (Econ 101). Something has to give.
This gets back to my view that we need to subsidize investigative journalism.
Every year, each taxpayer in the state of New Jersey should get $25 to allocate to newspapers however they'd like. This money could then be used to fund investigative journalism. If any state needs more journalists to investigate political corruption, it's NJ (either that or Illinois).
If the second amendment is the insurance policy on the other nine, investigative journalism is the insurance policy on good governance.
Every year, each taxpayer in the state of New Jersey should get $25 to allocate to newspapers however they'd like. This money could then be used to fund investigative journalism. If any state needs more journalists to investigate political corruption, it's NJ (either that or Illinois).
If the second amendment is the insurance policy on the other nine, investigative journalism is the insurance policy on good governance.
- Joined
- 4/5/08
- Messages
- 267
- Points
- 38
You can also install a plugin(which is free) for firefox (which is free).
How To Access Full Wall Street Journal Online Articles For Free
I am sure something will come up for NYTimes too.
- Joined
- 6/6/08
- Messages
- 1,194
- Points
- 58
A) And if the paper can't thrive in this new environment of getting so many clicks per minute, it deserves to collapse. It can sell ads just as easily as it does in print.
B) Google says this isn't the case.
But, again, journalism provides a lot of positive externalities for society as a whole. They are the police when it comes to politicians, or people who preserve wetlands when it comes to the environment.
When a journalist reports that a politician is taking kickbacks or abusing a domestic spying program, you may never pay the newspaper a dime, but as a taxpayer and US resident, you benefit materially from that information.
- Joined
- 5/14/07
- Messages
- 85
- Points
- 16
I would prefer that the Attorney General's Office be the police when it comes to politicians, and that the wetlands be preserved by the EPA.
- Joined
- 2/7/08
- Messages
- 3,261
- Points
- 123
Google runs on ads. I suppose the NYT (or FT) could run on ads but to see an egregious instance of this, look at AsiaTimes: http://www.atimes.com/ If you want the ad-free version, you have to pay for a subscription. Ain't no free lunch, as I said.
---------- Post added at 02:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 PM ----------
I agree. Because most US news (so-called) is paid for or subsidised by advertisers, this affects the reporting (both specifically and in terms of general tenor). Thus if Monsanto is an advertiser (as I believe it is for Jim Lehrer's Newshour), you can bet your bottom dollar there will be no expose of agribusiness or genetically modified foods. An unconstrained press is one crucially important watchdog for the public. But it doesn't come free. And the one who pays the piper calls the tune. If the public is paying, the press will be an effective watchdog. If it's corporate advertisers, then the press will be a toothless corporate cheerleader.
What happens if the AG is in the same party as the Governor? What happens if the head of the EPA was formerly the CEO of a coal company? (Also, I believe the wetlands get preserved by the DNR and National Park Service).
More than anything else, voters need information. We can only help the checks and balances run properly if we can actually see what needs to be balanced.
- Joined
- 5/14/07
- Messages
- 85
- Points
- 16
What happens when the editorial board of a government-sponsored newspaper is the same party as the government in charge of doling out subsidies? Hell, what happens when they're a different party? AGs who pursued cases that Karl Rove didn't like got fired back in '05. Journalists on the public dole who pursue stories that Congress doesn't like will probably get the same treatment.
- Joined
- 6/6/08
- Messages
- 1,194
- Points
- 58
Look, I don't see the major problem--local news is completely subsidized by advertising. When I see Fox Philadelphia news in the middle of my Eagles game, there are commercials between them, which pay for the program.
You can do similar things with intelligent placement of advertisements.
If Google can make $21 billion (and probably rising) a year off of ads, it's a model that works.
You can do similar things with intelligent placement of advertisements.
If Google can make $21 billion (and probably rising) a year off of ads, it's a model that works.
