What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
68 Comments
- frieddonuts, on 04/22/2009, -7/+28Whether you agree with their politics or not, the NYTimes is a foundation of our US media corps. It's short-sighted and rather immature to cheer their downfall when they are such an important source of investigative journalism and original reporting, a niche which the blogosphere has failed to fill. Even as a liberal, I respect publications like WSJ, National Review, hell even the Washington Times. Every newspaper collapse hastens the dumbing-down of our national media.
- toastgodsupreme, on 04/22/2009, -4/+23I don't read NYTimes articles online because they require me to register. So I just wait till someone quotes the article in a comment or if I really want to see it, I get another source from google news.
Lost ad views right there. And I'm sure I'm not alone. - Lucas123, on 04/21/2009, -2/+20Just ugly.
- orubinstein, on 04/22/2009, -12/+29The NYT stopped being respected when it stopped reporting the news.
It's now a propaganda machine.
That's why many people turned to other sources for information. - ARTLUKM, on 04/22/2009, -3/+20Just like the automakers, so-called newspapers need to 'right-size' their operations. The NYT could still produce extremely relevant content with half the staff it has. You either change with the realities of the times, or your die. Trying to sustain a style of operation that has long since become non-viable is no way to run a business.
- RafiParrr, on 04/22/2009, -6/+21I know it's inevitable, but it sucks that newspapers are dying out.
- Konrad9, on 04/22/2009, -6/+13Just be ***** glad it's only 28.4%
My father works for the New Haven Register, parent company is JRC. When I was in highschool, the stock was $20. Now it's $.001
Welcome to the suck, NYT. - TxAggie08, on 04/22/2009, -1/+8It's simple Murdock said it best, online ads don't make up for print subscriptions. Not enough revenue to run a paper on. Perhaps e-books will save the newspapers. I personally read the Wall Street Journal each morning on my Kindle and I love it. I probably wouldn't mess with carrying around a print paper. I pay 10 bucks a month for it, and it is right there on my Kindle wherever I go every morning.
- LoneStarLizard, on 04/22/2009, -10/+162008 was indeed the year the media died. They managed to get their candidate elected, but lost all credibility in the process. Hope it was worth it to them.
- liljerk, on 04/22/2009, -3/+9they're *****.
- deadbaby, on 04/22/2009, -0/+6No I don't think so. I have an account and I'm normally logged in however in the times I've been logged out I can remember getting the infamous "you must be logged in to continue reading this story" message from them. Either way it doesn't matter. The type of people who will refuse to read a story because it requires logging into a free site aren't clicking ads anyway.
- frieddonuts, on 04/22/2009, -4/+9they don't require registration anymore- they pulled down the paywall quite some time ago I thought.
- jayjayjoni, on 04/22/2009, -11/+15I'd like to see Wall Street Journal's Ad Sales. Probably plummeted 60%.
- pingveno, on 04/22/2009, -1/+5It's sad to see NYT have to cut back so far. "New media" has its place, but in-depth investigative reporting takes serious time, people, and (of course) money.
- linagee, on 04/22/2009, -3/+7What's a newspaper?
- LargeStack, on 04/22/2009, -9/+13they dont get it and never will.
- wukillabee, on 04/22/2009, -1/+5poor ol pinch
- cygnus2112, on 04/22/2009, -5/+8@peters1023: You can't use a big paintbrush to excuse the entire media machine by a handful of "guys you know" as anecdotal proof.
- prossi10, on 04/22/2009, -1/+4You're doing it wrong.
- gnixon70, on 04/22/2009, -1/+4from my personal experiences with buying and reading newspapers, I've always found them to be a bit messy. If you get for example the sunday paper, no matter how careful you are, parts of the paper seem to get everywhere, especially if a couple of people are reading different parts of the paper.
Only time I'll even think about getting a paper these days is if I'm going to a place where I'll need to kill some time like an airport or waiting room, I'll usually buy one at a convenience store on my way in, but that's kinda rare. when the news is now as easy as opening up a web browser, it just seems antiquated and outdated these days.
Would have been nice to see them develop something like perhaps an electronic pad perhaps the size of a legal or standard piece of paper where you could download a subscription or something daily. perhaps with wireless capabilities where you could get updates. Yea, I know the i phone, but I'd want something that's bigger in size, and semi easy to read. Although I wouldn't want to pay 200+ dollars for the thing. But if they could come up with something at around the $50 to $75 dollar range for the initial pad. I'd even be willing to use a fee based subscription, just as long as it was reasonable, ie a few dollars a month.
Just my two cents rant. - inactive, on 04/21/2009, -35/+37Bahahahahahahaa! I LOVE to see the bad guys fail.
