Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:32AM EDT
See Comments (12)
How much would you be willing to pay to read the New York Times online? That's the question the Gray Lady is asking in a new reader survey. Personally, I'm ready to pony up.
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
They have to figure out some way to stay linkable & searchable and still make a buck. $5/mo is a reasonable fee, but how to make it work with the existing models? Firewalling their op-ed writers at the nadir of the Bush admin reduced the influence of those writers.
I WOULD NEVER PAY! I NEED TO KNOW HOW TO ELIMINATE NYTIMES OFF OF MY COMPUTER NOW, SO I WILL NEVER BE TEMPTED TO CONSIDER PAYING FOR SOMETHING SO VERY USELESS. NO, NOT NOW, NOT EVER!
forgetting the pro and cons nof whether to charge. i think an important question is how do we address the nuisance and security factor of everyone website nickel and diming you for content? i don't want to pull out a credit card everytime something catches my attention for $1.99 or $5. could the solution be to charge it through your cellphone account like in europe? or maybe bring back those smartcards from years back that never caught on.
We need honest reporting. Many outlets today are free, including Yahoo! and Google. Why should we save an industry that has not been honest with the people. An industry that has abused its media power and toyed with the choice of the people to push for candidates that benefit them? Let them rely on advertising like Google and Yahoo! Sale a product people want or offer information people want. Fair is fair. Welcome to the 21st Century. V;-)
I just want to point out that Yahoo and Google aren't really news sources, as in they're not creating news. They're simply pulling it in from other sources, ie. Newspapers, Reuters, AP, etc. Next time you read an article in one of these spots, look at the source of the article. News has to come from somewhere.
Yup. I'd pay. Not happily, but in desperation. Our local paper (owned by a national chain) has all but eliminated any real coverage—national, international, even local. I've come to depend on NYTIMES.COM as an important information source. I'm tired to death of biased blogs from ignorant people. My life and my understanding of the world requires cogent, professional reporting, and the Times provides that. As my contribution, I've begun to watch the ads. But if the Times wants me to pony up an affordable $5 per month, I'll think it's worth the effort.
Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.
| Computers | Home Office | Wi-Fi & Networking | Phones & PDAs | Cameras & Camcorders | TV & Home Theater | Portable Audio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6 Posted by f_l_dyke on Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:34PM EDT Report Abuse
I, too, suspect much of their financial woes can be attributed to the paper's views separating from its reader's and advertisers'. True, good reporting requires money, but it also requires objective reporting without the baked-in assumptions that seem to permeate every printed word. I read the Times often to keep a broader perspective, but would I put $5.00 towards it? No.