The online content was never up to the level of the printed version. 5 USD a month is not going to break anybody still holding a job, but if they are exploring that possibility, a Zinio type digital delivery sounds better to me, with the ADVERTISEMENT on the online HTML version a Google/Yahoo/Bing type, which uses your IP address to set up local advertisement.

NYTimes.com used to charge for their content. It failed. Then they went free and became popular. Now they think since they are popular they can charge? Sorry, plenty of national papers and national news stations choose from that are free. Most have realized that advertising is the way to go.

I get the Chicago Tribune online edition.. way better.. mob politics and owners not state censored XD

---

Various sources try to charge these days.
Personally if I'm after a particular story I just move on and find the story elsewhere for free.
There's about a zillion credible serious & free sources out there - and almost all directly link to the factual source too.

In an era of so much 'free' info on the net moving to charge is really doing nothing but cutting your advertisers off from a vast passing market which will only go elsewhere.
Seems pretty short-sighted & stupid to me.

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

Various sources try to charge these days.
Personally if I'm after a particular story I just move on and find the story elsewhere for free.
There's about a zillion credible serious & free sources out there - and almost all directly link to the factual source too.

In an era of so much 'free' info on the net moving to charge is really doing nothing but cutting your advertisers off from a vast passing market which will only go elsewhere.
Seems pretty short-sighted & stupid to me.

---

I think the short sighted thing was them thinking that online and print could be financed identically. Alot of papers that were giving this stuff away free are now bankrupt and closed down :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Interestx:

---

Various sources try to charge these days.
Personally if I'm after a particular story I just move on and find the story elsewhere for free.
There's about a zillion credible serious & free sources out there - and almost all directly link to the factual source too.

In an era of so much 'free' info on the net moving to charge is really doing nothing but cutting your advertisers off from a vast passing market which will only go elsewhere.
Seems pretty short-sighted & stupid to me.

---

I think the short sighted thing was them thinking that online and print could be financed identically. Alot of papers that were giving this stuff away free are now bankrupt and closed down :(

---

no way hosay.

It's Jose, not Hosay. ;D

World Weekly News will blow your mind.

even people that are not school teacher can read what i said. spelling is working .even non spanish speaking people can read it.

OK Hosay, I mean Jose! :P

this is whats going to happen, theyll try to charge, people will hit the begger page from digg and not pay for crap, then nyt will go back to free AGAIN.

dont waste your time making nyt.com a pay site again, people will NOT pay for news stories theyll be able to read for free the next day.

EDIT: varnull, the nyt is probably the least state censored paper in america. bush himself asked the editor not to run the wiretap story and they did anyway. and mob politics are small time, the nyt only reports the hugest stuff they leave the rest of the wise guy gossip to the post, daily, and those worthless free papers that crackheads hand out in front of the subway.