- Awspire, on 04/22/2009, -4/+6Anytime a national news source receives major funding from a foreign investor, is a wake up call to avoid their perspective like the plague.
- kolobcreek, on 04/22/2009, -3/+5Propaganda is expensive. Maybe they could work in some funding to the fairness doctrine bill.
- SirCharge, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2So, you're saying the NYT is losing advertising because it is too conservative? Its fascinating how people see the world from only their world view and miss critical bits of information like the fact that the NYT is considered to be relatively liberal or that most of print media is having trouble right now due to the internet and the recession.
It has nothing to do with your ideology. - superkendall, on 04/22/2009, -4/+6Why, we can put copies in museums and stare at them with the rest of the relics. All things have a time and the NYC time has passed (indeed, it passed years ago but large animals die hard)
- TxAggie08, on 04/24/2009, -0/+2Lol, no the market is simply saying that their current revenue model is broken. The human capital will be reallocated if they don't come up with an answer, to the detriment of all. I personally don't want bloggers who answer to no one to be my only source of news.
- gfryesc, on 04/22/2009, -2/+4hey, why don't they get their resident 'brilliant' nobel winning economist Paul Krugman to help them adapt and re-tool a new business plan?
- Hillsfar, on 04/22/2009, -1/+3I'm not an expert at following the money, but I suspect two things:
Google's making lots of profit from advertising revenue.
Businesses are spending less on ads. - paddymiboy, on 04/22/2009, -1/+3where will Keith Overbite get his op-ed talking points from if the nyslimes goes away? he'd better hope that the shluffington post stays afloat.
- RonPauls, on 04/22/2009, -4/+6the market is saying that human capital could be put to more productive uses in other activities than newspapers.
The faster the switch happens, the quicker we get the new production in other areas - cygnus2112, on 04/24/2009, -0/+1I'm just going to quote you:
"but it is in fact their goal."
You have NFC what "their" goal is. How about you just sit down, shut up, and suck on a lollipop, kid? - xman8, on 04/22/2009, -1/+2Hold the press....NYT helped Obama get elected..... Anyone else see the positioning of NYT for a BAILOUT???
- inactive, on 04/22/2009, -4/+5I am enjoying the spectacle of the NYT going our of business immensely.
- Trick07, on 04/22/2009, -0/+1The WSJ is failing? Wow, didn't know that. Let us know when Dan Rather does a report on that...
- aerovisor, on 04/22/2009, -6/+7yes! Fox news ratings are up and NYT is going down.
Coincidentally, ignorance and paranoia are becoming trends across the country.
/s
I would much rather see the three cable news channels (+CNBC) gone than see the paper responsible for unveiling the Pentagon Papers fall. - Riggaberto, on 04/22/2009, -2/+3Just asserting that they would be relevant with half their staff doesn't do much for me
- LemurDaddy, on 04/22/2009, -2/+3SeventhSign, you didn't actually *read* the comment you responded to, did you? Do you have a macro that helps you type "libtard" more quickly?
I don't understand what you're doing here anyway. Trolling makes sense, but mightn't you want to try persuading people now and then? - ASeventhSign, on 04/22/2009, -4/+5100% Correct! They've been a completely biased rag for years now. Conservatives refuse the garbage, and most liberals get their news from Jon Stewart and digg.
- SirCharge, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1Seems to be working for conservative radio and FOX News, though.
- rpgmakr, on 04/22/2009, -4/+5What? So who are the good guys to you? The NYTimes is as good as it gets when it comes to reporting sensitive subjects. For example, where we first heard about a lot of this classified torture memos was in the NYTimes. If they go bankrupt we're screwed.
- peters1023, on 04/23/2009, -1/+2I'm just going to quote myself.
"It may not be so in practice" - tomasII, on 04/22/2009, -4/+5See what happens when you stop reporting objectively and actively promote one political viewpoint over another. Fail. Ask Air America
- SirCharge, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1If the NYT can't downsize and produce a product that people want they should disappear. News isn't going away the format is just going to change slowly. In the meantime the papers that can't evolve will disappear and their role will be filled in by other papers. The last thing America needs is for taxpayers to be forced to prop up an obsolete industry.
- SirCharge, on 04/25/2009, -0/+1Then you, and people like you, will find other news sources on the internet and elsewhere that are reliable and the reliable news sources will profit. This is why reliable news sources came about in the first place. The market created them.
- stix213, on 04/23/2009, -1/+1Stop being a far left propaganda rag and maybe people would stop canceling their subscriptions.
- offrdbandit, on 04/22/2009, -10/+10I'd bet your blood pressure rose 60% reading this article. That hatred you embrace is bad for your health, you know.
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is